Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0 - Public CommentsApril 10 Agenda Item 1 (Draft Minutes for March 27, 2012) The following are typos noticed in the Draft March 27, 2012 Minutes being considered for approval as Agenda Item 1 at the April 10, 2012 Council Meeting. Volume 60 - Page 410 (sixth paragraph fr om end) C "In response to Council Member Selich's question ..." Volume 60 - Page 411 (second paragraph from end) • ... stated that she would hivte have preferred that Council ..." Volume 60 - Page 415 (last paragraph) G "... she received a gavel by from the Junior Statements Statesmen of America, Corona del Mar High School Branch, ... Volume 60 - Page 417 • Vote at top of page refers to council members by 2011 designations. Should be: Mayor Pro Tem Curry, Mayor Gardner, Council Member Henn (lastfull line): "Linda Isle in4er-lagoon inner lagoon" (note.- is usually capitalized as "Inner Lagoon" in Harbor Resources documents) Volume 60 - Page 418 (last paragraph) • Vote in middle of page refers to council members by 2011 designations. Should be: Mayor Pro Tem Curry, Mayor Gardner, Council Member Venn Note: there is also a typo on page 2 the April 10, 2012 Regular Meeting agenda, in the description of Item 4: • ' ... adopt Ordinance No. 2012 -1.1, approving Code Amendment No. CA2012- 014001 ..." -- suggestions by Jim Mosher( iimmosher @vahoo.com ); April 9, 2012 Comments on April 10, 2012 City Council Agenda Items Comments by: Jim Mosher ( iimmosher(a-)yahoo.com ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach 92660 (949- 548 -6229) Item 4. Height of Fences, Hedges, Walls and Retaining Walls As indicated in the Planning Commission minutes (on handwritten page 51 of the staff report), although the Commissioners recommended forwarding this proposed code amendment to the Council, most felt it needed further scrutiny by local architects. It is unclear this happened, and although it is now at its second reading it still contains both typos and substantive problems. Typos: Handwritten page 3: Section 1, Fact 1: the year of the update of the Zoning Code is 2010, not 2011. C Handwritten page 9: Second line of Sub - section A.2: "finish grade" should be "finished grade." Substantive problems: The proposed new code to be adopted per the resolution (Exhibit "A ") is still at second reading in the form of a red -line draft, rather than a clean copy, making it difficult to follow. One has to assume a clean copy of some sort is what is being proposed to be added to the Municipal Code. Although we have been assured that the proposed changes affect only lots in low lying areas, the proposed changes to Subsection D on handwritten page 12 appear to change the definition of how the height of fences, hedges and walls are measured in all of Newport Beach, as well as eliminating the diagram and explanation of how fences on top of retaining walls are measured. o I personally understand neither the old nor the new system, nor why the diagram and explanation related to retaining walls is no longer necessary. Assuming the new definition in Subsection D is adopted, the explanation "from existing grade prior to construction' being proposed to be added to Table 3 -1 seems to be surplusage, since that is now simply a repetition of how all heights are measured. 0 1 can see no distinction between the maximum height standards being proposed in the first and third rows of Table 3 -1 and would suggest the table be simplified by combining those into a single row applicable to "Front setback areas and setback areas abutting or adjacent to a waterfront' followed by a row applying to "Other rear and interior side setback areas." Stating the Maximum Height standard for the first category as "42 inches. See Subsection B of this section" seems to be entirely sufficient April 10, 2012 Council Meeting comments by Jim Mosher Page 2 of 4 o Subsection B may need to be rewritten to make clear it applies not just to "front" setbacks, but to all water - adjacent setbacks (although the existing Zoning Code may already define "front" setbacks to apply to all of those ?). In addition it is unclear why the existing language of Subsection B first says the subsection applies to all of Balboa Island then spells out three specific areas: "East Bay Front on Little Balboa Island, and North Bay Front and South Bay Front on Balboa Island." This seems surplusage unless the special conditions of Subsection B are meant to apply only to those areas, or somehow to be applied differently to those areas. Are properties fronting the Grand Canal meant to be excluded? If so, how does this language accomplish that? Item 5. Intention to Amend the Newport Beach Tourism BID I have no problem with the City's hotels privately engaging in cooperative sales efforts to the extent they are legally allowed to do so, but I think the City made a mistake entering the process by forming the Tourism Business Improvement District (TBID) and should let it die, rather than expanding it. • The legislation used to justify the City's involvement, is, by its own wording (handwritten page 19 of the staff report) intended to aid "economically disadvantaged" businesses — a category to which the present member hotels would hardly seem to belong. • The City Revenue Department's auditor, in a Compliance Report circulated to Council less than a year ago found multiple problems with Visit Newport Beach (VNB), the City - designated TBID contractor, that might endanger its non - profit status, to the detriment of city taxpayers. • The TBID sales effort seems to be nothing but a front