Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout00 - Written CommentsMarch 8, 2016, Council Consent Calendar Comments The following comments on items on the Newport Beach City Council agenda are submitted by: Jim Mosher ( jimmosher@yahoo.com ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach 92660 (949-548-6229) Item 1. Minutes for the February 23, 2016 Regular Meeting The page numbers below refer to Volume 62 of the draft minutes. The passages in italics are from the draft with suggested changes shown in strikeout underline format. Page 577: Item XIII, paragraph 1: “Regarding Item No. 3 (Amendment to Newport Beach Municipal Code Chapter 11.03 Special Events), Jim Mosher suggested that Council hold off as it may wish to modify the Code in a different way after hearing a pending appeal. … Regarding Item No. 13 (Update on Water Use and Conservation Efforts January 2016), he believed that the City is not paying for its use of the sewer system, it is failing to achieve a the planned reduction in its use of water, and is leaving private rate payers to pick up the slack.” Page 577: Item XIV.3: The draft minutes reproduce the first part of the motion as printed in the Consent Calendar portion of the agenda. However, that version contains several errors. The motion was presumably intended to read: “a) Find that the adoption of the amendment is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 153060(c)(2) 15060(c)(2) and Section 15060(c)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines. Alternatively, find the approval of this ordinance is not a project exempt under CEQA Regulation Section 15061(b)(3) because it has no potential for causing a significant effect on the environment; …” [note: Section 15060(c)(2) is that the activity will not damage the environment; Section 15060(c)(3) is that it is not a project; and Section 15061(b)(3) is that it is a project, but is exempt for the reason stated.] Page 581: Item 16, paragraph 3, last line: “He added that the City of Costa Mesa has televised their Planning Commission meetings for many years, as has have several surrounding cities.” Page 581: paragraph 2 from end: “Council Member Selich spoke against the matter, believing that televising Planning Commission meetings tend tends to politicize the Planning Commission …” Page 582: paragraph 1: “Council Member Petros spoke in support of the item, noting he is a representative of the people of Newport Beach and Planning Commissioners are appointees, and noted the importance of the decisions rendered by the Planning Commission be being available to the public.” Page 582: paragraph 4: “… City Clerk Brown reported that Planning Commission meeting audio recordings are currently on the City’s website and are there permanently, beginning with the meeting meetings in 2012.” Received After Agenda Printed March 8, 2016 Written Comments - Consent Calendar March 8, 2016, Council Consent Calendar Comments - Jim Mosher Page 2 of 4 Item 3. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 2016-4 Relating to Special Events As previously indicated (when this matter was introduced on the February 23, 2016, consent calendar), adoption of this ordinance at this time seems premature. It was introduced to “legalize” a recent action taken by the Planning Commission to, in the Commission’s view, simplify and improve special event permitting at the Newport Dunes. However, as the previous staff report failed to disclose, the Municipal Code chapter being modified, with its “Bundled Events Permit” option, was adopted in 2004 expressly for the purpose of facilitating, accommodating and streamlining permitting at the Dunes. And the Planning Commission’s recent action requiring a modification of it (PA2015-084) has been called up for review by Council member Duffield. Among other issues, the present code was designed to ensure the City’s costs of processing, preparing for and responding to special events, and their impacts, would be borne by the applicant. It is not at all clear that allowing pre-approval and exemption of special event activities through the terms of a Conditional Use Permit will maintain that principle, and not shift expenses to taxpayers. It seems logical that after its tentatively scheduled April 12th review of the Planning Commission’s action, the City Council may want to modify the Special Events chapter of the Municipal Code in a different way than is proposed here, or not modify it at all. Item 4. Accept the 2015 UASI Transfer Agreement 1. This report, understandably, looks very similar to the one from last year (Item 6, February 24, 2015, meeting) when the City’ modest grant (again for training costs) was $3,449. 2. One difference, based on the title block, is that the City’s Emergency Services coordination function appears to have moved from Fire to Police. I recall the possibility of such a change being presented to the Finance Committee (Item No. 5C at its December 10, 2015, meeting). I do not recall it being approved by the City Council. 