Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout00 - Written Comments Received After Agenda Printed September 22, 2015 Written Comments-Consent Calendar September 22, 2015, Council Consent Calendar Comments The following comments on items on the Newport Beach City Council agenda are submitted by: Jim Mosher( iimmosher(o),vahoo.com ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach 92660 (949-548-6229) Item 1. Minutes for the September 8, 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 strikes--t underline format. Page 436: first item: "l. ROLL CALL - p.m." [Council Member Petros is noted as arriving at 4:48 p.m. but the hour at which the meeting started for the others is missing.] Page 436: item SS4, middle of first paragraph: "... the 25th Anniversary of the Sister-City relationship." [The hyphen seems unnecessary and is inconsistent with the way the phrase is written elsewhere in the item.] Page 438: paragraph 2 from end: "He addressed other changes, including the elimination of Class c airrratn AA aircraft." [Class E (originally called "exempt") still exists. Class AA was eliminated. The plural of"aircraft" is"aircraft," not"aircrafts."] Page 439: end of paragraph 4: "... as it is the County's facility and once airborne, airsfa#ts aircraft are at the authority of the FAA." [see previous note; also, to me "under"would sound more natural than "at"] Page 440: item XII, end of paragraph 2: "He announced a Movie in the Park event on October 2 at Cliff Drive Park where the movie Frankenweenie will be shown starting at at 6:00 p.m." Page 440: item XIII, second bullet: "Examining Options Regarding Air B-N-B and VRBO Short- Term Rentals" [the correct spelling seems to be "Airbnb"] Page 440: at top of page: "Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Dixon, seconded by Council Member Curry, to direct staff to bring the items back for Council consideration at the September 22, 2015 City Council meeting." [note: despite what the public was told and what the minutes record, it appears that none of these items have been brought back for further discussion at the present meeting.] Page 444: item 13, paragraph 2, sentence 3: "The cost for the using outside consultants could be attributed to the increase in permit fees." [Alternatively, leave"the"and put the word "ofafter "using." Note: even with correction, I'm not sure what this sentence is trying to say.] Page 444: paragraph 4, sentence 2: "She suggested that Council consider an ordinance to ban tents." [note: Newport Beach already has an ordinance banning tents on the beaches unless open on three sides (NBMC Subsection 11.08.020.B)] Page 445: paragraph 2 from end: "TraGy Tracey Funke agreed with the previous speakers'comments relative to the trees on Poppy Avenue, ..." Page 447: Item 20 title: "20. Approval of Master Fee Schedule and Change in Subsidies Continuation" September 22, 2015, Council Consent Calendar Comments - Jim Mosher Page 2 of 5 Item 3. Ordinance Restricting Trucks on Ridge Park Road 1. It would have seemed helpful to have illustrated what an 8,000 Ib (4 ton) truck looks like. 2. Given the stated purpose of the ordinance, it would seem reasonable that the restriction on trucks be limited to the hours and times of year when children are expected to be present in the street. When children are not present, it seems a completely arbitrary restriction that unfairly increases traffic on Vista Ridge Road. 3. Among other questions this item raises are: a. Is the street currently posted with a restriction on trucks that does not currently have any basis in the Municipal Code? b. Will the ordinance as proposed prohibit CR&R (a commercial hauler) from collecting trash on streets accessed via Ridge Park Road, or require them to use special small trucks? c. Does the school itself receive visits from commercial vehicles (including trash collection) exceeding 8,000 pounds? d. Will the ordinance as proposed prohibit delivery of large items to residences along this portion of Ridge Park Road? e. Does there need to be some kind of exception for construction projects within the posted area? Otherwise, how will trucks access them? 4. It might be noted that one of the Council's priorities in 2013 was supposed to be a comprehensive review of the Newport Beach Municipal Code to eliminate outdated rules and inefficiencies. It resulted in Ordinances 2013-7 and 2013-11. a. Since the present regulation had ostensibly self-repealed five years earlier, it seems odd it wasn't caught at that time. b. On the other hand, other odd provisions in the Vehicles and Traffic code remain unrepaired such as the particularly peculiar provision in Section 12.52.080 restricting traffic on "Irvine Avenue from a point