Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout00 - Written CommentsReceived After Agenda Printed April 23, 2024 Written Comments April 23, 2024, City Council Agenda Comments The following comments on items on the Newport Beach City Council agenda are submitted by: Jim Mosher (jimmosherno_yahoo.com ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach 92660 (949-548-6229) Item 1. Minutes for the April 9, 2024 City Council Meeting The passages shown in italics below are from the draft minutes with suggested corrections shown in sWkeeu underline format. The page numbers refer to Volume 66. Page 70, Item SS3, paragraph 1: 'Andy Bolton, Verisk ISO Senior Fire Protection Analyst, and Jim Hughes, Underwriting Solutions ISO Field Representative, utilized a presentation to discuss the ISO public protection classification, 503 Class 1 gFaph-departments countrywide, fire suppression rating schedule, items evaluated and how the information affects insurance policies. He concluded by presenting a plaque to Fire Chief Boyles and the City." [See video: the graph plotted 38,000 departments countrywide, of which only 503 were Class 1.] Page 70, Item SS5, paragraph 3: "In response to Mayor O'Neill's questions regarding Proposal 2 from Basin Neighborhood Partners, LLC, Assistant City Manager Jurjis relayed that the lease structure would be between the City and the homeowner for each parcel, the developer would sell the ten units, the City would gain the rights to own the offices and the Galley Cafe buildings, the Galley Cafe and offices would have a lease with the City, and the 40 units of dry storage on the 40 u " `- will belong to the City." [?] Page 73, Item X, Councilmember Kleiman, last bullet: "Announced that the Aviation Committee meeting that was sehedule scheduled for April 15, 2024, is postponed" Item 3. Ordinance No. 2024-8: Approving Newport Place Planned Community Development Plan Amendment, and Ordinance No. 2024-9: Approving Development Agreement for the Residences at 1400 Bristol Street (PA2022-0296) In the first sentence of its "Discussion," the staff report says that "On April 9, 2024, the City Council conducted a noticed public hearing on the proposed Project," a "fact" recited in more detail in the two ordinances proposed for adoption. The public had also been put on notice that the Council would be holding a hearing on April 9 to consider overriding a finding of inconsistency by the County's Airport Land Use Commission. While a hearing may have been technically held, the April 9 video indicates it did not follow the protocol for administrative and quasi-judicial hearings set forth on page 6 of City Council Policy A-1. In addition to there being no oral announcement of what the hearing was about, nor a staff report (both of which appear to be optional), the presiding officer did not invite the applicant to make a presentation or respond to public testimony (both of which do seem to be required). Regarding the substance of the present actions, designating this location as part of the residential portion of the Newport Place Planned Community Development Plan seems unwise, April 23, 2024, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 2 of 5 both because it is directly under the City's requested flight path for piston -powered aircraft departing John Wayne Airport, and because the noise impact on potential residents from the 73 Freeway (which it is less than 200 feet from) does not appear to have been considered. It does not sound like a pleasant place for people to live. It also does not appear to be being added in such a way as to advance the City's vision of creating residential communities walkably connected to needed services in the Airport Area with associated traffic calming measures. On the contrary, the pedestrian bridge connecting this complex to the same developer's adjacent and previously -approved residential complex at 1300 Bristol contributes to a sense of isolation and self -containment and not using the streets. In short, we do not seem to have a planned community. As to the development agreement, as I attempted to point out in oral testimony, the $2,893,383 public benefit fee seems unexplained and arbitrary. With 153 base units it figures to $18,911 per unit, or with 229 total units, to $12,635 per unit. This compares to Agenda Item 4, for which the public benefit of $1,628,400 for 52 base units and 67 total computes to $31,315 or $24,304 per unit.To the best of my knowledge, no one has explained who proposed these numbers or on what basis. As to the other impact fees, I was under the impression the Council thought the Airport Area lacked parks, so it is surprising to see relief being offered on the park fee which would go toward creating them. As to the fees in general, I assume the City is mindful of the U.S. Supreme Court's April 12 decision in Sheetz v. County of El Dorado, opening them to new challenges. Item 4. Ordinance No. 2024-10: Approving Newport Place Planned Community Development Plan Amendment; and Ordinance No. 2024-11: Approving Development Agreement for the Residences at 1401 Quail Street (PA2023-0040) See comments on Agenda Item 3. Again, the public was a hearing would be held, but the again shows public comment being invited before and without inviting the applicant to make a presentation, and without any oral announcement (or in this case, without even a printed announcement on the screen behind the dais) of what comment was being sought about, or the applicant being invited to respond to the public's comments. Although not as close to the 73 Freeway as Item 3, this, again, does not appear to be part of any coherent vision to create a truly planned community in Newport Place. Item 9. Central Library Elevator Modernization Project - Award of Contract No. 8939-1 (24F02) For months, the Board of Library Trustees has been seeing patron comments complaining about the main public elevator at the Central Library being out of service and asking when it will be repaired. At the meetings I have attended, they have been told the repair work needed a formal contract and it takes time to complete due to City protocols. April 23, 2024, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 3 of 5 This is the first I've heard that a more extensive Central Library Elevator Modernization Project was part of the City's Facilities Maintenance Master Plan. Apparently that explains why emergency repairs were not undertaken. But it raises the bigger question of what else might be in the Facilities Maintenance Master Plan. It is a document I have heard referred to, but I don't know where the public (or Council) can see a copy of it. It is not, for example, posted with other master plans under "Long -Term Financial Planning" on the City's Financial Information page. It is, of course, mentioned in the CIP budget, where $2.5 million seems to