Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout00 - Written CommentsNovember 10, 2015, Council Consent Calendar Comments The following comments on items on the Newport Beach City Council agenda are submitted by: Jim Mosher ( jimmosher@yahoo.com ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach 92660 (949-548-6229) Item 1. Minutes for the October 27, 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 strikeout underline format. Page 478: Item VIII: “Pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreements, which were available to the public, the City will pay Big Canyon Country Club $222,700, Our Lady Queen of Angels $7,769, Newport-Mesa Unified School District $12,395, and Newport Beach Country Club $190,179.” Note: these payments are systematically higher than would have been expected based on the claimed 19 ½ month term of the settlement and the monthly amounts paid by these users as listed in the table in the staff report presented to the Council as Item 17 at the June 10, 2014, meeting. For example, according to that table Our Lady Queen of Angels may have been overcharged by $215 per month. Times 19 ½ months, the expected refund would be $4,192.5 – roughly half what is being offered. Apparently their average usage was substantially higher than the month chosen for the earlier table? Page 479: Item XII: Several Council members reported attending the Newport Beach & Company Marketing Outlook Dinner. Since the Council is the main source of income to Newport Beach & Company, and approved a budget of $50,000 for this event (line item 67104 on page 39 of Item 9 on the August 11, 2015, Consent Calendar), it would be a matter of public interest to know who paid the attendees’ expenses, and in general how many complimentary tickets were issued. Page 479: Item XIV: “Regarding Mayor Selich’s question regarding Item 7 (Professional Services Agreement with Basin Marine, Inc. for Marina Management Services at Marina Park), City Manager Kiff and Public Works Director Webb explained advertising and marketing by Newport Beach & Company, in the context of this agreement.” I am unable to find this in the video record of Item XIV. It would seem these comments were either edited out of the video or were made at some other point in the meeting. Page 482: long motion in middle of page, line 4 from end: “… Amending Resolution No. 2011- 110, to Allow Marina Park Parking Lots from for Master Parking Permit Use; …” Page 482: paragraph 4 from end: “Recreation and Senior Services Director Detweiler utilized a PowerPoint presentation and announced the upcoming dedication on November December 5, 2015, at 10:00 a.m.” Received After Agenda Printed November 10, 2015 Written Comments - Consent Calendar November 10, 2015, Council Consent Calendar Comments - Jim Mosher Page 2 of 10 Page 483: paragraph 5 from end: “Recreation and Senior Services Director Detweiler noted that the City's Park ordinances allow parks to be open from 6:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m.” This comment may have been the source of some confusion, since although NBMC Section 11.04.040 says “No person shall enter or remain upon any park or park facility between the hours of 11:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. the following morning,” Section 11.08.030 says “no person shall be allowed or permitted on any public bay, beach nor any ocean front beach between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. of the following day.” In other words (and ignoring the mysterious comma, in the latter, between “bay” and “beach”), it would appear that under the existing municipal code (which has some further problems with the California Constitutional protection of access to the navigable waters of the state at all hours) persons can legally be in Marina Park at 10:01 p.m., but stepping on whatever is regarded as the “beach” portion of it at that hour will be a misdemeanor. Page 483: paragraph 3 from end: “In response to Mayor Pro Tem Dixon's question regarding Ruby’s operating until midnight, Recreation and Senior Services Director Detweiler noted that alcohol regulations under their lease overrides the addendum about alcohol regulations and they are allowed to operate only until 11:00 p.m.” Page 485: Item 11: “Council Member Duffield recused himself from this item due to a business relationship with Visit Newport Beach, Inc.” This statement does not seem adequate for the public to understand the nature of the relationship requiring the recusal. Does VNB advertise for Mr. Duffield’s company or what? Page 488: paragraph 4: “Jim Stratton commented on his prior proposal or of an alternative relative to the Walker Parking study recommendation and now called an RP3 program.” Page 490: Item 16, paragraph 1: “Council Member Petros recused himself from this item due to business interests.” This explanation seems to me wholly inadequate for the public to understand the nature of the relationship requiring the recusal. Page 490: Item 16, paragraph 4: “Jim Mosher expressed the opinion that he fails to find a reason why The Irvine Company should gain an extra 10-feet to their height restriction, and referenced a missing letter he submitted by Stop Polluting Our Newport (SPON) against the matter.” Note: The SPON letter, dated October 22, 2015, was presumably received