Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout00 - Written CommentsReceived After Agenda Printed September 10, 2019 Written Comments September 10, 2019, Council Consent Calendar Comments The following comments on items on the Newport Beach City Council agenda are submitted by: Jim Mosher ( jimmosher6d.yahoo.com ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach 92660 (949-548-6229) Item 1. Minutes for the August 13, 2019 City Council Meeting The passages shown in italics below are from the draft minutes with suggested corrections indicated in c*r�ut underline format. The page numbers refer to Volume 64. Page 160, Item SS4, first paragraph: "Council Member Herdman recused himself out of an abundance of caution due to real property interest conflicts." Page 164, Item XIII, last paragraph: "Wendy Weeks from Youth Employment Gen>teServices requested that Council continue to provide funding to her organization (Item 14)." Page 168, Item 15, paragraph 3 of public hearing: "Jim Mosher believed the area is Gensid^^' has been made high density, not medium density, and expressed concerns with this type of construction." Item 3. Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance No. 2019-13 Amending the PC -19 (San Joaquin Plaza Planned Community) and Ordinance No. 2019-14 Approving a Development Agreement for the Vivante Senior Housing Project located at 850 and 856 San Clemente Drive (PA2018-185) Much as Newport Beach needs -- hopefully affordable! -- senior housing, I continue to believe the Council made a mistake at its last meeting in changing from "Private Institution" the General Plan land use designation for these parcels, which allowed the current amendments for residential development to go forward. That is because I believe the City has too little land area designated for cultural uses and now has even less. It might be noted that while the owner was waiting for a suitable new (and hopefully cultural rather than religious) PI tenant, the City's zoning would have allowed the vacant existing gallery space to easily be repurposed with the emergency homeless shelter beds the City now says it so desperately needs. And, unlike most of the others, it was a piece of PI property not adjacent to a school. I also continue to believe that before the present items are adopted, the General Plan amendment approved by the Council (Resolution No. 2019-75), adding yet another 90 dwelling units to the already maxed out (in terms of adding units to the prior voter -approved development limits) statistical area L1, needs to be ratified by a City Charter Section 423 ("Greenlight") vote. Sept. 10, 2019, City Council Consent Calendar Comments - Jim Mosher Page 2 of 4 Item 4. Resolution No. 2019-77: A Request by the Newport Shores Community Association to Opt Out of the Designated High -Density Area I remain uncomfortable with this matter. It seems clear the NSCA Board is empowered to make decisions regarding use of what appears to be a jointly -owned recreation facility. And the Board's bylaws contain at the very end an undated amendment adding Sections 10 and 11 that purport to regulate signs and residential landscaping on the members' individual lots, but one would probably have to look at the Articles of Incorporation to see if they actually had the power to make such decisions about the members' private land use. And although the letter in Exhibit A (staff report page 4-6) mentions notifying all the members of their August 6, 2019, meeting, an announcement or agenda about it, oddly, does not yet seem to have beenop sted on their website. Nonetheless, even if this board would normally lack authority to make community -wide land use decisions binding on their members, they do seem to be an organization of the type the new ordinance empowers to opt out of the high-density area provisions of the Municipal Code. But as I read the newly adopted NBMC Sec. 10.28.040 ("Construction Activity—Noise Regulations"), the Council's adoption of the proposed resolution on their behalf will only exclude the NSCA area shown in Exhibit B (staff report page 4-6) "from the definition of a designated high-density area" (emphasis added). It apparently does not, and maybe cannot, change the map that was added to the Municipal Code by ordinance. Am I correct that since no "corrected" high-density area map is attached as an exhibit to the resolution, the map linked to from the online code will not change? That means we will have a map published in the code, regarding which readers are expected to search for possible resolutions adopted (and not later rescinded) on the basis of which they are expected to mentally subtract areas, with no annotation in the code as to where those resolutions might be. In other words, the code is telling them "this is the map but it may not be the `real' map." That seems an awkward system to me. Item 5. Resolution No[. 