Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout00 - Written CommentsReceived After Agenda Printed October 25, 2016 Written Comments October 25, 2016, Council Consent Calendar Comments The following comments on items on the Newport Beach City Council agenda are submitted by: Jim Mosher ( jimmosher(cDyahoo.com ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach 92660 (949-548-6229) Item 1. Minutes for the August 9, 2016 Regular Meeting The page numbers below refer to Volume 63. The passages in italics are ones from draft minutes with suggested corrections of obvious errors shown in strikeout underline format. Page 111: Item 11, sentence 2: "He suggested study sessions for the following topics to be discussed: 1) SoCa/Gas advanced meter street light antennae deployment; ..." Page 112: Item XIV. 1, sentence 2: "Waive reading of subject minutes, approve as amended, and order filed." [This has been standard boilerplate in the approved minutes for the last couple of years, and while I appreciate having some (but not all) of my suggested corrections (such as the present ones) incorporated in the approved minutes, it must be noted the recommendation in the consent calendar actually reads "Waive reading of subject minutes, approve as written, and order filed." I do not recall anyone explicitly saying the Council was approving anything different than the minutes posted with the agenda packet, and I do not know if others may have suggested corrections to them. For a while, a proposed amended set of minutes was available prior to the 7:00 p.m. Council meeting. That no longer seems to be the case. Approving minutes not being sure what they will say does not seem a very transparent process to me.] Page 113: Item 3a (Vin Scully Day): "a) Waive City Council Policy A-6 relating to how a City Council Member may place an item on the regular City Council Meeting Agenda; i v, [Although I don't recall it being explicitly stated, by approving the Consent Calendar the Council presumably concurred with staff's recommendation to grant the waiver. One also wonders if Mr. Scully was told he had had a day in Newport Beach? Directing staff to notify him does not appear to have been part to the motion.] Page 114: Motion: "Motion by Council Member Peotter, seconded by Council Member Selich, to approve the Consent Calendar, noting abstention by Council Member Curry on Item 1." [?] Item 3. Authorize the City Manager and Police Chief to Execute Emergency Management and Homeland Security Grant Applications 1. Considering the many references to it, it would have been helpful to include the relevant passage from City Council Policy F-3 (Budget Adoption and Administration). 2. The staff report and resolution seem to imply it will allow staff, with City Manager authorization, to pursue an unlimited number of grants as long as each involves an additional expenditure of City funds of $10,000 or less. In other words, through this and a series of grant approvals, it would seem the City Manager could authorize an unlimited added burden on the City treasury. I do not believe that is what Policy F-3 says. On the contrary, clause D.1 of Policy F-3 limits the City Manager's "authority to approve October 25, 2016, Council Consent Calendar Comments - Jim Mosher Page 2 of 5 requests for budget increases not to exceed $10,000 in any Budget Activity or Capital Project' [emphasis added]. Without clearly explaining what it means by "Budget Activity," I take this to mean the City Manager is limited to adding a cumulative total of $10,000 to any Council -approved line item. In view of this, it would have been helpful to identify the budget line item(s) to which matching funds for the contemplated grants would be expensed, and to clarify the City Manager is authorized to increase those line items only up to a cumulative maximum of $10,000 — not $10,000 for each new grant. 3. Further regarding the proposed resolution: a. In the first line of Section 1, the word "authorization" does not make much sense. It is probably meant to be "assurance." b. Also in Section 1, in line 4 from the end, the word "supplement' is almost surely meant to be "supplant': see Item 1(c) on the first page of Attachment B to the staff report -- "supplement" has the opposite meaning to the assurance required. c. It probably doesn't matter, but logically Section 2 would seem like it should come before Section 1. 4. Finally, although the staff report comes from the Police Department, is the Police Chief really the most logical signer for all the grants that might want to use this resolution for authorization? While the authorization given to the City Manager may already cover it, I would think other department heads, such as Fire, Public Works or Municipal Operations might also be pursuing FEMA grants and want to use this to show proof of authorization — although in view of the $10,000 cumulative limit, and not knowing the current status of the City's relevant "budget activity," it is unclear Cal OES will ever be quite sure the signer's authority is real. Item 4. Resolution in Opposition to Proposition 57 on the November 8, 2016 General Election Ballot The Newport Beach City Council appears to have a fairly long history of taking positions not just on legislative matters, but on ones before the voters. But that does not make the latter right, as using public resources for electioneering seems to me a clear abuse of the powers vested in the Council. I would especially object to this if, as the City Manager's Abstract, says (on page 4-1), it "asked that the City take a formal position to oppose Proposition 57" [emphasis added]: it seems to me the height of impudence for a majority of the Council to presume they can declare what the position of "the City" — implying the residents of that City — is when the residents will themselves declare the City's position through their votes on November 8t" It is comforting to see the proposed resolution actually says it is only "the City Council" that is taking a position. Nonetheless, even that seems inappropriate, to me. Although I myself am of no political party, I even find it mildly offensive that the second sentence of the "DISCUSSION" starting on page 4-1 finds it