by the City prior to the release of the agenda packet for this meeting. Although it has been added after the fact to the Laserfiche archive of the October 27th meeting (under “16 - Newport Center Planned Community – Correspondence”) it was not distributed as part of the agenda packet, nor mentioned nor available to the public as a handout at the hearing, nor is it clear the City Clerk passed it on to the Council members. November 10, 2015, Council Consent Calendar Comments - Jim Mosher Page 3 of 10 Item 3. Introduction of Ordinance No. 2015-33 Imposing An Express Ban On Marijuana Cultivation, Marijuana Processing, Marijuana Delivery, and Marijuana Dispensaries in the City 1. The appearance of this item on the Consent Calendar is strange. While in truth most City policy appears to be written by City staff (and is at most ratified by the Council), the public expects the City Council to set policy. But on this matter (regarding which, like gay marriage, perceptions have changed in recent years), the Council has not, for many years, given any public direction to staff nor debated its position. Moreover, although Policy A-6 gives staff, through the City Manager, the authority to place items on the agenda in the course of running the City, this does not seem to be a matter required to run the City, nor has any member of the Council publicly asked for City resources to be devoted to creating an ordinance on this topic. One might, therefore, have expected it to appear on the agenda as a question rather than as a foregone conclusion. 2. Regarding the substance of the proposed measure, the title announces it is banning four things: cultivation, processing, delivery and dispensaries. a. While proposed Section 10.70.020 defines “cultivation,” “processing” and “dispensaries,” it does not define “delivery” -- although the finding in proposed Section 10.70.010.B.4 tells readers local governments have the authority “to prevent marijuana delivery activity, as defined in Business & Professions Code section 19300.5(m).” b. Should a definition of the “delivery” that is being banned be added to proposed Section 10.70.020? Item 4. Newport Center Planned Community Amendments Second Reading of Ordinances (PA2015-109) 1. As noted under agenda Item 1, above, at the first reading of these ordinances the Council appears to have failed to consider an important October 22nd letter from Stop Polluting Our Newport suggesting that, contrary to City staff’s claim of CEQA exemptions, the 10 foot increase in height requested for buildings under 200 feet in North Newport Center (PC56), some of which are currently restricted to heights as little as 40 feet, raises not just aesthetic concerns, but also appear to allow and encourage substantial and significant intensification of use compared to what exists or is feasible within the current constraints. a. This prospect seems particularly likely when the increased heights are coupled with the proposed relaxation of parking requirements. b. It might be added that the increased heights will be allowed not just for “rooftop appurtenances” (that is, mechanical equipment) but also for “architectural features” which are so broadly defined in Section V of the North Newport Center PC text as to encompass almost anything compatible with the style of the remainder of the building (including, one would assume, extended ceilings and possibly even additional floors). November 10, 2015, Council Consent Calendar Comments - Jim Mosher Page 4 of 10 2. An additional concern about this action is that its stated purpose is to keep the existing development at Newport Center within the General Plan limits. Yet staff makes no proposal to update the limits the public currently sees in the “Anomaly Tables” of the Land Use Element of the General Plan to make them consistent with the transfers being sought. As a result, the proposed Planned Community texts, like the current ones, contain development limits that are, in many cases, inconsistent with the limits allowed by the printed General Plan. Moreover, even within the PC texts, new development limits are being stated, for example in Table 2 of the North Newport Center text, memorializing, it is said, past transfers for which little information is provided and which it is very difficult for the public to verify (such as the allowable number of residential units at San Joaquin Plaza). 3. The proposed ordinances contain several errors and oversights that do not seem to have been detected at first reading: a. Ordinance No. 2015-31 (Corporate Plaza, Corporate Plaza West, and Block 500 [not to be confused with the Block 500 sub-area of the NNCPC]) i. “Section 1: Section I, Subsection 3 of the Corporate Plaza Planned Community District Regulations is amended to reduce the maximum allowed gross building floor area by 8,440 square feet from 477,430 477,320 square feet to a not to exceed amount of 468,880 square feet. “ ii. “Section 5: The Block 500 Planned Community District Regulations are amended to remove 2071 and 2101 San Joaquin Hills Road by replacing the land use plan map with the map attached as Exhibit C, which is incorporated by reference, and reducing the maximum allowed gross building floor area by 24,000 square feet from 97,400 square feet to 74,400 73,400 square feet.” 1. Also with regard to Block 500, Section