HomeMy WebLinkAbout00 - Written CommentsReceived After Agenda Printed
October 11, 2022
Written Comments
October 11, 2022, 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 SS2. Circulation Element Goals and Policies
Rather than coming to the Study Session with no indication of what is to be reviewed at it, it
would have seemed helpful to direct readers of the agenda to the September 8, 2022, meeting
of the Planning Commission, where materials related to the Circulation Element Goals and
Policies were provided for review and a recommendation to the Council was made. At a
minimum, it would have been helpful to provide a link to where the Draft Circulation Element can
be found, if that is the document to be reviewed.
Assuming the presentation to the Council will be similar to that given to the Planning
Commission, it will likely emphasize that the draft element is a "community document" resulting
from numerous well -attended public workshops and Planning Commission reviews (see video).
While is true there have been many public meetings, it seems important to note that the public
workshops were virtual ones, held well over a year ago (the last in April 2021). And that the
decisions as to how, if at all, to incorporate the input received into the policies appear to have
been made privately by the staff and consultants who had written the policies. I do not recall any
citizens deliberative body, like a Transportation Commission, publicly reviewing the input and
controlling what ideas to use, and how. Direction from the Planning Commission seemed
minimal.
And while I appreciate staff wants to see certain policies in place, it seems a bit illogical to me
advance this element ahead of the others that are to be part of a comprehensive update of the
General Plan, and with which this is supposed to be integrated. Among other things, it provides
no clear picture of what kind of transportation improvements may be needed over the life of the
plan to accommodate the other elements. It seems more of a "plan to plan."
I also understand some promises have been made to members of the public to include such
things as a commitment to publishing "Safe Routes to School" maps. But I see nothing about
that in the currently posted draft.
As a result, this seems to me to be a sort of placeholder that will need to be formally
reexamined by the yet -to -be -created General Plan Update Advisory Committee, especially in its
relationship to the other evolving elements.
Item 1. Minutes for the September 27, 2022 City Council Special and
Regular Meetings
The passages shown in italics below are from the draft minutes with suggested corrections
shown in c*%u underline format. The page numbers refer to Volume 65.
Page 393, paragraph 4: "Charles Klobe noted the number of sold shares in Newport Beach
and urged Council to conduct a study and do what it is best for the residents of the City."
October 11, 2022, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 2 of 5
Page 394, paragraph 1: "Council Member O'Neill stated the importance of reviewing
Government Code Section 65858, which is the standard for a moratorium, and indicated it
does not apply to this situation, so the City's hands are tied by State law."
Page 394, paragraph 4: "In response to Council MemberAvery's question regarding the City
of Beverly Hill's moratorium, City Attorney Harp noted that Beverly Hills enacted a
moratorium almost two years ago, they were the only city in the State to do so, and they
were not challenged." [The video shows Mr.Harp used the word "almost." The moratorium
ordinance in Beverly Hills was adopted on July 15, 2021, much closer to one year ago, so
they are still within the allowable extension period running through July 14, 2023.1
Page 397, Item X, bullet 1, paragraph 2: "Council Member Dixon thanked the Friends of the
Library staff and Board of Trustees, and reported that the City has received $1,481,894 from
the Library Foundation since 2014 and $2, 251, 000 from the Friends of the Library to the City
of Newport Beach General Fund."
[comment: While the contributions from the Friends and Foundation may technically go
into the General Fund, they go into special accounts within that fund were they their use is
restricted to a "wish list" of expenditures requested by the Board of Library Trustees and
where they remain until spent on those purposes.]
Page 398, Mayor Muldoon, bullet 1: "Utilized slides to share the Newport Beach Junior
Lifeguard Groundbreaking, Welcome to Aquatra AguaTrax for daily water use tracking,
water leaks, alerts, and the General Plan Advisory Committee application process
(newportbeachca.gov/vacancy)" [Spelling from City News Splash, although elsewhere it is
"Aquatrax" and "AQUAtraX." In any event, it ends with "x" not "k".]
Page 398, Item XIV, paragraph 3: "Kelly Carlson, President of the Balboa Village ""er-Gha,`;-t
Merchants Association, thanked staff and Code Enforcement for responding to concerns
over the summer and..."
[note: The corporate name of this organization is actually "BVMA, Inc." with "M" most often
standing for "Merchants" (plural) as on page 15 of grant Contract C-8132-6 with the City).
The corporate name "Balboa Village Merchants Association" appears to be owned by
merchants in a different Balboa Village, in San Francisco.]
Page 402, paragraph 1: "In response to Council Member Dixon's questions, Mr. O Hill
identified a new lap pool on the rendering, stated the 28 pickleball courts will remain, ..."
[comment: My recollection is Mr. O Hill assured doubters that the existing pickleball courts
would remain untouched for he had absolutely no plan to demolish any of them. Yet the
conceptual drawing showing the lap pool also showed parts of his new hotel/condo
structures to be built over most of them. In particular, it showed only two of the five tennis
courts in the row closest to the Granville homes surviving. So, although they might be
relocated, 3x4 = 12 of the existing pickleball courts would be demolished during the
construction.]
