Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout00 - Written CommentsReceived After Agenda Printed March 10, 2020 Consent Calendar Comments March 10, 2020, Council Consent Calendar Comments The following comments on items on the Newport Beach City Council agenda are submitted by: Jim Mosher ( iimmosher(@yahoo.com ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach 92660 (949-548-6229) Item 1. Minutes for the February 25, 2020 Special Meeting and City Council Meeting The passages shown in italics below are from the draft minutes with suggested corrections indicated in st��, out underline format. The page numbers refer to Volume 64. Page 319, Item I: "ROLL CALL — 5-30 5:31 p.m." [The start time stated in the draft minutes, "5:30," seems impossible given the preceding page says the special meeting that preceded this ended at 5:31. 1 thought the Mayor announced a brief recess after that, but I cannot verify this since the video posted of the special meeting is just 6 min 39 sec long and does not include the closed session report or what happened after that. However, the draft minutes say the study session ended with a recess to another closed session at 6:35 p.m. and since the length of the study session video is 1 h: 3m: 45s, a 5:31 p.m. start time seems plausible.] Page 326, Item 18, end of paragraph 2: "..., reported that the Housing Trust Fund is specifically for permanent supportive housing, not for shelter, and noted that this ,s he can assist an experienced housing developer Gan assiis with the assembling of financing." [?, see video at 1:50:45 — The distinction may not be important, but I believe the idea was that the Trust Fund could assist the chosen developer rather than the City hoped the developer would assist the Fund] Page 327, motion: "Motion by Mayor O'Neill, seconded by Council Member Brenner, to a) determine this action is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Sections 15060(c)(2) and 15060(c)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines because this action will not result in a physical change to the environment, directly or indirectly, b) authorize the City Manager to prepare and release a Request for Qualifications for a Permanent Supportive Housing Developer in the City of Newport Beach, with the primary focus being seniors, the secondary focus being on families and veterans, cap the City's total commitment at $3 million, and if more money is requested, the developer needs to explain why they need more money; and nl determine the City s financial participation in the 'project." [The Council's determination regarding financial participation is stated in the clause preceding the stricken one. The later is what the agenda said the Council would be asked to do. It was not part of the motion.] March 10, 2020, City Council Consent Calendar Comments - Jim Mosher Page 2 of 5 Item 3. Resolution No. 2020-18: Proposed City Council Policy - "Establishment of Maximum Vessel Length Overall (LOA) Pursuant to Newport Beach Municipal Code Subsection 17.60.040(M) (Request to Extend Mooring Length)" This item implements NBMC Subsection 17.60.040.M.3.b.4, adopted by Ordinance No. 2020-05 on February 11 and expected to become effective March 12. That subsection holds that a vessel will not "Exceed the intended vessel LOA established by Council Policy for the row or mooring area in which the vessel will be moored." The staff report, in explaining (on page 3-2) the maps provided in Attachment B to the proposed Policy H-3, says: "For example, Row A-10 is 76 feet wide with a fairway to the north of 38 feet and a fairway to the south of 75 feet." After examining the referenced map (page 3-16) and the direction indicator on it, I believe this was intended to say "For example, Row A-10 is 76 feet wide with a fairway to the west of 38 feet and a fairway to the east of 75 feet." Since the numbers shown on those exhibits as the "row width" systematically exceeds both the indicated LOA of the existing boats and the maximum intended LOA promulgated in the new policy, I take "row width" to be something greater than vessel length, most likely the distance between the mooring cans on either side of the moored vessels. Yet in the aerial photos I see what look like mooring cans outside the green row limit lines and in what appears to have been intended to be unobstructed fairway. The staff report does not indicate if this is a problem the Harbor Commission thinks needs to be cleaned up. As to the substance of the policy, Attachment B (which is otherwise unidentified) seems mis- captioned on page 3-7, where it says it consists of "Maps Depicting Maximum LOA in City Mooring Fields." In fact, the maps depict everything but "Maximum LOA" (which is given, instead, in Attachment B." I think it would be more accurate to say "Attachment 8 - Maps Depicting Existing LOAs, Row and Fairway Width in City Mooring Fields" With regard to the reference to "City Mooring Fields," as I previously commented when an earlier draft of this policy was before the Council as Item 11 on February 11, it is a bit concerning that the policy does not establish the maximum allowed vessel length in the "non - City" mooring fields (BYC, G, HP and NHYC), especially those where the City appears to have ceded administrative control to private yacht clubs (BYC and NHYC). Those fields are still very much on public waters, and as trustee for the people of most of the public trust lands in Newport Beach, the City is still responsible for regulating their use. Finally, as with all things related to Title 17, including its recent revision, this policy clearly affects access to coastal resources, and one has to wonder if (being in the area of their original jurisdiction) it requires Coastal Commission review to establish consistency with the City's Local Coastal Program. March 10, 2020, City Council Consent Calendar Comments - Jim Mosher Page 3 of 5 Item 4. Resolution No. 2020-23: Reestablishing the Ad Hoc Committee on Short Term Lodging The City's online Permit Holder Registry indicates one of the Council members proposed for appointment to the committee (Jeff Herdman) holds a STL permit. However well intentioned his appointment may be, isn't this a conflict of interest? Council members routinely participate in decisions that will affect them personally, with the conflict of interest being excused under the "Public Generally" exception to the normal conflict rules, codified in 2 CCR Sec. 18703 — that is, the financial effect of the decision on the decision maker can be excused when it will not be distinguishable from its effect on a significant segment of the non -decision-making public in general. "A significant segment" is defined as at least 25%. In this case, far fewer than 25% of the public hold STL permits, and I believe less