I of the Block 500 Planned Community District Regulations lists the Net Acreage of the Project Area as “4.37.” Surely if 2071 and 2101 San Joaquin Hills Road (which according the City GIS mapping application each comprise 0.67 acres) are removed from the project area, the Net Acreage of the Block 500 Project Area needs to be revised downwards? a. As a note added in proof, Ordinance No. 2015-32 increases the acreage of the North Newport Center project area in total, as well as specifically its Block 500 sub-area, by 1.3 acres. iii. The “Updated Corporate Plaza Planned Community District Regulations Land Use Map” of Exhibit A differs significantly from the map it replaces in the existing PC17 documentation in ways unrelated to changing “Farallon” to “Civic Center Drive”: November 10, 2015, Council Consent Calendar Comments - Jim Mosher Page 5 of 10 1. The two thermometer-shaped City rights-of-way are indicated as not being part of the Corporate Plaza Planned Community District. Formerly they were. 2. The new map, unlike the old, contains a series of numbers that are apparently intended to correspond to the build sites referred to in the text. The new designations are inconsistent with those shown on the other maps existing in the text, in particular, the Setbacks Site Plan, the Sight Plane Plan and the Grading Plan. Not only are the building sites smaller and more specific in those, but some of the numbers differ (for example, sites “8” and “9” along Avocado Avenue appear to have been renumbered “24” and “26”). iv. The “Updated Corporate Plaza West Planned Community District Regulations Land Use Map” of Exhibit B also differs significantly from the map it replaces in the existing PC40 documentation. 1. In particular, the shape of the Planned Community boundary is quite different, showing the bank building at 1100 Newport Center Drive as part of it now, whereas it was it formerly seemed to be excluded from the Land Use Designations map. Based on the dashed boundary shown on the existing Setbacks Site Plan, Sight Plane Plan and Grading Plan maps, I suspect the new Land Use Designations map is more accurate than the old. However, it might be noted that there are still some discrepancies with exactly where the boundary between Corporate Plaza West and the adjacent Newport Beach Country Club (PC47) is shown on the older maps. v. In the cases of both maps it is interesting to note that the large landscaped semi-circular grand entry to Newport Center Drive off PCH, used by The Irvine Company to promote its Fashion Island shopping center is actually part of these two unrelated “planned communities” and seems to be used in a way inconsistent with the texts being used here (which would suggest signage should be confined to advertising tenants within the “community” in which the signs are placed – and Fashion Island is not part of either of these). b. Ordinance No. 2015-32 (North Newport Center Planned Community Development Plan) i. Fifth paragraph (staff report page 4-15): “WHEREAS, the updated regulations reflecting past approved and proposed transfers of development will allowing allow for more efficient and accurate administration of regulations. …” November 10, 2015, Council Consent Calendar Comments - Jim Mosher Page 6 of 10 ii. Again, I have not attempted to verify that the “Development Limits” proposed in Table 2 (staff report page 4-34) of the new PC text simply memorialize past Council-approved changes. But the numbers certainly differ from those the public sees in the approved General Plan. 1. For example, Fashion Island is listed in the Land Use Element of the General Plan as “Anomaly 44” with a development limit of 1,619,525 square feet of “regional commercial” plus “1,700 Theater Seats (not included in total square footage).” 2. The proposed Table 2 in the PC text lists the development limits for Fashion Island as 1,523,416 sf of regional commercial plus 680 seats in an 11,000 sf movie theater plus a possibility of hotel rooms through a transfer of development rights. 3. It is very unclear from this if the City believes Fashion Island has unbuilt potential that could be added to the PC consistent with the General Plan or if it believes the General Plan has effectively been amended to lower limits than those stated in it through past Council actions. 4. Of those past actions, I believe that at least some, such as the possible conversion of hotel rooms to residences at San Joaquin Plaza remain questionable and controversial. Item 5. Marina Park Parking - Establish Marina Park Parking Lots Hours, Approve the Marina Park Daily Parking Permit and Provide for Increased Annual Permit Parking at Marina Park Resolution No. 2015-86 (staff report page 5-9): 1. This describes itself as an amendment to Resolution No. 2000-38 (“Off-Street Parking Meter Zones & Regulations”). 2. Neither the staff report nor the proposed resolution make clear how many other times Resolution No. 2000-38 may have been amended since its adoption. a. If it has not been amended, then it contains other provisions applying to off-street parking meter Zone 20 that seem incompatible with the proposed operation of the Marina Park Lots. b. In particular, Sections 4 and 5 anticipate separate coin-fed meters at each space in Zone 20 charging a rate of $1.00 per hour for a maximum stay of 12 hours. 