Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout00 - Written CommentsReceived After Agenda Printed June 23, 2015 Written Comments June 23, 2015, Council Agenda Comments The following comments on items on the Newport Beach City Council agenda are submitted by: Jim Mosher ( iimmosher(o)yahoo.com ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach 92660 (949- 548 -6229) Item 1. Minutes for the June 9, 2015 Study Session and Regular Meeting The page numbers below refer to Volume 62 of the draft minutes. The passages in italics are from the draft with suggested changes shown in °tFikee t underline format. Page 346: Item XVII, paragraph 1, last line: "He stated that the elimination of a long - established, religious community and church and the replacement of that by high- density, high traffic, high water -use condominium developments make makes no sense." [ ?] Page 347: paragraph 4, sentence 2: "He explained his efforts and stated that because his solution does not agree with others' solutions does not mean that he is against public safety." Page 348: Item 21, paragraph 3: "... Acting Co- Director Murdoch reported that the Governor ordered the State Water Control Board to adopt the emergency regulations which was were adopted May 15th by the Office of Administrative Law." [or: "... the emergency Fegalad w7s- regulation which was adopted May 15th by the Office of Administrative Law. "] Items 3, 4 & 5. Non - Exclusive Solid Waste Franchises These three items are essentially identical, differing only in the name of the proposed franchisee, and as such subject to identical comments: 1. As has been previously noted, the City's policy of allowing an unlimited number of trash franchises would seem to provide competitive pricing to potential customers, but it can also potentially mean there are more miles driven on City streets by the heavy hauling equipment than might otherwise be necessary: for example, when a single franchisee could have combined trips. This would seem particularly true of Item 4, the James Blomberg franchise, which would add yet another company servicing residential and commercial dumpsters. One might hope the City Council will revisit the policy when the current 10 -year franchise cycle ends in 2017. 2. Despite the individualized descriptions of services proposed to be offered in the "Discussion" section of the individual staff reports, as best I can tell the proposed contracts are all identical and impose no individualized restrictions on the kinds of services the applicant can offer once approved. 3. It seems odd that in in paragraph 4 of the boilerplate "Discussion" for all three of these items it says that "There are currently 32 solid waste franchisees operating ... within the City limits," as it did in the boilerplate for Genesis Dispatch, Inc., at the Council's previous meeting (coming back as Item 23 at this meeting). Is there a list somewhere June 23, 2015, City Council Agenda Comments - Jim Mosher Page 2 of 6 from which the public can tell how many solid waste franchises are currently active? And for what kinds of solid waste? One would assume that if all four of the pending franchises are granted the number would be 32 + 4 = 36? Item 6. Proposed On- Street and Off - Street Parking Rate Increase The proposed automatic 10% annual increase for all future years seems quite arbitrary, and to the extent it fails to match inflation it is likely, after some years, to put Newport Beach parking rates out of step with those in neighboring communities. The proposed language should make clear if that is the current Council's intent, or not. Item 8. Resolution Authorizing the Temporary Closure of Selected Streets and Parking Lots for the July 4th Holiday Period The staff report does not make clear why the City would want to close Back Bay Drive or San Joaquin Hills Road. Back Bay Drive, in particular, (which, for motorists, leads only away from the areas of highest congestion) has been a traditional "escape route" for motorists leaving Newport Dunes after the fireworks show (towards which the City contributes financially and to which residents are allowed free walk -in admission). Closing Back Bay Drive would seem like it would aggravate traffic congestion elsewhere rather than relieving it. Item 19. Confirmation of Voting Delegate and Alternate for the 2015 League of California Cities (LCC) Annual Conference - September 30, 2015 to October 2, 2015 in San Jose Since it is not mentioned in the staff report, the City perhaps needs to be reminded that although City Charter Section 402 allows Council members to be reimbursed for travel expenses (above and beyond their normal compensation, and although City Council Policy F -8 establishes a travel policy (primarily for appointed employees), the ethics reforms of AB 1234 added additional requirements that apply to members of all "legislative bodies" as defined in the Brown Act (the Council, and the boards, commissions and committees it creates). Specifically, under California Government Code Section 53232.3, compensation can provided only if the member seeking compensation files, as a public record, an expense report on forms provided by the City and makes a report at their body's next regular meeting (ideally detailing the benefits to the agency of the travel). Item 22. Accept a Check in the Amount of $175,000 from the