Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout00 - Written CommentsRecieved After Agenda Printed May 23, 2017 Written Comments May 23, 2017, Council Consent Calendar Comments The following comments on items on the Newport Beach City Council agenda are submitted by: Jim Mosher ( iimmosher cni yahoo.com ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach 92660 (949-548-6229) Item 1. Minutes for the May 9, 2017 City Council Meeting The page numbers below refer to Volume 63. The passages in italics are from the draft minutes with suggested corrections shown in strikeout underline format. The quality of these minutes is very poor. In some cases, but not most, the suggestions are based on an effort to compare the written record to the online video, which is a frustrating experience, at best, due to the limited controls offered in the City's online -only viewer. Page 264: Item SS2, paragraph 2, first sentence: "In response to Council Member O'Neill's question, Finance Director Matusiewicz explained the revenues over the 30 -year term and the $140 million for "bulkhead.'" [It is not at all obvious from the minutes, but "bulkhead" refers to a label on a PowerPoint pie chart] Page 264: Item SS2, paragraph 2, last sentence: "Finance Director Matusiewicz explained the process for establishing the Harbor Capital Plan and 'he term "increment revenue. " [again, this refers to a label on the pie chart] Page 264: Item SS2, paragraph 3 from end, sentence 2: "Public Works Director Webb explained that floats and gangways were separated out and the ocean was :.,..►..de ocean -related projects had been added." [Director Webb did say "the ocean had been added," but since the ocean is a continuous system of liquid water covering, it is said, 71 % of the Earth's surface, it seems like a large responsibility for a small city like Newport Beach to take on. It might also be noted that at least some anticipated ocean -related project expenses (such as ocean pier repairs) were already vaguely included in the list Council member Herdman remembered from 2012, and its progeny, although they were, at least initially, regarded as part of a tidelands "maintenance" budget, rather than a "capital" one.] Page 264: Item SS2, paragraph 2 from end: "Mayor Muldoon stated a large portion of the budget would have to come from Federal funding and a representative in Washington D.C. would be necessary." [The words were "a large portion of this" — presumably referring to the revenue and expenditures in the plan.] Page 264: Item SS2, last paragraph: "Nancy Gardner thanked the Finance Committee for remembering the ocean beaches." [See earlier note: this may approximate what was said, but I don't recall the Finance Committee ever "remembering" to add the beaches.] Page 265: Item SS3, paragraph 2: "Council Member Peotter requested an update on the Uptown Newport project." Page 265: Item SS3, paragraph 3, sentence 4: "Council Member Dixon suggested possibly creating something visitor -serving at the end of the pier." May 23, 2017, Council Consent Calendar Comments - Jim Mosher Page 2 of 7 Page 265: Item SS3, paragraph 4: "Mayor Muldoon suggested forming a Council subcommittee to review potential projects to be completed using the Uptown Newport project payment." Page 266: paragraph 8, sentence 2: "He explained the CIP was only a budget but and was not guaranteed to occur and requested clarification on Project 15R19, the Old Newport West Coast Highway Renovation, and the Caltrans project at the same location." Page 266: paragraph 11: "Mayor Pro Tem Duffield requested inclusion of the trash containment method at the Greek ,^^' San Diego Creek as it enters the Upper Bay." Page 268: Item XIV, paragraph 1: "Regarding Item 1 (Minutes of the April 25, 2017 City Council Meeting), Jim Mosher believed the motion to reconsider Item 16 (City Attorney, City Clerk, and City Manager Contracts) was strangely reported and the vote on the Ronald Reagan statue should be amended." Page 268: Item XIV, paragraph 2: "In response to Mayor Muldoon's question, City Attorney Harp clarified that the motion for reconsideration on Item 16 was defeated; therefore, the original motion stood. Council Member O'Neill further clarified that the motion passed and then the request for GGnsiderati reconsideration initially passed, but Mayor Pro Tem Duffield immediately changed his vote; therefore, there was no reason for the matter to come back." [It might be noted that Council Policy A-10 allows members to simply change their votes. However, the minutes reflect a request to "revote," which was voted on and failed. The minutes, as written (and approved) are completely ambiguous as to whether what failed was the request to revote, or the original motion as revoted.] Page 271: first motion: "Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Duffield, seconded by Council Member Peotter, to