March 26, 2024, City Council Agenda Comments
The following comments on items on the Newport Beach City Councilagendaare submitted by:
Jim Mosher ([email protected]), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach 92660 (949-548-6229) Item 1. Minutes for the March 12, 2024 City Council Meeting Thepassagesshownin italicsbeloware fromthe draftminutes with suggested corrections shownin strikeout underline format.Thepagenumbersrefer to Volume66.
himself during discussions relative to Utility Undergrounding Assessment District Nos. 120 and 124, the Balboa Island Main Water Main Project, Balboa Island Street Drainage and Pump Station Improvement Projects, Santa Ana Avenue and San Bernardino Avenue Streets and Drainage Project, and the Peninsula Tidegate Improvement Project due to real property interest conflicts.”
review the fiscal year 2024- 25 CIP early look, purpose of the CIP , allocations to the CIP , projects totaling $24 million completed to date during FY 2023-24, and projects totaling $102 million that are currently under construction.” [Thetranscriber appearstohaveenteredthe titleofthetitleslide.The presentation beganwith“purposeoftheCIP.” Theearlylookreview startsinparagraph3.]
Councilmember Grant for their work, questioned whether Cal Cities’ Cities has done any material advocacy relative to RHNA, noted Cal Cities' influence on Proposition 1 and its impact to the City, and expressed concern for the responsible use of the City’s dues to represent Newport Beach and its furtherance to reinstate local control.”
seatwould be effective become vacant immediatelyin the eventofnonrenewal.” [“Effective immediately” wasinresponsethequestion“Whenwill theseatbecomevacant?”] Item 3. Ordinance No. 2024-6: Amending Chapter 10.08 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code Regarding the Use of Public Property for Commercial Purposes (PA2024-0015)
Asthedraftminutesreflect,attheintroductionofthisordinanceonMarch12,amember ofthe public,AdamLeverenz, askedifitwouldsubjecttopotential impoundmentavehicleparkedon apublicstreetor adingyatapublicdockiftheyweredisplayinga“For Sale” sign.CityAttorney Harpindicatedtherewerespecial protectionsunder statelawfor vehiclesbeingsold,so it wouldn’tapplytothat.
Thatiscomforting,butitisunclear whatthosespecial protectionsare.California Vehicle Code Section22651.9 actuallyallowscitiesandcounties,byordinanceor resolution,toenact regulationsallowingtheimpoundmentofvehicles“found upon a street or any public lands” Received After Agenda Printed
March 26, 2024
Written Comments
March26,2024,CityCouncilagendacomments-JimMosher Page2of5 where“[b]ecauseof asignor placardonthevehicle, it appearsthat theprimarypurposeofparkingthevehicleat that locationistoadvertisetothepublictheprivatesaleof that vehicle”(subjecttocertaintechnicalrequirementsinexecutingtheimpoundment).
Whiletheremaybefirstamendmentissuesinvolved,theCityofLosAngeles,forexample,initsmunicipalcodeSection87.55,has,sinceatleast2011,allowedimpoundmentofparkedcarsdisplaying“ForSale”signsoranincreasinglylonglistofstreets.Morelocally,Anaheim,inSection14.32.181ofitscodes,hassimilarimpoundmentregulationsagainstcarsadvertisedforsaleonarterialsandstreetsclosetothem,atleastifthestreetsarepostedwithwarnings.AndtheCityofBell,initsSection10.44.040,prohibitsparkingonanypublicstreetinthatcityamotorvehiclewitha“ForSale”sign.
AlthoughitispresumablynottheCouncil’sintenttoimpoundcarsorboatswith“ForSale”signs,itseemstheoriginalordinancemayhavebeenbroadlyenoughwordedtohavelongmadethatillegal,andnowsubjecttoimpoundment,providedtheproceduresinVehicleCodeSection22651.9werefollowed.Toavoidfutureclaimsofunequalenforcement,dopersonalvehiclesalesneedtobeaddedtothelistofpermittedactivitiesinproposedNBMCSubsection10.08.030.B? Also,whilefoundinasectionentitled“UseofPublicPropertyforCommercialPurposes,”NBMCSection1.08.020saysthesectionheadingsareofnosignificance.SoitisnotobviousthatinthelongstandingprohibitioninSubsection10.08.030.A,nowsubjecttoimpoundment,againstusing“anypublicright-of-wayor parkwayor other publicpropertyfor thepurposeof storingordisplayinganyequipment, materialsor merchandise, or anyother commercial purpose,”thatthe“storing”or“displaying”mustbe“commercial.”Shoulditperhapssay“for thepurposeofcommerciallystoringor displayinganyequipment, materialsor merchandise, or anyothercommercial purpose”? Orisitindeedtheintentthat anythingstoredonpublicpropertycanbeimpoundedunderthissection(inwhichcase,evenifthesectiontitleisnotsignificant,itshouldberevisedtoreflectthatbroaderintent)? Item4. UndergroundUtilityAssessment District No. 111, UndergroundUtilitiesDistrict No. 22Phase2&3, &UtilityUndergroundingforMcFaddenAlleysandCourt Street –Noticeof CompletionforContract No. 7833-1(21A11)CitystaffmaintainsahelpfulAssessmentDistrictStatuspage,includingAD111(createdbyCouncilItem16onJanuary12,2016,atanestimatedcosttopropertyownersof$3,425,886),althoughtherehasnotbeenanupdateonitsstatuspostedsinceApril2022.
