Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout00 - Written CommentsReceived After Agenda Printed August 24, 2021 Written Comments August 24, 2021, City Council Agenda Comments The following comments on items on the Newport Beach City Council agenda are submitted by: Jim Mosher ( iimmosher(@-yahoo.com ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach 92660 (949-548-6229) Item 1. Minutes for the July 27, 2021 City Council Meeting The passages shown in italics below are from the draft minutes with suggested corrections shown in c*�, &eGu underline format. The page numbers refer to Volume 65. Page 101, paragraph 5: "Jim MaleneMoloney, Balboa Island Preservation Association Chair, appreciated staff trying to reduce costs by taking the project back from SCE, ..." Page 107, paragraph 2: "Patrick Gormley utilized slides to discuss a Mariners' Mile Master Plan, the project's consistency with the General Plan and the vision for Mariners' Mile, Mr. Moshayedi's community outreach meeting, the project as a ^r^`e precedent, the community's opposition to the project, developing Mariners' Mile as a village, and suggested next steps." Page 107, last paragraph: "In response to Council Member Brenner's questions, Deputy Community Development Director Campbell reported a parcel map is needed to allow the construction of buildings on over property lines, for at least ten years, buildings have not been constructed on over property lines without some action to eliminate the property lines, Page 108, full paragraph 1: "In response to MayorAvery's question, Deputy Community Development Director Campbell indicated a credible environmental analysis is not based on market assumptions and zoning, and noted concessions and waivers complicate the analysis." [Someone should check the video. This does not make any sense to me.] Page 108, full paragraph 3, last sentence: "She emphasized that Mariners' Mile and the industrial area of Newport Heights need immediate attention in terms of land use planning." [West Newport? Someone should check the video. There is no industrial area in Newport Heights.] Page 108, full paragraph 6: "In response to MayorAvery's question, City Attorney Harpe Harp advised that compliance with the Coastal Act is separate from compliance with HAA." [Note: there about four instances of "HAA" on this page that should likely all read "the HAA".] Page 109, paragraph after Motion: "Mayor Avery expressed concern that widening Avon Street could increase vehicle speeds, noted slowing traffic is better because many people cross at Tustin Avenue, discussed how businesses in Mariners' Mile have changed over time, pointed out that Pacific Coast Highway is not pedestrian -friendly, the scale of future development is both exciting and daunting, the applicant willingly improved the project, the community has informed developers about their aspirations for Mariners' Mile, and the City will have to mitigate the impacts of more traffic." August 24, 2021, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 2 of 3 Item 3. Resolution No. 2021-69: Supporting Local Schools as they Return to Normal and Parental Choice in Deciding Whether Children Should be Masked or Vaccinated at School This strikes me as a matter for school boards and health care authorities to decide. Is this a matter within the City's jurisdiction? Item 6. Resolution No. 2021-74: Approve Revisions to Council Policy H-1 Recommended by Harbor Commission The policy being presented for approval by the City Council appears quite different from that reviewed by the Harbor Commission in their July 14, 2021, agenda packet. The draft minutes of that meeting, which I have seen, but which no longer seem to be posted, indicate the only change to the agenda packet version that was made was the insertion of the word "approved" in the opening "Background" section, which at that time consisted of a single sentence: "Newport Beach Municipal Code (NBMC) Section 17.35.030(A) provides that piers and floats may not extend bayward beyond the pierhead line unless approved pursuant to this Council policy." I am, therefore, puzzled why the Exhibit A of the proposed Council Resolution No. 2021-74 is so different. The draft minutes also indicate that the recommendation (for approval of the July 14 agenda packet version) was "unanimous," but two of the Commissioners were not present to vote. It would have seemed wise to include those minutes so the Council could see if there was any controversy preceding the recommendation. It might also be noted the City seems to have no policy for entirely new docks constructed in areas without clearly defined pierhead lines. Existing ones can be reconstructed like -for -like, or smaller, but there seem to be no standards for new or different ones. Item 7. Resolution No. 2021-75: Amendments to the Records Retention Schedule Since the public has been told in the past that the City's Records Retention Schedule is privately copyrighted and could not be publicly displayed it is good to see what appears to be a complete copy of the current schedule. Records Specialist Eric Bryan is also to be commended for what looks like a very thorough review. That review does, however, point out some peculiarities of the Council's current revision policies. Among those, the blue, red and green columns of Exhibit 1 appear to indicate Council approval is needed to delete existing record retention policy lines, but no Council approval is required for the new policies that replace them. I find that strange. I have not had time to review the many lines, but some of the choices seem strange to me August 24, 2021, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 3 of 3 For example, the Council is about to embark on a redistricting effort, something that normally happens only once every 10 years. But near the bottom of page 7-8 it looks like, without any need for Council approval, a decision has been made that "Redistricting Web Page/ Council District Boundary Web Page (Map, Redistricting Process, Agendas, Calendars, Notice, etc.)" would be retained for only 10 years. To the uninitiated, that would suggest the materials from the last effort would be discarded precisely when they become of interest again. Aren't the agendas and minutes saved for much longer? Perhaps under a different code? If this is referring solely to a refresh of the City's website, I would suggest that rather than discarding the web record of the previous effort it should instead be moved to a different location (say, "2011 Redistricting Effort") so residents could easily compare the previous efforts to the present one. Item 16. Planning Commission Agenda for the August 19, 2021 Meeting One of the projects reviewed by the Planning Commission on August 19, the Residences at Newport Center, appears to be predicated on a misreading of the longstanding height limits in our Zoning Code: namely, that the creation of a "Planned Community" allows any heights the applicant may desire to be approved. In this case, a single building on a 1.26 -acre lot is proposed to be declared a "Planned Community" (a designation normally reserved for multiple structures on parcels of 10 acres or more) to evade the height limits. However, the code (NBMC Sec. 20.30.060.C) actually only allows a Planned Community to be used to increase the allowed height from the "base" height to the "maximum" height, which for flat -roofed multi -family structures is 32 feet. Staff is also proposing to assign an available low number ("57") to the Planned Community. This violates the code requirement that PC's be numbered in order of approval. Item 20. Appeal of Denial of Special Neighborhood Trees Removal Request at 1317 and 1323 Ashford Lane The staff report is unusual in that it tells the Council the appeal was denied by the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Department but does not tell the Council what the vote was nor provide minutes of the prior hearing. It does provide a summary of the public comment, but as to the Commissioner's comments and action, as best I can tell, it says only "Following Public Comment, the PB&R Commission denied the appeal and upheld staff's decision denying the request to remove and replace the Special Neighborhood City trees." The Council is not told if the denial was unanimous, controversial or what. While the present hearing may be "de novo," and not bound by the previous proceedings, it seems customary to include such things as the minutes of the decision being appealed. Item 22. Tustin Avenue Trial Closure at Cliff Drive Does a four-month non -emergency "experimental" closure of a road in the Coastal Zone require evaluation of a Coastal Development Permit?