approve the Consent Calendar; and noting the amendments to Items 1, 5, 6 and 7, and the recusal by Mayor Muldoon to Item 10." [Is it intended to be left to the readers to guess what the amendments were? As best I can tell, none are mentioned earlier in the minutes.] Page 271: Item XVII, paragraph 1: "john Patterson Jon Pederson discussed Council Member Dixon's proposal regarding shutting down the dog beach, ..." Page 271: Item 16, paragraph 1: "Clint Whited, a the City's CDBG consultant, presented a PowerPoint presentation, including background on CDBG funds and proposed amendments." [Although not mentioned in the minutes, Mr. Whited was introduced by the City's Principal Planner James Cambpell, who offered some brief comments before Mr. Whited's.] Page 272: Item 17, paragraph 1: "Clint Whited, a the City's CDBG consultant, presented a PowerPoint presentation, ..." Page 272: paragraph 3 from end: "City Manager Kiff stated the Section 108 Loan balance was $916,000." [1 believe it was said this was an estimate for June 2018. From the audited 2016 CAFR (page 47), the outstanding balance as of June 30, 2016, was $ 1,207,000. The May 23, 2017, Council Consent Calendar Comments - Jim Mosher Page 3 of 7 memo to Item 15 on the current agenda says "The outstanding balance on June 30, 2017, will be $1,066,000."] Page 273: last paragraph: "In response to Council questions, Senior Civil Engineer Sommers stated the vehicle counts were conducted during peak times, speed surveys were conducted every 7 to11 years, and ah" the concepts incorporated most of the agreed upon items." Page 274: paragraph 2, sentence 2: "He clarified that Concept 1 did not include a sidewalk extension, bike lane gap closure, raised landscape medians, or decorative flush medians." [?? It seems extremely unlikely Mr. Sommers said this. His PowerPoint (starting on Slide 17 of 44) clearly shows Concept 1 includes all these features, plus speed signs. Could this have been a reference to the "do nothing" option, rather than Concept 1?] Page 274: paragraph 5, last sentence: "Council Member Herdman received confirmation that Concept 3 did not include speed signs, but they could be considered." Page 274: paragraph 8, first sentence: "In response to Council Member Peotter's questions, Senior Civil Engineer Sommers clarified that the pilot program for Concept 3 would test the capacity of a single lane, ..." Page 274: paragraph 9, sentence 2: "Senior Civil Engineer Sommers explained the average high speed per hour was 66 miles per hour from the speed trailer results and 54 miles per hour based on * in a one hour speed survey, noting the posted speed was 40 miles per hour." Page 275: paragraph 2: "Pat Nang! Peter Dunkel discussed accidents involving his parked vehicles and expressed support for Concept 2." Page 276: paragraph 4 from end, sentence 2: "Public Works Director Webb stated the full affec effect would not be realized due to lack of medians." Item 3. Medi -Cal Managed Care Rate Range Intergovernmental Transfer (IGT) Program Section 1 of the proposed resolution (on staff report pages 3-6 and 3-7) contains some grammatical errors that can be resolved by reference to the plainer English explanation of what the resolution is supposed to do at the top of staff report page 3-3: "...; (2) an "Intergovernmental Transfer Assessment Fee Agreement" with DHCS regarding the City's payment of a twenty percent IGT assessment fee for FY2015-2016 ($32,103.00) and k.- Ole as h. FY2016-2017 ($44,501.00) for administering the City's participation in the IGT program; and (3) a "Health Plan -Provider Agreement Intergovernmental Transfer Rate Range Program" agreement with CalOptima regarding the terms upon which the City is paid its previously unreimbursed costs for providing transport services to Medi -Cal plan members plus the additional federal funds made available as a result of participation in the IGT program." May 23, 2017, Council Consent Calendar Comments - Jim Mosher Page 4 of 7 Item 4. Resolution of Intention to Renew the Corona del Mar Business Improvement District and Levy Assessments in Fiscal Year 2017-2018 The section of the staff report regarding the future of the BID (page 4-4) does not make clear that the 1989 Law" under which the present BID was created (the "Parking and Business Improvement Area Law of 1989," California Streets and Highways Code Sections 36500-36551; allows a small number of businesses, with the approval of the City Council, to force involuntary assessments on the remainder of the businesses unless a majority of those possibly uninterested other businesses organize together to protest. The other available mechanism, the 1994 Law" (the "Property and Business Improvement District Law of 1994," California Streets and Highways Code Sections 36600-36671) requires a majority opt -in to create the district, which seems more democratic. The staff