Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout00 - Written CommentsReceived After Agenda Printed May 10, 2016 Written Comments May 10, 2016, Council Consent Calendar Comments The following comments on items on the Newport Beach City Council agenda are submitted by: Jim Mosher (iimmosher(d-)yahoo.com ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach 92660 (949-548-6229) Item 1. Minutes for the April 26, 2016 Study Session and Regular Meeting As usual, the following are primarily suggested corrections to obvious, and often very minor, errors of grammar or spelling. Even with these corrections, I feel the substance of many of the statements as expressed in the draft minutes remains incomplete or inaccurately recorded. However, not only do I feel uncomfortable changing the professional transcriber's understanding of the proceedings, but verifying there is an clear error requires comparing the draft minutes to the audio or video recording of the meeting. That has become increasingly tedious and difficult. Formerly, Council recordings, like those of Pick -a -Pet and the Sunday Musicales, could be easily downloaded from the City website in a variety of formats for off-line viewing in a player of one's choice. Now, unlike Pick -a -Pet, the Sunday Musicales, and the meetings of Speak Up Newport and Wake Up Newport, Council recordings are accessible only on-line, introducing issues of internet accessibility, connection speed and reliability. In addition, depending on one's device and browser, the only controls available may be "play" and "stop" (along, usually, with a coarsely clickable timeline). What formerly took minutes to review in a more sophisticated player, can now take painful hours. In my view, the video recordings are the definitive record of what took place at the Council meetings, and the minutes are only a rough and not always reliable guide to them. Given the primacy of the recordings, one wonders what has motivated this regression in public access to the more accurate record and why the Council would tolerate it. 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 613: last paragraph: "Chuck Unsworth, Co -Chair of the Encroachment Committee, expressed support for Mr. McGee's comments." Page 614: paragraph 4 from end of SS5: "He suggested that the Coastal Commission determint define the F access to be used-fer provided bV the collection of the fee." [the draft is very close to the words used, but I think the suggested change is closer to their intended meaning: access is not used to collect fees, but rather provided by them] Page 614: paragraph 2 from end of SS5: "Council Member Peotter agreed with implementing the 15 -foot easement and com comin_g back to Council with potential use of fees." [the recommendation was, more fully, to come back with a priority list of potential uses of the fees] Page 614: last paragraph of SS5: "Mayor Dixon stated that there was a general consensus to come back with a plan, a robust list of amenities or ways to allocate the revenues, such May 10, 2016, Council Consent Calendar Comments - Jim Mosher Page 2 of 6 as enhanced parking, and on-off Peninsula) options related to traffic mitigation, er-use e such as a shuttle program." Page 616: Item XI 11: "Jim Mosher stated that there was a discrepancy on the charts for Item 9 (Update on City's Water Conservation Efforts)." Page 620: paragraph 4 from end: "MarG Marko Popovich, President of Stop Polluting Our Newport (SPON), believed that the Museum House and Carwash project exceeded the character of the City and should be voted on by the people." [note: "exceeded" doesn't sound like the right word] Page 620: paragraph 2 from end: "John Petrie Petry stated that he was a Greenlight initiative supporter..." Page 621: paragraph 8: "In response to Council Member Peotter's questions, Community Development Director Brandt explained that the increase in units at the San Joaquin project was a result of a conversion in and transfer from Marriot Hotel rooms, resulting in 79 dwelling units." [note: as part of this response, Director Brandt acknowledged that the conversion and transfer had "modified" the General Plan, but implied that for purposes of Greenlight the General Plan had somehow not been "amended." Not only does the Newport Beach General Plan contain no known provision authorizing this conversion, but even if did, saying that increases in the Greenlight count can be permanently evaded by declaring that the plan can be "modified" without "amending" it does not sit well with many in the public. Moreover, the claimed "convert and transfer" authority has been used to justify conversions where no transfer is involved: prior to the miracle of the hotel rooms in July 2012, Newport Beach experienced the miracle of the tennis courts in January of the same year, in which 17 voter -approved Newport Center tennis courts (which have no Greenlight square footage) were converted into an entitlement at the same location for 27 hotel rooms (which do) with, it seems now, a claim that the increase doesn't need to be reported in the Greenlight tracking tables because City staff