be devoted to it each year, but what, specifically, that money is expected to be spent on is not clear. Item 11. Planning Commission Agenda for the April 18, 2024 Meeting As indicated in the agenda report, with two commissioners recusing themselves on each, the Planning Commission unanimously approved two business items: approving a 444-unit apartment project in "Newport Airport Village" and recommending Council approval of amendments to the General Plan, Zoning Code and Local Coastal Program related to implementing the General Plan Housing Element. They are related in that the first underscores the flawed assumptions of the second, which is said to be needed for the City to meet its Regional Housing Needs Allocation for the current planning cycle. However, according to staff's own assessment in Table B-1 of the Housing Element, the City has enough projects already in the pipeline to meet its 1,409 unit above moderate income quota, so its remaining obligation is to allow for, at most, 2,048 new units affordable to very low or low income families (with separate quotas for each) and 659 new units affordable to moderate income families, for a total of 2,707 units. Instead, the recommendation of the Planning Commission, going to the Airport Land Use Commission for review on May 16, is to provide essentially a permanent blank check to allow 8,174 new units, spread over five focus areas. There is no guarantee any of the new allocation will be used to create dwellings affordable to the required income categories. And, despite clear direction from the Council at its February 13, 2024, study session (Item SS5), no effort has been made to incorporate any provision terminating eligibility for entitlement of these units when and if the citywide RHNA quotas have been met. The Planning Commission approved Newport Airport Village provided just 37 units affordable to very low income families out of 329 base units. Even at that rate, in any area where the Council approved PC text required at least 10% affordable, entitling the full 8,174 units of the Implementation Plan would produce only 8,174 x 37/329 = 919 units affordable to very low income tenants. That would be insufficient to meet the City's 1,456 unit obligation in that income category and make no progress at all toward the low- and moderate -income quotas. In other words, the recommended implementation is not only not carefully tailored to produce no more than the state requires, as the public had been led to believe it would, but it appears destined for failure to meet the requirements at all. April 23, 2024, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 4 of 5 It is hard to see why the electorate would support a plan that gives the Council license to approve a great deal of housing that is not required, while failing to ensure that any of what is required will be produced. Item 13. Resolution No. 2024-28: Appeal of Planning Commission's Approval of the Orange County Sanitation District's Bay Bridge Pump Station and Force Mains Replacement Project at 250 East Coast Highway (PA2023-0076) Congratulations to Mayor Pro Tern Stapleton for his elevation to the position of Mayor by the Orange County Sanitation District's attorney on staff report page 12-116! I agree with the appellant that for people traveling along PCH, the proposed structures seem very, and unnecessarily, visually intrusive, both as to size and location. However, as the applicant points out, the appellants themselves seem to wish to construct a four-story parking garage wrapping around the pump station property, so the effect is difficult to visualize. See the last page of the Planned Community No. 9 text: Regardless of the ultimate buildout, as I suggested to the Planning Commission, the construction of long, solid, blank walls along PCH also seems unnecessary. They serve nc obvious purpose (it seems unlikely the facility needs to be protected from traffic noise) and openwork fencing would seem less intrusive. There also seems to be a lost opportunity to widen and improve the sidewalk, heavily used by pedestrians and cyclists, that fronts the facility. A wider sidewalk seems a better use of land than extensive landscaping. April 23, 2024, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 5 of 5 Item 14. Ordinance Nos. 2024-12 and 2024-13, and Resolution No. 2024-29: Revising Certain Fees Within the Schedule of Rents, Fines and Fees, Authorizing the Waiver of Vehicle Tow Fees, Adopting a Credit Card Convenience Fee, and Updating the Methodology for Annual Consumer Price Index Calculations As many public commenters have made the Council aware, it will likely see a proposal from the Harbor Commission to increase the rent charged for moorings the City permits on state tidelands. That rent is partially to compensate for private occupation of public property but is also used to recover the City's cost of administering the mooring program, for which no separate fee is charged. While the proper rent to charge is debatable, the administrative costs should be certain. It would seem the Council would want to know what that cost is, which would require a fee study. Regarding the current proposal, it would have been helpful to provide a redline of the changes being made to the Municipal Code by the two ordinances. As it is, readers seem to be left guessing what the modifications are. As to the changes to Exhibit A to Section 3.36.030 (the cost recovery percentages table), as I pointed out to the Finance Committee, much ink is spent repeating that on appeals, the recovery is 0% when an appellant is successful, and 50% when not. Since this is stated as a general rule at the start of the table, the subsequent repetitions seem unnecessary. As to the proposed 2.85% credit card service fee to be phased in starting with utility bills, it is unclear when this will start, or how the outreach will be conducted. Many City customers signed up for online bill pay understanding there would be no service fee. As to the Fiscal Impact (staff report page 14-9), it might be noted that the $581,000 of additional revenues is offset by the roughly $100,000 ClearSource charges for conducting the fee studies (see contract approval, Item 12 from September 13, 2022). Among its services, page 14-3 of the staff report says ClearSource was tasked with "revampint" the presentation of the Schedule of Rents, Fines and Fees to improve ease of use and reference, as reflected in the proposed resolution. It is not obvious to me they have succeeded. Item 15. Resolution No. 2024-30: Community Development Block Grant - 2024-2025 Annual Action Plan It would be helpful to identify the property or properties purchased with CDBG funds that generate the $305,774 of program income anticipated to supplement the annual grant. I could have missed it, but I don't see them listed in the staff report Annual Action Plan.