end for a purely commercial operation, highly inappropriate for a City- sanctioned non - profit. • Representatives of each TBID hotel serve on the VNB Board of Directors, and specifically the committee overseeing the TBID, which again seems incompatible with VNB's 501(c)6 non - profit status — requiring oversight by a financially disinterested board. • VNB is a highly opaque organization and has at best given lip service to its obligation to conduct TBID activities in a manner open to public scrutiny under the Brown Act. • The City's choice to use VNB as the contractor for both the TBID levies and the more general City -wide promotional effort funded with the Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) seems particularly unfortunate. The public has no practical way of knowing the funds are not being commingled and that the spending of the public's TOT revenues is not being unduly influenced by the TBID hotels and other private interests. April 10, 2012 Council Meeting comments by Jim Mosher Page 3 of Item 6. Streetlight Improvement Project — Completion and Acceptance of Contract No. 4605 0 1 see no clear explanation in the staff report of why this project cost more (even, apparently, after deletion of an $8,710 item) and took six months longer to complete than anticipated. 0 Moreover, there seems to be a math error. If the contract award price of $585,511 is correctly stated, then with a 10% contingency, the maximum allowed would be $644,062. The final cost billed of $652,202 is $8,140 over that limit, not the $7,202 stated on page 1 of the staff report. 0 Although the final bills for recent public works contracts seem to have been coming in under the contract award price almost as often as over, I have some trouble reconciling the contractor more money than was (apparently) agreed to in the contract with the constitutional restriction placed on all city governments: A local government body may not grant extra compensation or extra allowance to a ... contractor after service has been rendered or a contract has been entered into and performed in whole or in part (Cal. Constitution, Article 11, Section 10(a)) Item 7. Traffic Signal Rehabilitation Project — Award of Contract No. 4841 0 It would seem to me that it would be helpful both to the Council and the public to see the contract that is about to be awarded. 0 Although it is not clear from the staff report, I understand pedestrian "countdown heads" will be added to all rehabilitated intersections, not just those in Corona del Mar. I hope that understanding is correct, for I view this as a significant safety improvement. 0 Also not clearly explained in the staff report as that the latest generation of signal rehabilitation appears to be requiring the installation of significantly larger above - ground control cabinets, even in areas where large amounts of money have been spent improving the appearance of the area by undergrounding all other utilities. I do not view this as progress. Item 8. Amendment No. 3 to Professional Services Agreement with LSA If I am reading the staff report correctly, LSA is asking for reimbursement not only for new services, but also, in part, for previously rendered services that cost more to accomplish than originally contemplated. I have the same constitutional problem with this as with Item 6, above, and feel that new contracts should be issued for new services rather than muddying existing contracts with amendments. April 10, 2012 Council Meeting comments by Jim Mosher Page 4 of 4 Item 9. Jamboree Road Improvement at MacArthur Boulevard The staff report begs the question of why Newport Beach taxpayers should be bearing the full cost of purchasing property in the City of Irvine, and then deeding it to Irvine for a project which benefits both cities. Is the City of Irvine contributing towards the cost of this project? If so, how much? Item 10. Participation in Water Budget Based Tiered Rate Grant Program I find this staff report hard to follow. The claim that there is no fiscal impact seems to be contradicted by Attachment D to the Agreement which seems to suggest the City (or is it MWDOC ?) has to provide $83,000 of our own funds to receive $34,000 in grant money. 0 To what extent is participation in this program locking the City into a tiered rate program? What kind of program would it be? (programs using a baseline year to establish tiers can actually increase short-term water use since customers may try to establish a high baseline from which future bills will be calculated) Item 13. Planning Commission Agenda for April 5, 2012 The summary report does not mention that under Public Comment a question was raised regarding the propriety of the Planning Commission voting on March 22 to recommend certification of the Newport Banning Ranch EIR when the possibility of a vote on that night was not clearly noticed and much of an overflow crowd left assuming the matter would be continued to April 5 as indicated on the agenda. Item 15. Street Tree Designation - Holiday Road 0 1 endorse the idea of offering residents of this once tree -lined street with additional replacement choices, but I would note I have heard no report on City staff doing any of the diagnostic "post - mortem" work directed by Council to determine if the emergency removal of the mature blue gum eucalyptus trees which formerly graced these people's yards was actually necessary. 0 1 would also note that although the designation of a new street tree is a positive step, actual tree replacement has lagged far behind tree removal for at least the last two years.