3. In fact, Resolution No. 2000-38 appears to have been subjected to a number of previous amendments, including (but not limited to) Resolution No. 2010-39, which raised the rate in Zone 20 to $1.50 per hour, and Resolution No. 2015-56 , which raised the rate in Zone 20 to $1.75 per hour subject, at the City Manager’s discretion, to a possible additional 10% per year increase starting on January 1, 2017 (one might wonder why November 10, 2015, Council Consent Calendar Comments - Jim Mosher Page 7 of 10 10% was chosen and if the City Manager is expected to keep relate the increases to inflation?). 4. I could be missing something, but I am unable to find anything in the proposed resolution or a previous one waiving the 12 hour maximum metered parking time (if that is Council’s intention) nor what I believe is staff’s intention to have visitors make payment by license plate entry at centralized pay stations rather than at individual coin-operated meters. Both those features appear to be contrary to the rules currently established by the City Council through its resolutions. 5. Although not the subject of the current resolution, at a recent town hall meeting a resident raised a question about what provisions had been made for motorcycle parking at Marina Park. NBMC Section 12.12.080 contains an interesting 33 year old provision such that if any spaces are designated for motorcycles, parking them in any of the other spaces is a violation of the code. Resolution No. 2015-87 (staff report page 5-13): 1. It may or may not have been staff’s intention to do so, but the proposed resolution does not specify how many Marina Park Daily Parking Lot Permits an eligible person can purchase. Resolution No. 2015-89 (staff report page 5-17): 1. The resolution refers to the 177 Marina Park Parking Lots parking spaces as “new.” Aren’t some of these replacements for parking that existed in the areas previous incarnation (for example, by the tennis courts and Girl Scout House?). 2. The proposed resolution says Resolution No. 2011-109 “established” the City’s Annual Parking Permit. It in fact seems to have continued, with some changes, a long- established program. 3. The proposed resolution implies Resolution No. 2011-109 allowed Annual Permit parking at any space within off-street Zone 20. It in fact appears only to allow permit parking at spaces marked by coin-operated meters having poles painted blue, and even then requires use of a vehicle with a front windshield displaying a decal in the area opposite the driver. As best I can tell it did not specifying how many blue poles there should be in Zone 20 or in any of the other numbered zones. 4. The proposed resolution refers to certain areas being in “on-street parking meter Zone 6” and is possibly trying to make the Annual Parking Permit valid at all (?) spaces within that zone. However it does not explain where or how Zone 6 is defined. a. I would guess it is a reference to the Zone Six of NBMC Subsection 12.44.020.F, however that zone is much larger than the one described in the proposed resolution and includes areas far removed from Marina Park (for example, “Twenty-eighth Street between Newport Boulevard and Villa Way” and other areas north of the Newport Pier). November 10, 2015, Council Consent Calendar Comments - Jim Mosher Page 8 of 10 b. As a result, the intent of the phrase “authorize the parking of vehicles with an Annual Parking Permit in Zone 6” in Section 1 of the proposed resolution is quite unclear. Is City staff being instructed to designate every metered space in all of Zone 6 as eligible for free parking with an Annual Permit? c. It might also be noted that although Resolution No. 2011-109 oddly includes “Zone 9” (which is apparently an on-street zone), its title says it was adopted to enable Annual Permit parking in City lots and off-street parking meter zones. i. So without further explanation it may not be the proper thing to amend to expand annual permit parking in on-street metered zones. ii. Moreover, without further amendment, the specific Annual Permit mechanisms found in Resolution No. 2011-109 (windshield stickers and individual coin-operated meters with blue-painted poles) seem incompatible with what I thought was staff’s recent effort to transition to stickerless permits enforced by automated license plate recognition at spaces possibly designated by a blue dot on the curb. Item 6. Proposed Assessment District Nos. 111, 116 and 116B - Areas Adjacent to Balboa Boulevard between Coast Highway and 23rd Street Although staff makes its case for why a quick decision is needed in the case of these three area (to allow the Rule 20A project on Balboa Boulevard to proceed), I think many members of the public impacted by the City’s recent undergrounding efforts feel City staff is playing fast and loose with whatever code or policies there are, making up the rules as it goes along. As recently as this Council’s February 10, 2015, meeting (see top of Volume 62, page 190 of the official minutes) the City Manager understood the Council’s direction to be to not lower the 60% threshold for certification of petitions, but now as part of a new “expedited” process the Council has, in two of the present cases, been asked (and agreed) to proceed to a vote based on petitions showing, apparently, less than 