doesn't regard that change to the land use tables as an amendment, either. It seems staff believes anything can be converted into anything, paying attention only to the traffic part of the four Greenlight buckets.] Page 622: Item 15, paragraph 2, last sentence: "Council Member Peotter stated that the City's application would include the parking lot and access road to the approved Banning Ranch Road road." Page 622: paragraph 2 from end: "Jim Cassidy requested that the hnG Ima Loa Court residents be included in the process, noting his opposition since his home overlooks the proposed parking lot." Page 623: paragraph 2: "Rob Moddelmog believed that the parking lot was a #awe to aGGess Troian horse to pain approval of Banning Ranch, ..." Page 623: paragraph 5: "Lesia Munday, Newport Crest resident, discussed safety issues with building the proposed parking lot, including after hour activity and access to nearby May 10, 2016, Council Consent Calendar Comments - Jim Mosher Page 3 of 6 .-e idea homes." [i.e., "residences" not "residents", but I believe the speaker (whose name is likely misspelled) said "homes"] Page 623: paragraph 5 from end: "He stated that the Bluffs Bluff Road might never be built into Banning Ranch and discussed proposed alternatives presented to City staff. He believed that the ex+ting existing conditions could be safer." Page 624: first full paragraph: "..., and emphasized that the parking lot was not a precursor for the Banning Ranch bluff r -Gael Bluff Road." Page 624: paragraph 2 from end: "Deputy Public Works Director Vukojevic stated the pinGole principal was T. Y. Lin International ..." Page 625: paragraph 1: "Council Member Selich asked why an ALLY ALTA (American Land Title Association) survey was being conducted." Page 625: "Motion by Council Member Petros, seconded by Council Member Curry, to continue the item to a time appropriate as determined by staff to consider reductions in scope, cost and provide phasing." Page 627: last paragraph, sentence 2: "The supplement supplemental agenda was posted on the City's website and on the City Hall Electronic Bulletin Board..." Item 4. Resolution Authorizing Submittal of Application and Related Authorizations Associated with the Beverage Container Recycling Program 1. It is not clear from the resolution that it is restricted to applications for beverage container recycling funds (as the agenda title suggests). 2. Neither the staff report nor the resolution make clear the Council adopted a very similar (but more limited) Resolution 2012-107 ("Approving Sumbittal of Application(s) for CalRecycle Grants"), good through the upcoming fiscal year and assigning authority to the Public Works Director. Should it be repealed? Or does it serve a separate purpose? Item 7. Adoption of the Updated Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) for the City of Newport Beach Newport Beach is to be commended for having a very active emergency response effort, including an extensive network of highly engaged citizen volunteers. That said, the LHMP seems to me to be part of a slightly different effort, intended for a slightly different audience, and focused on such things as minimizing the potential impact of known hazards through such things as thoughtful land use planning. Integral to the success of that is FEMA's intent that the public will actively participate in the formulation of the mitigation strategies, thereby fostering a sense of community ownership of the final plan. It seems doubtful to me that we have achieved that in Newport Beach. May 10, 2016, Council Consent Calendar Comments - Jim Mosher Page 4 of 6 For example, the single official public workshop described on page 7-3 of the staff report was very sparsely attended. And despite the claim on page 1-7 of the LHMP that the 2014 Plan Update was posted on the City's website for review, this the first I've seen of it, aside from a printed draft in possession of the Fire Chief, and a few chapters that could be found (out of context) with Google. Even now, the copy being presented to the Council for approval is posted at a rather obscure and possibly temporary, "FTP" location, which may be difficult for some to access (not only does the URL not seem to be disclosed on the City website, but not all browsers are able to display or download files at FTP locations). Some specific comments: Under "FUNDING REQUIREMENTS" (page 7-1), the staff report says "There is no fiscal impact related to this item." While that may be technically true of the act of approval itself, surely there was expense involved in writing the LHMP, both in City staff time and in hiring the outside consultant. In addition a return is expected from that investment, not only in the public benefit of reduced recovery costs (if the mitigation measures are implemented), but also in terms of grants and other programs the City would not be eligible for without it. For that reason, it might have been helpful to indicate how much grant money the City has received that depended on the existence of an LHMP. 2. Hopefully the new LHMP will enjoy greater visibility on the City website than the prior one, and play a more active role in guiding decisions. 