3. Another change is that while the title of the requested resolution continues to say the Council is approving an agreement between Newport Beach and the City of Anaheim. However, the remainder of the document indicates the agreement this year is with the City of Santa Ana. Shouldn’t the title of the resolution be revised to reflect that? 4. Additional comments: a. The increasing militarization of what many communities would hope are resident- and visitor-friendly neighborhood-oriented police forces through UASI and other “homeland security” programs has been a matter of concern in many parts of the country in the last few years. b. The report refers to an overall award to the County of $5.5 million, but page 4-12 in the Exhibit to the resolution mentions only $4.4 million. March 8, 2016, Council Consent Calendar Comments - Jim Mosher Page 3 of 4 c. The report lists a number of apparently County-wide programs that will be supported by an unknown portion of the $5.5 (or $4.4?) million. It would have been helpful to indicate what portion goes, like the present one, to individual cities and how Newport Beach’s grant compares to that of other cities by population (including visitor traffic). d. Of those programs, without further details it is difficult to tell if the City’s participation in the Automated License Plate Recognition Program would be consistent with City Charter Section 426, added with too little public discussion in 2012, but prohibiting laws enabling “any red light camera or other automated traffic enforcement system in the City of Newport Beach.” Item 5. Adopt Resolution for Inclusion of Properties within the City’s Jurisdiction in the California Municipal Finance Authority, Property Assessed Clean Energy Program I am not aware of any issue that doesn’t have at least two sides to it. I would have more confidence in the staff report if it had listed at least one possible downside to the Council taking the requested action. One I can think of is that since the Council will be allowing property owners to attach debt for these projects to their property, future buyers of property in Newport Beach may find themselves having to pay for these improvements whether they want them, or have any intention of maintaining them, or not. Evidently without the Council’s approval such debt could not attach to Newport Beach properties? It also bothers me that the report says (on page 5-3) that “The proposed resolution authorizes the CMFA to accept applications from City property owners for municipal financing of authorized improvements.” If the municipality of Newport Beach is somehow involved in the financing, then it would seem to me the City is more than a completely risk-free bystander. Item 6. Tidegate Improvement Project - Award of Contract No. 6270 (Project No. 15H19) The staff report indicates the three(?) tidegates are being replaced because they have surpassed their expected life and replacement parts are no longer manufactured. Anticipating future failure in this way seems prudent, but the report fails to indicate if, instead of total replacement of the existing (and apparently still working) facility, more current parts could be substituted for the obsolete ones as it becomes necessary, extending the life at lower cost. Item 7. Request to Install Private Improvements within a Proposed New Sewer Easement at 1011 Kings Road I believe I understand the request to realign the existing sewer. But the staff report fails to make clear what the new sewer easement requested at the foot of slope is for. What would it connect to? March 8, 2016, Council Consent Calendar Comments - Jim Mosher Page 4 of 4 Item 8. Purchase of Lifeguard Rescue Vessel 1. As best I can understand the staff report, the recommendation seems to be to purchase the new vessel from the same company that built the existing lifeguard vessels. 2. Since this seems like a substantial purchase, it is encouraging to see staff developed a scoring system. However, the fact remains that the City (and Council) has only one bid to evaluate. Shouldn’t there have been outreach to other companies in an attempt to at least determine why they did not bid and encourage them to do so? 3. It might further be noted (again) that the ability of the public review the City’s RFP process after the fact on PlanetBids is extremely limited: a. The “Documents/Attachments,” including the RFP and specifications, were apparently locked after the due date for bids (February 2, 2016) and can no longer be viewed or downloaded. b. Of the 20 “Prospective Bidders” (not counting myself), one is the City of Newport Beach, and another (Remington Marine Group, LLC of Costa Mesa) is listed (like me) as a “non-bidder.” c. The “Bid Results” received are listed as a single “responsive” bid from Willard Marine of $0. That disagrees with the staff report, which suggests the bid from Willard Marine was $394,710. But the bid of $0 sounds better, so the Council may wish to go with it.