Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout00 - Written CommentsReceived After Agenda Printed February 24, 2015 Written Comments February 24, 2015, Council Consent Calendar Comments The following comments on items on the Newport Beach City Council agenda are submitted by: Jim Mosher ( iimmosher(o)yahoo.com ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach 92660 (949- 548 -6229) Item 1. Minutes for the January 31, 2015 City Council Planning Session, and the February 10, 2015 Study Session and Regular Meeting The page numbers below refer to Volume 62 of the City's minutes. The passages in italics are from the draft with amended numbering. Suggested changes are shown in sirikeeat underline format. Page 177, Item 2, paragraph 3: "City Manager I4ff added that staff reductions began in 2009 and that the fist Public Employee Pension Reform Act (F+€RFt PEPRA occurred in 2013. He noted that PEP PEPRA is requiring ..." [The audio of this meeting does not seem to be available. Possibly the first sentence was intended to read "the first PEPRA hires occurred in 2013 " ?] Page 177, Item 2, paragraph 3, last sentence: "They are also paying some of the fetal City's pension costs, including unfunded liabilities." [ ?] Page 178, paragraph 5: "In response to Allan Beek's question, Finance Director Matusiewicz provided an explanation of non - spendable, restricted, committed, assigned, and contingency, which are inr_lud terms included in County accounting standards and provided examples of each." Page 178, paragraph 6: "Jim Mosher asked regarding the portion of property taxes that inelade come from commercial and residential taxes, as well as the current status of the employee cost compensation study." [note: the remainder of the comment attributed to me seems a distorted version of what I recall saying about the FFP and the meeting format, but in the absence of the audio I can't confirm or correct it.] Page 179, Item 4, paragraph 2, last sentence: "He added that is it has not been programmed for construction at this time." Page 180, paragraph 2 from end: "Bernie Svah ;te Svalstad, Chair of the Corona del Mar Business Improvement District, noted..." Page 180, last paragraph: "Jim Daspher Dastur, President of the Balboa Island Seawall Project Group, asked..." Page 181, paragraph 2: "Deborah Hardaway asked whether it was possible to use using Coastal Peak Park as a place where she and her husband could take their dogs." Page 181, paragraph 3: "Bob Sheiden Shelton, on behalf of the Corona del Mar Residents Association, asked regarding..." Page 181, paragraph 4: "Allan Beek believed that the Balboa Island Seawall Project is a hand aid band -aid that does not fix the problem." February 24, 2015, Council Consent Calendar Comments - Jim Mosher Page 2 of 5 Page 182, Item 6, paragraph 2: "Regarding a the West Newport Echo 56 Project, she noted Page 182, paragraph 3: "In response to Mayor Pro Tem Dixon's question regarding the Newper-t Bay Ma Lido Villas Project, Community Development Director Brandt reported that there was an issue with the Coastal Commission, but that has been resolved." [? I believe Ms. Brandt said the height of Lido Villas townhomes had been reduced to fit within the envelope allowed by the Coastal Commission.] Page 182, end of paragraph 4: "She commented on several upcoming smaller projects, several General Plan amendments, the ExplorOcean project, the '�e ",e Uptown Newport Project, and amendments to the Municipal Code." [ ?] Page 182, paragraph 5: "Council Member Petros referenced AB 2188, noting that it will take away the City's ability to call traffic congestion a significant impact." [I don't know what the audio may say, but the legislation being referenced sounds like SB 743? AB 2188 is something completely different, requiring the City to establish an expedited permitting process of residential rooftop solar panels.] Page 182, paragraph 7: "Nancy Gardner reported that she was a member of the General Plan /Local Coastal Program Implementation Committee and that there was a lot of great work that went into looking at the overall General Plan." [Again, I don't know what the audio may say, but although she served on the GP /LCP Committee, the reference was clearly to her participation on the Land Use Element Amendment Advisory Committee or the earlier GPAC.] Page 184, Item SS3, paragraph 1: "Public Works Director Webb described the needs of the area and introduced Dan Herman, PROA44 of Rabben /Herman, for a presentation." [Director Webb said a representative from PSOMAS was in the audience, but he introduced Mr. Herman of Rabben /Herman design office as "the lead designer for the project." Incidentally, I have been unable to find the contracts under which either PSOMAS or Rabben /Herman are working on this project.] Page 184, Item SS3, paragraph 2: "Dan Mr. Herman, RSBMAS, provided a PowerPoint presentation to show the ..." Page 186, paragraph 2 from end: "Council Member Peotter referenced the €inaase Facilities Financial Plan (FFP) ...' Page 187, Item SS4, paragraph 1: "... and categories of policy guidance that staff is seeking Council input on." Page 188, paragraph 1: "... and thatundergreunding underground utilities are five times less likely to fail than above - ground utilities." Page 188, paragraphs 1 & 2: lack normal spacing between paragraphs Page 188, paragraph 4: "He asked regarding the status of undergrounding of utilities on San Joaquin Road." Page 188, paragraph 5: "Josh Yoeum Yocam spoke in opposition to..." February 24, 2015, Council Consent Calendar Comments - Jim Mosher Page 3 of 5 Page 189, paragraph 5 from end: "Council Member Muldoon agreed with Council Members Petros and Curry relative to keeping the pFesess processes as they are to protect those on fixed incomes." Page 189, last line: "Mayor Pro Tem Dixon believed that asked if this would be disadvantageous to residents." [The video shows this was a question, not a statement.] Page 193, Item 7: "a) C*'ff Fecemmends the City council fin Find that this action is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act ..." Page 195, paragraph 3, sentence 3 from end: "He commented on the Maddy Act related to unscheduled vacancies, such as if a board member F-esign resigns in the middle of their term." Page 195, last paragraph: "Council Member Petros pr-evide provided an update of the recent Aviation Committee meeting ..." Page 196, paragraph 1: "Mayor Pro Tem Dixon provided a brief overview of the February 4, 2015 meeting of the Balboa Village Community regarding the residential permit program." Page 196, paragraph 3: "Mayor Selich reminded the public of four upcoming community outreach meetings regarding the Local Coastal Plan: 1) February 11, 2015, from 7:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. at the OASIS Senior Center, 2) February 18, 2015, at 7:00 p.m. in the Civic Cen ter GGmmunity Room old City Council Chambers. 