than 25% of the public is even eligible to obtain one. In addition, the committee is specifically considering further restricting eligibility, including placing a cap on the total number of permits that can be issued. It seems obvious the presence or absence of such regulations, particularly the latter, uniquely affects the very small number of current STL permit holders in the City, of which Council member Herdman is one. I do not see how this could not be a conflict. In addition, the letter received from attorney Melinda Luthin (page 6) at the February 25 meeting, similarly questions whether a conflict exists when a proposed ordinance contains provisions that ostensibly change citywide regulations but in fact impact almost exclusively a small area (specifically, in this case, properties in "old" Corona del Mar north of Coast Highway) and a Council member (Brenner) owns property in the small area affected. It would seem to me that membership on the committee (and subsequent voting by the Council) should be limited to members who do not have a direct current interest in STL permits as well as ones who do not own property whose value could be impacted by possible changes in the regulations in way different from the impact on at least 25% of all properties in the City. Regarding the establishment of a cap (which has been accepted by the Coastal Commission in other communities), it might be noted that some other communities with caps have avoided preferentially benefiting existing permit holders. They accomplish this by issuing annual permits all of which expire on the same date, say January 1. Those interested in operating a STL in the coming year must apply by a fixed date before that. If the number of applications exceeds the cap, applications are made eligible by random drawing (a "lottery"). In that way, new entrants have the same chance of success as existing ones. This seems much more equitable to me than a waiting list (which seems to me special legislation uniquely advantaging a small class of people that the public in general has no opportunity of joining). Such a system can also efficiently and equitably impose restrictions on the distance between units selected for permits, should the City wish to institute such restrictions (the lottery's selection of one unit would eliminate from further consideration in that drawing those within a specified radius of it). March 10, 2020, City Council Consent Calendar Comments - Jim Mosher Page 4 of 5 I also hope the re -constituted ad hoc committee will not be tempted to give in to the online hosting industry suggestions received at the February 25 meeting, which amount to pushing the responsibility for compliance verification back on the City. It should not be difficult for the City to maintain a live list of currently valid permit numbers and the addresses that go with them, or for the hosting company to verify their current ads are in that list. The City's role can then be reduced to spot-checking ads at its discretion and assessing penalties when non-compliance is discovered. Item 5. Traffic Signal Rehabilitation Project - FY 2018-19: Notice of Completion for Contract No. 7576-1 (19T01) I pass by the intersection of Newport Center Drive and Civic Center Drive on most of my visits to the City Hall. In doing so, I noticed two problems with the contractor's execution of that portion of this project, one minor, the other quite serious. On at least one evening, the crews left the work scene with a large area around the poles on the northeast corner of the intersection cordoned off with construction tape. This meant pedestrians and cyclists were unable to access the button necessary to actuate the signal and legally cross Newport Center Drive. They had to either wait for a car to actuate the lights or cross illegally against the lights. 2. On a later day, after construction appeared complete, I observed the signal fixture atop the smaller pole on the southeast corner to be rotated 90 degrees. The signal head had either been mis-mounted during construction or it had not been properly secured, allowing it to rotate in the wind. Whatever the reason, this caused persons on the west side of Newport Center Drive, looking east toward Civic Center Drive, to see a green light on that pole when all the other lights showed red for traffic in the same direction (and vice versa). This was particularly troublesome because the light in question is directly above the crosswalk across Newport Center Drive on the south side of the intersection. For a pedestrian on the west side of Newport Center Drive and unfamiliar with the intersection, while the (properly functioning) red lights indicated cars could not enter the intersection, the errant green light appeared to say it was OK to enter the crosswalk — even though the high-speed cross -traffic on Newport Center Drive was simultaneously seeing a green light. In other words, for those relying on this light above the crosswalk, the intersection was green in both directions. This clearly created a very dangerous situation which I do not recall having ever seen before. Assuming this was the contractor's fault, I feel they should be sanctioned for their deficient work. March 10, 2020, City Council Consent Calendar Comments - Jim Mosher Page 5 of 5 Item 8. Update on Homeless Issues When the Homeless Task Force was reconstituted on November 19, by Resolution No. 2019- 100, as a non -Brown Act ad hoc committee, my understanding was that in formulating its eventual recommendations to the Council it would, as encouraged by the resolution, continue to hold public meetings and report back to the full Council on its activities. Since November, task force members have hosted informative meetings for the public on homelessness issues, but the task force itself has not, to the best of my knowledge, met in public as a committee. While the present report is certainly helpful in reporting what staff has done on these issues, it says nothing I can see about what the task force has done. Has the task force met? Has it directed any of the staff actions? If so, as a non -Brown Act advisory committee it should not do so. Its "task" is legally confined to bringing recommendations back to the full Council (not staff) for their consideration. Item 9. Budget Amendment to Accept Grant Funding from Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Community Benefit Program for the OASIS Transportation Program I certainly hope the City will accept any no -strings -attached grant money offered to it. But in this era of extraordinarily high medical costs one has to wonder why a non-profit like Hoag is generating enough revenue to have money to give away. Wouldn't it have been more beneficial to the community for Hoag to reduce the cost of its core medical services?