Laserfiche WebLink
November 25, 2014, Council Consent Calendar comments - Jim Mosher Page 2 of 4 <br />Item 6. Adopt a Resolution for Submittal of the Coast Highway Traffic <br />Signal Synchronization Project Application to Orange County <br />Transportation Authority Measure M2 Regional Traffic Signal <br />Synchronization Program <br />The staff report does not make clear if parts of this would still be useful and could be salvaged if <br />Caltrans does not allow the City to proceed with the majority of the plan. The proposal for <br />"Installation of a Dynamic Message Sign on Coast Highway east of Newport Coast Drive" <br />sounds very much like a piece, but only a piece, of the Corona del Mar Bypass Plan that was <br />part of the failed Measure Y General Plan Land Use Element amendments. It was implied that <br />would require an expensive study. Since the diversion affects more than Coast Highway, <br />shouldn't the commitment to this be part of a more comprehensive plan preceded by a more <br />thorough public discussion? <br />Item 7. Approval of Measure M2 Expenditure Report <br />The report is in a format that is undoubtedly easy for OCTA to understand, but less immediately <br />comprehensible to the public. A brief introductory summary of its significance might have been <br />helpful. <br />In the next to last table ( "Streets and Roads Detailed Use of Funds') on page 5 of the printed <br />staff report, it is a bit disturbing to see what seems to be a report that $8 million of indirect and <br />overhead administrative costs was necessary to accomplish about $5 million of construction <br />work. <br />Item 8. 2014 -2015 Playground Improvements <br />It would seem to me that the proposal should have been reviewed by the Parks, Beaches and <br />Recreation Commission pursuant to their duties under Section 709 of the City Charter. <br />Item 9. Amendment No. 3 to Management Agreement with New Irvine <br />Ranch Conservancy for the Buck Gully Open Space Reserve <br />It might have been helpful to provide links to the original contract, C -3905, and its previous <br />amendments. The significance of the change from a "private non - profit" to a "public non - profit" <br />is not well explained in the staff report. Generally, a private non - profit would rely on support <br />from a single benefactor, such as The Irvine Company, whereas a public non - profit would <br />depend on support from the public in general. Is Newport Beach considered a public contributor <br />towards the "new" Conservancy? Is The Irvine Company reducing its support? Does the <br />change in structure mean we, or the public, have any greater influence over the Conservancy's <br />governance? <br />