3) February 25, 2015, at 7:00 p.m. in the eid City GounGil Chambers Civic Center Community Room, and 4) March 4, 2015, at 7:00 p.m. in the old City Council Chambers. The last meeting will focus on commercial properties." [I didn't review what was announced, but the meeting schedule is as corrected] Item 3. Massage Establishment Regulations This is an improvement over the version continued from the previous meeting, but I continue to be bothered by regulatory ordinances being introduced on the Consent Calendar. It would seem there should be at least some public discussion among the Council members about what the problem is that is being regulated, how the state legislation affects the City's ability to regulate it, and whether this is an appropriate implementation. Also, the continuation said it was being requested to give massage establishment owners and operators time to comment on the draft. I am unable to tell from the present report whether any outreach was actually performed, and if so what the result was. Finally, since the proposed Resolution modifying the fee schedule assumes that the ordinance will be adopted (which is never certain), it would seem more appropriate for the Council to consider the resolution along with adoption of the ordinance, rather than with its introduction. February 24, 2015, Council Consent Calendar Comments - Jim Mosher Page 4 of 5 Item 4. Zoning Code Amendment to Modify the Standards and Process for Reviewing Building Additions to Nonconforming Structures for Second reading (PA2014 -083) While I appreciate staff's efforts to clarify the ordinance from the version recommended by the Planning Commission, I continue to think the proposed Subsection 20.52.050(B)(3)(h) — adding this kind of issue to the menu of issues that can be resolved through approval of a Modification Permit — has been inserted in the wrong place. When inserted, as proposed, into the existing subsection, a literal reading of the subsection's heading says that the Planning Commission is "not limited' in the amount of deviation they can grant. Yet the whole point of the amendment to Subsection 20.38.040(G)(1) is to increase the amount of deviation that can be allowed with a modification permit, but limit it to a 75% addition. This could easily have been avoided by inserting the authorization for this new class of modification permit in a new subsection of 20.52.050(B)(3), rather than awkwardly adding it to an existing list created for a different purpose. At least for me the confusion is real and since it could so easily be avoided, I think it should be avoided by revising the text before adopting it. Item 5. Resolution Endorsing the Application for an Urban Streams Restoration Program Grant Application This seems like a very worthy project. Nonetheless, it would seem useful to provide, if possible, a link to the actual grant application so that the public and Council will know exactly what they are endorsing, and can verify that the summary is accurate. Also, if the proposal has been reviewed by the City's Water Quality /Coastal Tidelands Committee, it would be helpful to know what their recommendation was. Item 6. Approval of a Transfer Agreement for the FY 2014 Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI) Grant Program As most of us are aware, there has been considerable press coverage in recent months about public concern regarding federal grant programs that, in the name of anti - terrorism, encourage the transformation of community -based local policing efforts into organizations with paramilitary "us versus them" units and capabilities, as well as the implementation of invasive military style surveillance technologies of questionable constitutionality. In view of the thickness of the report required to accept a $3,449 training grant, it would be helpful to have some assurance that the UASI program is not being used to militarize the NBPD or to deploy new methods of spying on the public. For example, without further explanation, the ways in which "automated license plate" recognition (mentioned in the County's UASI priorities) might be used or abused is particularly disturbing in view of local residents' concerns about automated law enforcement in general as expressed in the adoption of the anti - red - light- camera language in the City Charter (Section 426). February 24, 2015, Council Consent Calendar Comments - Jim Mosher Page 5 of 5 Item 8. Request to Install Private Improvements within the Ocean Boulevard Public Right -of -Way at 3335 Ocean Boulevard Although it is not clear from the staff report, the site photos (Attachment D to this and the following item) suggest the new wall would not be an entirely new feature, but instead replace some kind of existing structure holding up the bank (especially clear in Item 9). The photos also seem to show some kind of landscaping in progress on the bank, which I assume is a City project since it is City property? From the aerial photo in Attachment A ( "Location Map ") it appears the public area could be viewed as a kind of extension of the Inspiration Point park. I assume this means there is some kind of existing encroachment agreement permitting the presence of the much larger driveway and existing retaining features? How would this new permit interact with the existing agreement and should there be a single integrated agreement for both driveway and walls? Finally, since many in the public might incorrectly assume the area seaward of the sidewalk is private property, does the existing encroachment agreement (if there is one) preserve the public's right to access the public's property? And has any of this development in the public area on the bluff face been approved by the Coastal Commission? Item 9. Request to Retain Private Improvements within the Ocean Boulevard Public Right -of -Way at 3415 and 3425 Ocean Boulevard See comments on Item 8. Item 10. Amendment to Joint Agreement for the Operation, Maintenance and Financial Management of the Orange County 800 MegaHertz Countywide Coordinated Communications Systems Although not mentioned in the staff report, I seem to recall from previous Council meetings that the cost sharing formula is based at least in part on the number of radio units, as highlighted in Attachment B. In addition to the membership costs, the units themselves are apparently very expensive compared to other possible modes of communication (such as commercial cell phones). Have steps been taken to ensure the City is not being assessed for 800 MHz radios that are not in use or needed?