60% interest (the exact numbers not being readily accessible in the current staff report). I, for one, would not know where to direct a citizen to definitively read what the City’s current rules or policies for undergrounding are. Such a seemingly arbitrary and capricious process does not seem, to me, to foster trust in government. Item 9. Code Enforcement Services for Water Conservation – Professional Service Agreement with JAS Pacific and Approval of a Budget Amendment I am unable to find in the staff report the hourly rate paid to the current student aides, for comparison to that charged by the contract code enforcement officers. November 10, 2015, Council Consent Calendar Comments - Jim Mosher Page 9 of 10 The “Funding Requirements” section on the first page indicates the work done by the student aides currently costs $18,057 per month. It is difficult to follow, on the following page, how adding $14,300 per month for JAS personnel would bring the total for both to just $21,153 per month. Isn’t the expectation that with the intensified enforcement the student aides will have more to do rather than less? Item 11. Water Conservation Update I found it surprising that at the last Water Quality / Coastal Tidelands Committee meeting there was no update on how the City was doing with regard to its water conservation target. And surprising that in the current report there is no data for October. Doesn’t the City have access to meters from which it can monitor the overall quantity of water flowing into the City on a daily if not hourly basis? Or does it have to wait for a bill from the water-supplying agency? The meaning of several of the “Account Types” listed in the table on page 11-3 of the staff report is not immediately obvious. Does “City Meters” represent the City’s own water usage? If so, hasn’t the City promised to cut back its own water usage even more than the other uses, and isn’t it, then, that 39% of those accounts haven’t met their target? It would also have been helpful to indicate the total volume of water use for the accounts of each type so that the categories that would most benefit from more attention would be more apparent. Item 12. Kindness Initiative/Support of Volunteerism and Community Service It is good to see staff seeking public input and discussion on at least this aspect of the City’s website content, since changes to the website seem more commonly to be made without any obvious outreach. The City of Anaheim’s “City of Kindness” initiative appears to consist almost solely of promotion of something called “Volunteer Match.” While that site lists a great many opportunities, it also has an “Impact” tab, which, if one believes it, shows zero hours of volunteer work generated by the effort in most months. In view of that, the present proposal for a page with more static links to more closely City-related opportunities may be more sensible, although may wish to try to find out if Anaheim’s “Volunteer Match” is actually more effective than it says it is. All of the above is colored by questions about what kinds of activities it is appropriate for a municipal government to promote. One such opportunity that seems to have been overlooked in the proposed page design is volunteering to serve on the City’s boards, commissions and committees. November 10, 2015, Council Consent Calendar Comments - Jim Mosher Page 10 of 10 Item 13. Response to Orange County Grand Jury: “The Mental Illness Revolving Door: A Problem for Police, Hospitals, and the Health Care Agency” The proposed response seems a bit strange in that it “agrees” with the report’s two findings that training of police officers in this area is “insufficient,” then proceeds to reject the report’s two recommendations, seemingly on the basis that additional police officer training in Newport Beach is not required and would be a poor investment. Item 14. Appointment of a New Finance Committee Member to Fill an Unscheduled Vacancy 1. Patti Gorczyca’s experience in the field of municipal finance, including apparently having worked for Newport Beach Finance Committee Chair Curry from 1993-1998, obviously blows away the meager qualifications of the other two candidates. 2. It might be noted, however, that the time portion of the “RECEIVED” stamp on the first page of the application is oddly missing, making it unclear if it was indeed received by the deadline of 12:00 p.m. (noon?) mentioned in the staff report. 3. I might also reiterate that the purpose of allowing nominations to be proposed by individual Council members (with an reasonable expectation they will be ratified absent some glaring problem) is presumably to encourage a diversity of viewpoints on the committees to which it applies, rather than having a homogeneous set of members all acceptable to a majority of the Council. 4. I might also suggest there may be a distinction between the people the City wants providing testimony and advice to its committees and those it wants to weigh that advice in formulating recommendations to the Council. There is something to be said for putting the “experts” in a position that they have to convince non-experts of the value of their ideas. 5. That said, I am relieved that as a non-expert I won’t have to learn the details of municipal finance and ponder the questions put to the Finance Committee.