necessary to identify the current Governor of California as a "D" — October 25, 2016, Council Consent Calendar Comments - Jim Mosher Page 3 of 5 implying that that, in itself, casts disrepute on the measure. Aren't municipal decisions supposed to be "non-partisan"? The "Whereas" clauses of the proposed resolution likewise attach the credibility of our government to one side of arguments that obviously have more than one side, with no chance for rebuttal nor any assurance of impartiality or even accuracy. That, too, seems inappropriate to me. Finally, it is unclear to me why, of all the measures before voters this November, the Council would, in mid -election, find a need to try to influence voters on this particular one. Would it be appropriate for the City government to send out a slate mailer telling the residents how to vote on each race and issue before them, or to spend a meeting detailing the "correct" votes on each of those orally? I think not, and I find this no different. Item 5. Newport Elementary School Field Renovation - Memorandum of Understanding with Newport -Mesa Unified School District Since the school district already receives a much larger portion than the City of the property tax revenue, the staff report does not make it clear why the City is assisting NMUSD both in the expense and execution of this primarily school -related project. One assumes this is because the City expects to enjoy some benefit through a joint use agreement special to this field — but that is not explained. 2. In the ABSTRACT on page 5-1 of the staff report, I'm pretty sure the "Newport Elementary School District" no longer exists, and was absorbed into larger "unified" school districts many years ago. 3. Further down the same page, under "DISCUSSION," I'm pretty sure the field in question lies more "south" of the school than "west." I also believe the present dimensions of the leased property are wider than originally intended — extending more than it originally did to both east and west. 4. Regarding the "Description of Improvements" in Exhibit B on page 5-11, 1 thought the project involved the construction of some kind of protective walls or berms. I don't see them described even though something of the sort is mentioned in Recital C on page 5- 3. Is the City not responsible for that part of the work? Item 6. Encroachment Agreement for Existing Improvements within the Public Right -of -Way in the Newport Center Area It has sometimes been suggested that the Irvine Company has "done so much" for the area that they deserve special privileges. We have also been told, recently, that Newport Center was designed by TIC as a pedestrian -oriented live -work center (even though Fashion Island, at least, seems a shopping island surrounded by a pedestrian -unfriendly ocean of cars). The staff report does not make clear to me what public purpose TIC's bollards in the public sidewalks are supposed to provide. The ones illustrated on Sheets 2 and 8 of Attachment C, October 25, 2016, Council Consent Calendar Comments - Jim Mosher Page 4 of 5 placed squarely in the middle of the public sidewalk, seem especially placed to create the greatest possible inconvenience to pedestrians. Why would the City tolerate this, other than they were placed there by "the Irvine Company"? Item 7. Selection of Broker of Record - Property and Casualty Insurance Why is the contract for $500,000 (page 7-7), when the contractor said they could perform the requested work for $473,070 and one of the other proposers said they could do it for $404,800 (page 7-3)? Item 8. Planning Commission Agenda for the October 20, 2016 Regular Meeting I doubt the final staff summary will accurately convey the rushed and inevitable feeling of the Commission's recommendation of approval, without any modifications, for the Museum House Tower. This is the first instance I can think of of a major proposal where it was apparently felt unnecessary for the preparers of the EIR to make any presentation of their conclusions, and instead the applicant was allowed to lead the Commission and public through the consultant's results. Item 9. Update on Water Use and Conservation Efforts - September 2016 It would have been helpful if the preamble to the table on page 9-3 of the staff report explained the difference between the two categories in the table: "Water Use" violations and "Other Water Related" violations. The 81 "noncompliance with permanent restrictions" and "watering on the wrong day" notices would naively seem to me like "Water Use" violations, yet they are listed under "Other Water Related NOVs." Item 10. Accept Donation of $350,000 from Newport Harbor Yacht Club and Budget Amendment for Central Avenue Public Pier and Plaza (17H12) 1. While it mentions the need for an as -yet -to -be -complete MOU between the City and the California Coastal Commission, and the approval by the latter of the NHYC project, the staff report does not, as best I can tell, explain when or to what extent the CCC has approved the City's pier project on which the donation is to be spent. 2. It also does not seem to mention the total cost, to the City, of the pier project. 3. The claimed CEQA exemption seems plausible, but one wonders if, when considering small structures "in urbanized areas," Class 3 contemplated construction over waterways. October 25, 2016, Council Consent Calendar Comments - Jim Mosher Page 5 of 5 Item 11. Summary Review of First Eight Months of Operation of the City's Visitor -Serving Marina at Marina Park (First Boating Season) The chart on page 11-6 of the staff report indicates that with the limited occupancy experienced to date, the slip rental revenue has not met what appear to be the contract costs for providing two dock masters. If that is what is being shown, it would seem like it would be more realistic to also include in the costs the expense for the City employee overseeing the contract dock masters, as well as maintenance costs not covered in the dock masters' contract, if there are any, as well as the estimated depreciation on the City's considerable capital investment. I suspect the conclusion might then be that the marina's revenues would not equal the expense even if the slips were fully occupied.