three hundred thirty(330) feet south of Westcliff Drive to Holiday Road" to "Northwest bound traffic only'—a direction in which it is impossible to go without driving across the median i. note: Setting aside the misstated direction — it was presumably intended to read "Northeast' — one might guess this was an awkward attempt to express the City's ownership of only the eastern half of the portion of Irvine Avenue bordering Costa Mesa. However, the points mentioned do not properly delineate that area, and they ignore points further north that are subject to the same divided ownership issue. c. If the Council ever wants to appoint a committee to review the Municipal Code, or to review the understandability of proposed ordinances, I would be happy to serve on it. September 22, 2015, Council Consent Calendar Comments - Jim Mosher Page 3 of 5 Item 4. Proposed Assessment District No. 117 - Area Bounded by Bayside Drive, Avocado Avenue, Coast Hwy & Carnation Avenue 1. 1 found this staff report very difficult to follow. a. In particular it lacks a reference to any clear explanation of the legal requirements for forming an undergrounding district (such as the 50% and 60% approval requirements) and exactly how (or if)those procedures are being deviated from here. One suspects they are, for the first line of Attachment A (the proposed Resolution No. 2015-78) leaves blank the number of a "Resolution of Intention" which is referred to as if it is supposed to have occurred before Resolution No. 2015-78 but which in fact seems to occur after it (as proposed Resolution No. 2015-79 in a later part of the Council action). Similarly, the Engineer's Report, on page 4-25, leaves blank the date and number of the Council's Resolution of Intention, which would apparently normally precede the preparation of the report, rather than follow it. A reference to the January 27, 2015, Study Session Item SS4 presentation might have helped, although even that does not really explain the origin and importance of many of the rules. b. I was also unable to find a clear explanation of how much the City has spent on this proposal to date. As best I can tell, the Council allocated $450,000 on June 91' to prepare a detailed design and guaranteed cost estimate to enable balloting. But to date staff has apparently spent less than that (exactly how much less is unclear), PENCO Engineering has somehow managed to come up with what staff thinks is a reliable cost estimate without a detailed design and staff wants to use that cost estimate to proceed with the balloting so as to avoid the possibility of the City bearing the full $450,000 design cost if the measure fails. c. Even the explanation (near the top of page 4-3) of what the earlier petition result was is hard to follow. And the description of the public hearing process leaves it unclear if the Council is obligated to proceed with formation of the District if the 60% support threshold is reached, or if that is merely a necessary prerequisite and the Council can still make a discretionary decision based on the results of the hearing. 2. Some specific comments: a. I am unable to make heads or tails of what the "Federal Income Tax Component of Contribution Tax (ITCC)" referred to at several points in the staff report is about. b. At the bottom of page 4-3 of the printed staff report it says assessments were apportioned "considering that all properties are receiving the same safety, connection and aesthetic benefit" but then it goes on to list properties that do not receive the same benefit. c. In Attachment B, on page 4-8, is the reference to petitions from 50% of property owners correct? At that point isn't 60% interest required? September 22, 2015, Council Consent Calendar Comments - Jim Mosher Page 4 of 5 d. In the same attachment, in Clause 13 at the top of page 4-14, what is the significance of the prohibition on publishing notices of awards of contracts? Prohibiting notice of things seems an odd requirement. e. I continue to be puzzled, as I was when the petition was presented at the June 91h Council meeting, why four of the utility poles to be undergrounded are shown as lying outside the district being assessed to pay the cost of undergrounding (see map on page 4-43 of the printed staff report). f. Does the fact that current homeowners have to pay the cost of connecting their homes to the District's new infrastructure mean that future homeowners will have to pay the cost of maintaining that connection? Is that arrangement"normal" (I thought utilities were normally responsible for the connection to the meter, and the homeowner only for the portion beyond the meter)? 