Fromthatandthepresentreport,itisnotentirelycleartomeifthecompletionofthiscontractawardedastheCouncil’sItem10onAugust25,2020,representsthecompletionoftheCity’sportionoftheAD111project.
Theaccountingisabitdifficulttofollowsincealotofextrawork(includingsomeasfarafieldas12thStreetandMedinaWay),muchifnotallapparentlyfundedbyoutsideutilities,seemsto March26,2024,CityCouncilagendacomments-JimMosher Page3of5 havebeenaddedtotheoriginalcontract,whichhadalreadyincludedthenon-resident-fundedUndergroundUtilitiesDistrictNo.22.
Althoughthereisanassuranceattheendthatthis“didnot requireanyadditional assessmentdistrict funding,”IwouldthinkthebottomlinequestionfromtheAD111residents’pointofviewiswheretheirshareoftheexpenditures(howeverthatisunentangled)standsrelativetotheamountassessedfromthem.Willtheybeduearefund?Orisitprematuretoaskthat? Item5. 38thStreet andLakeAvenueLandscapeImprovement Project–Reject All Bidsfor Contract No. 9008-1(23L01)Iampuzzledbythestatementinthestaffreportthat“thereisnopedestrianaccesstothebeach.”Whileitistruethereisalowwallborderingmuchofthesidewalk,asshowninthisGoogleStreetViewfromJune2017,peopleofordinarymobilitycan(anddo)stepoverthelowendofthesidewalkwallandreachthesand:
Subsequentphotosshowtheconcretetrashreceptacleandsomeoftheplantingaroundthebaseofthestreetlightpolewasremoved,soonedoesnotevenhavetostepoverthewall.
Nonetheless,itisgoodtoseePublicWorksstaffisworkingtoimproveaccess.
Idon’tknowiftheyrecallthepossiblystillactiveplanningapplicationPA2019-113,whichseekstoturnthisstreetlightpoleintoacellphonestation.Theplansdonotseemtoindicatetheneedforanygroundlevelequipmentcabinets,buttheydorequireworkaroundthebaseofthepole.TheapplicationwasapprovedbytheZoningAdministratoronAugust27,2020,andagain(onappeal)bythePlanningCommissiononOctober22,2020,butsubsequentlyappealedtotheCoastalCommission.
March26,2024,CityCouncilagendacomments-JimMosher Page4of5 Item6. Approval of Amendment No. SixtoProfessional ServicesAgreement withChambersGroup, Inc. for Superior AvenuePedestrian/BicycleBridgeandParkingLot Environmental Services–Contract No. 8020-4(15T09)Thestaffreportsaysamendmenttoextendthedurationofthecontractisbeingrequested,inpart,duetotheneedforthecontractor’scontinuedassistancewiththeWestCoastHighwayIntersectionImprovementsandPedestrianBridgeproject.However,thelocationoftheWCHProjectisnotindicatedontheLocationMap(AttachmentA).
Item7. Budget Amendment No. 24-059: AllocateAdditional FundsfortheComprehensiveGeneral PlanUpdate(CIPProject No. 20M11)Since“capitalimprovements”generallyrefertoalterationstophysicalthings,ithasalwaysseemedabitstrangetometofindthebudgetfortheGeneralPlanUpdate(whichhasatbestatenuousconnectionwiththeCitybuildinganything)listedintheCIP.
Whereveritbelongsinthebudget,Ihavesometroubleunderstandingthespecificsoftherequest.
Table1ofthestaffreportsuggeststherequestisprecipitatedbytheDudekcontract,and,togetherwiththenarrative,itappearsthatinthefirst7months(fromJuly2023throughJanuary2024),$464,645hasbeenspentona$1,478,029contractwith23monthslefttogo(February2024throughDecember2025).Attheinitialspendingrateof$65,000permonth,another$325,000isexpectedtobespentintheremaining5monthsofFY24(FebruarythroughJune),followedby$1,170,000inthefinal18monthsofthecontract.