Page 403, paragraph 8: "Council Member Dixon supported the project and proposed a
motion to approve the General Plan and Coastal Development Permit amendments and
October 11, 2022, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 3 of 5
amend the Community Development Plan to include a condition requiring 28 pickleball
courts, which Mr. O Hill agreed ."
Page 405, first full paragraph, sentence 2: "Council Member Avery supported removing the
tree aqd but expressed concern for the new tree providing the same benefits to the
environment."
[Council Member Avery's expression of support was conditional on the replacement plan
immediately providing the same benefits as the existing parkway tree. Hence his "no" vote
on replacement by a single, smaller tree.]
Item 6. Resolution No. 2022-71: Establishing "No Parking"
Restrictions on a Portion of Bayside Drive to Improve Street
Sweeping Effectiveness
Seeing this item on the consent calendar seems a little strange, since according to the staff
report, City staff sent notices of the pending item to the potentially impacted residents, but their
response is apparently not yet known. If there are any who do not agree with their HOA, they
may be surprised to see this presented as an item without controversy.
Item 13. Planning Commission Agenda for the October 6, 2022 Special
Meeting
In connection with the Planning Commission's October 6 Item 2 study session on "Initiation of
Zoning Code and Local Coastal Program Amendments Related to Fractional Ownership," the
note in the Action Report that the result was "Staff was directed to return with agenda item
forming an ad hoc committee," conceals the details of a rather extraordinary meeting in which,
in my view, staff directed the Commission to consider something completely different from what
the Council had directed it to do.
To those who attended the Council's September 13 study session on the same subject, and its
September 27 special meeting to initiate code amendments, the Council's direction to staff was
quite clear: they were to ask the Commission to study the timeshare ordinances in the
Cities of Sonoma and St. Helena and, using them as a model, amend Newport Beach's
codes to include fractional homeownership by a set of strangers within the definition of
"timeshare," while not "casting the net so wide" as to include homes shared by family or
friends. And then bring back the revised definition to the Council as quickly as possible,
which staff assured the Council could be done at the Commission's October 20 meeting, and
back to the Council by November, where the Council might consider other policy changes
(currently Newport Beach allows timeshares only in the commercially -zoned districts
where a hotel/motel operation would be allowed).
Tossing that direction aside, staff told the Commission that following St. Helena would be a poor
"Option A" because Newport Beach might be sued (a possibility the Council had considered and
accepted).
October 11, 2022, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 4 of 5
Instead, and without telling the Commission it was something the Council had never considered,
let alone promoted or asked the Commission to review, staff told the Commission they should
consider a better "Option B" in which "fractional ownership" would be regarded not as a form of
timeshare (as the Council had requested) but rather as an entirely new form of land use that
would be allowed in areas, such as residential districts, where timeshares are prohibited.
And while staff acknowledged the Council had a certain sense of urgency about the matter, staff
agreed with the Commission that before sending anything back to the Council it would be
prudent to appoint a committee to meet privately for the next three months with industry
representatives to work out a set of regulations acceptable to them.
Hence the Action Report the Council sees.
In my view, again, that is completely opposite to what I heard the Council ask for and what I
heard the staff publicly promise it could do.
As a result, I believe many of those who attended the September 13 and 27 Council meetings
will feel betrayed. It seemed clear at those meetings that the Council agreed with them that
fractional homeownership was not acceptable in the residential neighborhoods of Newport
Beach, and that the City was on a quick path to making that its public policy.
Instead, Newport Beach now appears to be on a slightly slower path to becoming what may be
the first city in California to make fractional homeownership explicitly legitimate in all its
residential areas.
And quite troublingly, the City is being steered onto this unwanted path not by our City Council,
but by our hired, professional staff.
Will the Council do anything to get the Planning Commission back on the track it requested?
Item 15. Resolution No. 2022-72: Amending and Re -Titling City
Council Policy B-9 to Provide Guidelines for City Dedication Plaques
This policy has long seemed a bit of a muddle.
Most recently, to accommodate its wishes for naming the new Library Lecture Hall after donors,
the Council found it expedient to waive rather than follow Policy B-9 (Item 11 at the August 23,
2022, meeting). So it seems to have been relegated to the "sometimes follow" category, and it is
not obvious if the present revisions are intended to apply to the dedicatory plaque for that
facility.
And given the continuing role Policy B-9 gives the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission
in recommending namings (when the policy is followed), it is surprising to see it come to the
Council without any new review by PB&R, including review of the opening paragraph, which
could be read as limiting the policy's scope to parks and recreational facilities.
Among the new ambiguities I see the proposed revisions introducing:
1. Does the Council expect every new park and facility (of any kind) to be given a name?
2. Does it expect each to have a naming plaque?
October 11, 2022, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 5 of 5
3. 1 would guess the answers are "yes." But why, then, does the proposed new Subsection
D refer only to "Plaques for City facilities"? Does the Council want something different
for parks?
4. For multi -year projects, does the new Subsection D.3 mean the plaque should list all the
Council members in office while the project was pending, or just those at the start and
end? And how large is "large" in "large, multi -year projects"? Would it be better to leave
it out?
5. Since this is apparently attempting to promote uniformity, is there a preferred place
where the dedication plaques should go? I am guessing there is one somewhere on the
new City Hall, dedicated in 2013 (without a "name" as far as I know), but I don't have a
clue as to where to look for it.