3. Finally, a slightly snarky point, but I notice the cover imagery of PENCO Engineering's Report (page 4-17 of this item's printed staff report) includes what seems to be an image of City Hall including a representation of the City Seal. PENCO and other independent contractors should be warned that with the adoption of Ordinance 2015-27, effective October 8, 2015, in the absence of a special ordinance or resolution from the Council the reproduction of such items by contractors is probably a violation of the Municipal Code. Items 5 & 6. Bonita Creek Park Synthetic Field Turf Replacement - Notice of Completion and Acceptance of Contracts Although savings in water usage by converting to artificial turf are apparently substantial, interesting comments were made at last week's Water Quality/Coastal Tidelands Committee meeting regarding the unusually high temperatures that synthetic turf rises to on hot, sunny summer days compared to natural grasses, making it unpleasant to sit or lie on. That may temper the enthusiasm for its use as a universal solution to the City's recreational needs. Item 8. Request to Install Private Improvements (Alley Extension) Within the Existing Alley Right-of-Way Adjacent to 404 Heliotrope Avenue (N2015-0439) I found it very difficult to decipher what the request is, since 404 Heliotrope is an "interior" lot, not near what appears to be the end of the alley easement illustrated in Attachment A. In the absence of a clear staff report or applicant's letter a ground level photo showing the area of concern would have been very helpful. My guess is that although the existing alley right-of-way is continuous, there is an unimproved (and therefore impassable) portion to the rear of this property— and that although called an ,.extension" the request is really to improve the unimproved portion of the existing alley right-of- way rather than to extend it outside the boundaries shown in Attachment A. September 22, 2015, Council Consent Calendar Comments - Jim Mosher Page 5 of 5 Allowing private driveways to run through the City's Bayside Park continues to seem a problematic solution to the area's parking problems, but that said, this does not seem an unusual request for the area. I would, however, guess that it needs a Coastal Development Permit, or waiver therefrom, to the extent it involves modifications to public property which is clearly not eligible for the Coastal Commissions "Categorical Exclusion." In that connection, will the proposed private improvements improve or impede public access along the alley? Item 9. Lease Agreement between the City of Newport Beach and Credit Union of Southern California, Authorizing the Lease of Retail Space in the Central Library at the Civic Center Located at 1000 Avocado Avenue I find this item very disappointing since I thought the Library Director and Library Trustees had more creative ideas for use of this public space opposite the Bistro 24 Express cafe in the new second floor Central Library expansion area. As one Library Trustee observed, a credit union does not seem particularly cultural, welcoming, thought-provoking or inviting to all. A key justification was that a credit union will add an ATM machine to the library, but it would not seem to me that adding an ATM should necessitate taking over the entire public space. And it would further seem that an ATM might more logically go in an exterior wall of the City Hall building. Item 10. Temporary Employment Agreement— Planner The staff reports for these items never make clear if the rehiring of a "retired" City employee in any way affects their retirement benefits. My guess is that it does not and the extra income is treated like that from any other job a retiree is allowed to hold (which, I believe, is pretty much unlimited for non-governmental jobs). Nonetheless I'm pretty sure that being able to collect both retirement and a salary from the City at the same time strikes many in the public as odd. Item 12. Printing and Release of Tentative Agreement with the Newport Beach Police Management Association The City is to be commended for making this proposed labor agreement available for public review and comment prior to its final consideration by the Council on October 13`h As a threshold issue, I have my usual concerns about the retroactive features of the proposal, which at least from the summary in the staff report appear to involve extra compensation for service already rendered, much more extensive than that in the lifeguards agreementop sted at the July 28`h meeting — including "wage adjustments" back to January 1 t and heath benefit increases back to July 1". As staff knows, I believe the granting of retroactive compensation is a power specifically prohibited to cities by Article XI, Section 10 of the California Constitution.