Newport Beach Arts Foundation to Support Arts Programming in the City It would have been helpful to recap how much City taxpayers have contributed towards the failed efforts of the Balboa Performing Arts Theater Foundation over the years. If the amount is substantial, as I would guess it is, it seems ironic the small amount being returned comes with strings attached to it. June 23, 2015, City Council Agenda Comments - Jim Mosher Page 3 of 6 Item 24. Provide Direction to Staff on Further Review of Existing Easements & Conditions Associated with the Prior Vacation of Ticonderoga Street A couple of years ago, one of the Council's annual priorities (which came to very little) was to clean up the Municipal Code, which is enacted by ordinances. Since the number of Council resolutions is much greater than the number of ordinances and since the content of the resolutions is not codified in any central place one can only wonder how many still operative but mostly or entirely forgotten clauses they contain, such as the one that is the subject of this item and the one in the same resolution that does not seem to be a matter of current interest, but perhaps should be: the permission given 31 years ago, but still unexercised, for Newport Crest to transform itself into a private gated community (something the implementation of which the California Coastal Commission would seem unlikely to look warmly upon if the City and the HOA had the courtesy to inform them of their plans). As with the Ticonderoga extension, many of the long ago, but still operative, resolutions may have enacted policy positions that may or may not reflect the current intentions of the City or its residents — policy statements that would not be known unless the resolutions were re -read. Should they be reviewed more comprehensively? Item 25. Appointments to Boards and Commissions I would suspect that the postponement of this item will cause considerable confusion among many of the City's boards and commissions, since terms normally end on June 30th, and they operate under the assumption that new appointees will be in place by July 11t. Hence many of the bylaws call for the annual election of officers to occur at their first meeting in July. Indeed, up until Measure EE in 2012, City Charter Section 704 required this. That process of election of officers by the "new" board or commission would not work as intended if the Council fails to make appointments by then. One has to read the City Manager's Insiders Guide to know the reason for the delay is said to be expected absence of one of the Council members on June 23rd. I have to wonder if that is really the reason, or with only six Council members present it was recognized that embarrassing ties in the voting could, and likely would, occur. Item 26. Sculpture Exhibition in Civic Center Park It should be possible to find my previous comments on this item in the archives of City Arts Commission meeting materials. In essence, I found it profoundly sad the City chose to repeat the unfortunate method of art selection used last year. It seems bent on secrecy and keeping the public out of the process — to the extent of not even knowing what the many selections rejected by the private panel were. It also seems predicated on the notion there are "experts" whose taste is better than that of others — a notion I reject, particularly in the realm of art intended for public enjoyment. June 23, 2015, City Council Agenda Comments - Jim Mosher Page 4 of 6 I also found it improper and unethical to have the process overseen by an "ad hoc' committee of three Arts Commissioners meeting non - publicly, so that only a single additional vote was needed to ratify their selections and hence essentially no meaningful discussion of the process or the selections occurred at the Commission's public meetings. I have these additional comments: 1. It remains unclear why the staff report continues to say there are 10 selections and 3 alternates when the presentations show 10 selections and 4 alternates. 2. The staff report fails to explain why different honoraria are proposed for different pieces or why in the presentation to the City Arts Commission the wood sculpture "Venus" (which, to my view, is one of the most "artistic" in the group) was presented as a selection of the judges' panel, whereas in the presentation to the Council it is now listed as an alternate, having been displaced by "Demoiselle." Did the City Arts Commission unexpectedly reject one of the panel's selections? Or is there some other reason? 3. The immediate reaction to this item of my elderly uncle, who has a Bachelor's Degree in Art from UCLA, was: why would the City be appropriating anything for this? Aren't there many artists who would gladly offer their works for temporary display in the park, entirely at their own expense, just to get the publicity? He also concurred in the opinion that "Venus" was the most enduringly interesting of the pieces presented by the panel for consideration, yet is now apparently not recommended as part of the exhibition. Item 27. Donation of Sculpture from Ben Carlson Memorial Foundation As with the preceding item, my previous comments on this item should be in the archives of City Arts Commission meeting materials, although because of the peculiar way in which City Arts Commission meetings are conducted those comments