3. Since the prior document appears to have been adopted in 2008, the City does not appear to have met the requirement for updating the LHMP every 5 years. That would suggest better organization may be needed to complete the next update on time. 4. Incidentally, it is unclear why the staff report and the LHMP refer to the previous plan as the 2008 "Disaster Mitigation Plan." From Resolution 2008-84 adopting it, it appears to called itself a LHMP, or possibly a "Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan." Was there a separate "Disaster Mitigation Plan"? 5. Although both the state and federal governments require the LHMP to consider only natural hazards, they both encourage agencies to consider manmade hazards, as well. Newport Beach has a number of manmade hazards somewhat unique to it, including aircraft overflights and various aspects of the harbor. Indeed, Newport Beach seems to have been somewhat lax in acknowledging such hazards, for example, overriding the Airport Land Use Commission to permit construction of the Uptown Newport residential project in an area the Commission felt was not particularly safe for such uses, especially if in tall buildings. Thoughtful consideration of the City's manmade hazards, and ways to mitigate the impact from them, would seem an important part of any future LHMP. Item 8. 2014-2015 Streetlight Improvement Project - Notice of Completion and Acceptance of Contract No. 5818 (15E01) I find this item particularly interesting because since July 1, 2015, 1 have had occasion to pass, twice a day, through the area in which the construction took place and thought it a good test of May 10, 2016, Council Consent Calendar Comments - Jim Mosher Page 5 of 6 the theory I have heard that the profit motive drives private contractors to complete their work far more quickly and efficiently than would government employees. Although the work, when actually executed, appeared to be performed fairly efficiently, my observation was that the project as a whole moved along in fits and starts as if the contractor worked on it only whenever whim and a spare moment converged. For example, when residents received notice of a time window within which construction would occur, the actual construction could happen weeks or months after the window had expired. And the project as a whole seemed to drag on forever. I therefore find it amusing that the Time Summary in the present staff report says, like nearly all Public Works Time Summaries, that the work was completed exactly on time. The last paragraph of the Discussion mentions that the 195 working days (39 weeks) included 10 extra days granted to Belco "to address unforeseen underground utility conflicts." What is not mentioned is that the original staff report from January 27, 2015 (Item 22), said the work was to be completed in 100 days. Item 9. Balboa Village Entry Arch Sign Project - Award of Construction Contract No. 7011-1 (15M13) 1. This faux -historic sign seems to me to be a more imitative than innovative way to call attention to the area, and generally a waste of general fund taxpayer dollars. 2. Since the sign's primary purpose appears to be to encourage motorists to slow down and possibly stop in the area, it would seem to me it would be more appropriate to fund it out of local parking revenues. 3. As the report indicates, the construction and installation estimate of $260,675 is significantly over the previously expected budget, which had originally set aside $180,000 for that purpose (and the same amount for an arch over the Balboa Island bridge, which was rejected by locals). One has to wonder if the discovery of the increased cost should have led to a rethink of the project. 4. Whatever the cost, I understand some longtime local residents are mystified by and resent the rebranding of Balboa to "Balboa Village." And for non -natives, the reference to "Home of the Fun Zone" may be equally puzzling since the Fun Zone is no longer a particularly vibrant or identifiable entity and the recent ExplorOcean management removed the signs indicating where it once was. 5. Finally one has to wonder if, like power lines strung across streets, the erection of arches creates unneeded impediments to the passage of tall loads on the City streets. May 10, 2016, Council Consent Calendar Comments - Jim Mosher Page 6 of 6 Item 11. Approval of Amendment No. 1 to the Professional Services Agreement with Moffatt & Nichol for On -Call Marine Engineering and Design Services Based on a search of past City Council minutes, it appears that the idea of approving public expenditures through open-ended "on-call" contracts, rather than by means discrete contracts for specific services, seems to be a phenomenon that first came to prominence in Newport Beach in around 2006. One has to wonder if it is an entirely wise phenomenon since it would seem to involve a significant loss of oversight over how vendors are being selected and justified, by whom and for what, and could lead to, or at least create an impression of, crony contracting.