Table1alsoindicatesthereiscurrentlyonly$130,703leftintheCIPbudget,soitisexpectedanother$325,000-$130,703=$194,297togetthroughFY24,tothestartofFY25.
Butanimmediateinjectionof$750,000isbeingrequestedwithapromisethat“Theremainderof fundsneededwill beaddressednext year throughtheregular budget process.” Astothatremainder,asteady$65,000permonthspendingforthe30workingmonthsfromJuly2023throughDecember2025wouldcometo$1,950,000,whichis$471,971overtheinitialcontractamount.Soit'spossibleacontractincreasemaybeneededincalendaryear2025.
WhatIdon’tunderstandis,withthisyear’sregularbudgetprocessforFY25underwayandexpectedtobecompletedinlessthan3months,whyis$750,000beingrequestedwhenlessthan$200,000isneededtogettothestartofFY25? Item8. 2023Annual General PlanandHousingElement ProgressReport (PA2007-195)ThisannualreportregardingtheCIty’scurrentGeneralPlanhaslongseemedtometodeservemoreattentionthanitreceives.
March26,2024,CityCouncilagendacomments-JimMosher Page5of5 Whilemuchofitisdevotedtoprogressonhousing,pages8-13through8-16and8-32through8-66dealwithprogresstowardsachievingthegoalsandpoliciesfoundintheelementsotherthantheHousingElement.ThisisdonebycitingactivitiesinsupportofthemanyImplementationProgramsfoundinChapter13.
AsIhavepointedoutattheGPACmeetings(ofwhichIamamember),theproblemwiththisisthatasingleImplementationProgram(suchas“updateCitycodes”)canbeusedtosupportmultiplepolicies.Soexamplesofactionsbeingtakentoimplementoneormorepoliciesdoesnotensuretherehasbeenanyactiononotherpoliciesrelyingonthesameimplementationprogram.
Evenallowingforthat,someofthereportsofprogresscanbemisleading.Asanexample,asIpointedoutattheMarch14FinanceCommitteemeeting,wheretheannualfeeupdateswerebeingreviewed,ImplementationProgram7.2remindsstaffto“ReviseFairShareTrafficContributionOrdinance,”andtheannualreport,whichmayseemcompliant,says,onpage8-35,“PartiallyCompleteandOngoing- TheCitycontinuestoadjust thefeeannuallyforchangesintheConsumer PriceIndex.” ButtheCPIadjustmentisjustastop-gapmeasureandnotwhattheImplementationProgram7.2requires,namelytoconducttheperiodicassessmentthatNBMCSubsection15.38.050callsfor,ineveryfifthbudgetcycle,ofanticipatedtransportationinfrastructureimprovementcostsandhowtoallocatethem.
Similarly,fortheGPACSafetyElementsubcommittee,staffpreparedapolicy-by-policyreviewofwhathadbeendonetoimplementeachpolicyinthatelement,andtherewereanumberthathadbeenneglected–somethingonewouldnotguessfromthepresentreport.
Astohousing,readersofthereportmaynoticetheCitycontinuestomakeverylittleprogressproducinghousingfor“low”and“moderate”families.Thisisbecausethestategivesdevelopersanincentive,intheformofluxury“bonusunits,”toinclude“verylow”incomeunitsintheirdesign,andtheyhaveanobviouseconomicincentivetoproduce“abovemoderate”units.
Thereportindicateswhatlittlehasbeenproducedinthe“low”and“moderate”categorieshasbeenintheformofAccessoryDwellingUnits,and(asHCDanticipated)thenumbersofADU’saremuchtoolowtomeettheCity’sRHNArequirement(compareTablesA,A2andBonpages8-17to8-18).
Item9. OrdinanceNo. 2024-7: TerminatingTwoNon-ExclusiveFranchiseAgreementsfor Commercial SolidWasteAttachmentB,the“NoticeofDefault–Haul-AwayRubbishServiceCo.”datedDecember7,2023,requiresanemailedresponsefromHaul-Awayby“by5:00pmFriday,January5,2023.” SinceJanuary5fellonaThursdayin2023,butaFridayin2024,the“2023”islikelyatypo.
Ifnot,therequestforHaul-Awaytorespondmonthsbeforethenoticewassentwouldrequirethemtohaveaccesstotimetravel,atechnologythathasnotyetbeenentirelyperfected.