2019]-78: Initiation of Zoning Code and LCP Amendments Related to Hedge Heights in Front Yard Setbacks for Lido Isle (PA2019-132) Hedge heights along the Via Lido strada were the subject of a long and contentious Hearing Officer meeting on July 31, 2019, leading to Resolution No. H02019-001 approving a 6.5 -foot tall privacy hedge on a corner lot as a "reasonable accommodation" for a disabled person. It was noted at that meeting that the HOA's permission to grow hedges to 60" was inconsistent with the City's height limit of 42". Sept. 10, 2019, City Council Consent Calendar Comments - Jim Mosher Page 3 of 4 Since this will likely lead to sense of loss of open space, it is difficult to guess what the Coastal Commission will think of this, especially on an already cramped island where the City has allowed the waterfront public spaces at the street ends to be privatized (that is, taken over by the HOA for exclusive use of members). Item 6. Resolution No. 2019-79: Update to City Council Policy F-27 - Policy and Procedures for City Distribution of Tickets or Passes The first sentence of the Abstract (staff report page 6-1) seems to be a typo. The FPPC has not amended Policy F-27. Instead, it has evidently amended some policies of its own, namely those shown in Attachments D and E, which (as the second sentence says) requires modifications to the Council's Policy F-27. I agree with the amendments, but I think it would be better for the City to adopt a policy of not accepting tickets and passes at all. Being transparent about gifts received is one thing. Avoiding the appearance of impropriety is another. The posted ticket disclosures suggest to the public a close relationship between taxpayer support and the offers of tickets for officials. Few organizations that have not received City funds seem inspired to offer free tickets. That makes the present system particularly unseemly when it comes to events, such as the Film Festival, where staff makes recommendations and decision - makers approve "special event" support, soon after to be rewarded with many thousands of dollars worth of free tickets for their personal use. But accepting gifts from organizations that might in the future be asking to similarly enjoy the City's largesse, or seek other favors, seems equally problematic. The main justification of the existing policy was that "City official attendance at public events is necessary to achieve the goals of governance, both to promote the policies of the City and to maintain close contact with the citizens and interest groups within the City." Having random employees attend events would not seem to accomplish that governmental purpose in any obvious way. Beyond that, the present system is not particularly transparent for it fails to notify the public of the events for which (I assume) the City uses taxpayer money to pay the private entities for the officials' tickets — such as (I would guess), Speak Up Newport's Mayor's Dinner and Newport Beach & Co.'s annual marketing bash (reported as gifts in 2012 only). All these considerations make a total ban on gift acceptance (and proactive disclosure of ticket purchases made by the City) seem the more reasonable alternative. Sept. 10, 2019, City Council Consent Calendar Comments - Jim Mosher Page 4 of 4 Item 17. Budget Amendment to Accept a Check from the Friends of the Newport Beach Library and Appropriate Funds to the Library's Fiscal Year 2019-20 Maintenance and Operation Budget The Friends' efforts in support of a City institution they love and see value in are extremely commendable. The City's method of treating this each year as a totally unexpected "surprise" requiring a large budget amendment seems to have worked, but it seems a bit strange. Since the amount is fairly stable, one might think prudent planning would call for it to be included in the budget as an estimate, with only a relatively small amendment being required when the actual amount is announced. The Friends' efforts may be contrasted with those of the other organization raising money to support the library: the Newport Beach Public Library Foundation (which was created to bolster the fundraising efforts needed to build the now 25 -year-old Central Library). Unlike with the Friends, the money being raised through the NBPLF seems to be increasingly diverted into programs of their own, with ever smaller (instead of larger, as with the Friends) amounts getting to the City -- despite rising revenues. In effect, they seem to have created a separate, private function paralleling the services provided by City staff. Whether that is good or bad (or even legal), this will likely become more evident as fundraising ramps up for the Library Lecture Hall, which seems intended more for the Foundation's use than the City's. Item 19. Recommendation of Parks, Beaches, and Recreation Commission with regard to Marine Avenue Tree Maintenance From the August 13 Council study session, there seems to be some confusion as to whether this item was intended as a "call for review" of PB&R's action (whatever that might be) or simply a report on how they handled the matter. The present agenda item adds to the confusion by titling the item a "Recommendation" (implying no final decision has been made) yet recommending "receive and file the report." If the Council has to make a decision, it is hard to see how that can be done by receiving and filing. Staff's recommendation to Council would, instead, have been expected to read something like: "Approve ... based on the recommendation of PB&R." But since the staff report ends (on page 19-2) with "the PB&R Commission approved..." (rather than "recommends"), it appears no further Council action is required. As to the statement about "there is consensus by staff and the consultant arborists on these four trees" in part "2)" of what purports to be the staff recommendation approved (with modifications and additions) by the Commission, the Council should be aware there did not appear to be consensus among the arborists about those trees. I also know the PB&R motion required some of the actions to be completed within 90 days — something I don't see reflected here. Providing the draft minutes of what actually happened, as well as an actual copy of the exact wording of the PB&R motion (and what the vote on it was) would have been helpful.