may never have made it to the promoters of the statue. In short, for a public piece that is going to be permanently displayed in a public place I think the Commission should have insisted the Carlson Foundation explore a variety of ideas through an open competition. That might have resulted in a more moving memorial of more lasting significance. Instead the City is being asked to accept a work by a close relative with no previous experience in sculpture or public art, and at least to me the result predictably looks like little more than a swimwear ad mechanically brought to life. Rather than evoking the dangers of the sea and the sad tragedy of the event it commemorates, it seems designed to give the casual beach goer the impression the surf is safe because they are being well looked after. Regarding Council Policy B -11, which was supposed to create a City Employees' Memorial at Bob Henry Park, but did not (the memorial for Officer Henry is simply a small ground level gravestone -like marker and a bench on the side of the street opposite the park): rather than simply waiving the policy, I think the Council should re -think it. June 23, 2015, City Council Agenda Comments - Jim Mosher Page 5 of 6 Item 28. Ordinance No. 2015 -21: Fuel for Beach Fire Rings; Ratification of the California Coastal Commission's Approved Fire Ring Plan for Newport Beach I continue to think that of the options considered, the "all ADA" one was by far the best. It would have preserved the traditional fire ring layout by adding hardscape to make them all ADA accessible, which would have allowed total flexibility in fuels, thereby eliminating most of the future enforcement problems, and would have left an easy door open for eventual conversion of all to the Air Quality Management District's promised clean- burning gas - fueled rings. I also continue to think that the magnitude of the fire ring smoke problem has been greatly exaggerated. My own observation is that far from being a "24/7" problem, use of the City's beach rings is minimal most of the year and at most hours of the day. This is in fact well demonstrated by the aerial photos used to illustrate the "final plan," which clearly show the vast majority of the City's existing rings unused. My further observation is that use is especially minimal, even after dark, when a charcoal -only restriction is imposed. I further think that both the City and the SCAQMD are being arbitrary and hypocritical when they impose stricter standards on what can be done on public beach sand than they do on what can be done on private property. The original SCAQMD Rule 444 proposal, which seemed a reasonable measure to address a valid health / air quality issue, was simply to include wood fires on the beach within the compass of the "no burn day' regulations that already applied to wood fires in residential fireplaces. To the extent wood smoke is a concern, it would seem to me that all rules should be designed to apply equally to both. That is, if wood burning on public beach sand is to be restricted, wood burning in private fire pits and fire places should be subject to the same restrictions. Regarding the proposed Ordinance No. 2015 -21: 1. The sixth "Whereas" erroneously states that the Coastal Commission approved the City's fire rings application on June 9 2015. The correct date, according to the staff report and the CCC agenda, is June 11. 2015. 2. It would have been helpful to see the code changes highlighted in redline format. 3. It might also be noted that the proposed NBMC Subsection 11.08.060.A seems written in an unnecessarily confusing, circular way. Not only should the initial "shall' should probably be "may," but the clause listing fuels (beginning with "except') would be much more easily understood if it were removed from its present location and tacked on at the end of the subsection, as a non - exclusive list of fuels the City Manager is authorized to designate. As it is, the "except' literally seems to say the business about the City Manager designating particular fuels for particular rings does not apply if one is burning one of the listed fuels. Also if this was the section of the Code prohibiting any burning on beaches outside of the City - provided rings, then it no longer says that. 4. As when the fuel restrictions were originally added to the Code, I continue to find the attempts to precisely "define" the commonly understood terms "natural wood," "fuel log" June 23, 2015, City Council Agenda Comments - Jim Mosher Page 6 of 6 and "charcoal" a little silly and perhaps counter - productive. For example, being so precise about what a "fuel log" is would seem to prohibit the burning of a log which the City Manager and Recreation Director recommended as an ideal near smokeless alternative at an early fire ring meeting — a product made by a local gentleman from recycled paraff in- coated food /milk cartons. 5. This section of the Code will apparently also have to be revisited to allow testing the promised natural gas burning rings. 6. The City appears to continue to have lost the fire - ring - related restrictions in the City's Fire Code which were added several years ago and which, if enforced, would have solved the original fire ring problem, but which were inadvertently repealed in the subsequent triennial comprehensive updates to the Building and Fire Codes.