report also does not make clear that the stated purpose of both laws is to allow the government to aid in the resuscitation of business in blighted, economically disadvantaged areas of cities, which does not seem to be particularly relevant to either of the BID's on the present agenda, and is certainly not the case with the Tourism BID (created under the 1994 law). Or that both laws strangely fall in a division of the state Streets and Highways Code entitled "Parking" — even though the concept of a government -sanctioned assessment on businesses seems to have at best a tenuous relationship with parking. It might also be important to note that the 1994 law has been amended since the previous discussions about restructuring the BIDs. The most recent amendments were in SB 974 (2015- 2016), and took effect in January. Beyond these general comments, the staff report (page 4-2) somewhat mischaracterizes the "Annual Report" (Attachment A) as including "a summary of the CdM BID's FY 2016-2017 accomplishments and revenues as well as its proposed activities and budget for the upcoming fiscal year." The "report" required by SHC Sec. 36533 is in fact an entirely prospective document, informing the Council and the businesses to be assessed of activities and expenses expected in the coming year, and is not required to review what happened in the past. The review of actual revenues and the comparison of actual accomplishments in the current year to the promises made in the prospective "annual report" filed for that current year (in this case, presented starting on page 5 of Item 4 from the Council's May 24, 2016, agenda) is largely confined to the staff report. It might be noted that the budget for the coming year presented on staff report pages 4-10 to 4- 11 indicates a major disparity between the projected revenues and the projected expenses, suggesting the BID plans to spend the reserve it accumulated in prior years. Regarding the BID in general, the City seems to lack clear public policy as to the funding of improvements in business districts. In the CdM business district, it seems that business owners (frequently distinct from property owners) are expected to bear costs for improvements to the public realm that in other areas are borne, or assisted, by the City in general. For example, the BID seems to have to pay for the rare cleaning of the public sidewalks, whereas in Balboa May 23, 2017, Council Consent Calendar Comments - Jim Mosher Page 5 of 7 taxpayers apparently pay for the frequent cleaning not just of public, but in some cases, private sidewalks. Similarly, the staff report mentions the $40,000 annual subsidy given to the CdM BID. But at least it is a sort of matching of contributions toward public improvements made by the merchants. In other areas, Balboa Island and Balboa Village, similar funds have been given for vague purposes to loosely organized private groups who provide no contributions of their own at all. Item 5. Resolution of Intention to Renew the Newport Beach Restaurant Association Business Improvement District and Levy Assessments in Fiscal Year 2017-2018 Please see the general comments on Item 4 (the similar Resolution of Intention for the CdM BID). In this case the very similar promises made in the "Annual Report" submitted for the current (soon to be past) year can be found starting on page 4 of Item 5 from the Council's May 24, 2016, agenda). Compared to the present year's plan, the new plan appears to have dropped "Partnership Opportunities" and "Stakeholder Activities" and substituted "Video Content" for "NBTV" (but only as a change in title, with no change to the promised activity). The estimated annual "stakeholder assessments" have increased significantly, from $135,000 to $189,000, presumably as a result of the new assessment structure (which, it is claimed, I believe, corrected for certain "members" who had been under -reporting their number of employees). However, the $294,500 of total projected revenue shown in the budget on page 5- 15 doesn't seem to quite match the $302,700 mentioned elsewhere (pages 5-4 and 5-14). As a general comment, the restaurant BID, however well intentioned, has always struck me as odd since its purpose is not really to encourage improvements in any specific geographic business "district" or "area," and the City government has not chosen to interject itself in this way into any other similar citywide business sector. It will be interesting to see the results of City staff's proposed survey (page 5-4) of the businesses assessed to see what value they see in this. I hope the survey will be conducted by someone other than Newport Beach & Company, which benefits from the management contract. Item 6. Median Landscape Turf Replacement — Award of Contract No. 8151-1 (16L02) The Council may wish to inspect the turf replacement recently completed on Irvine Avenue between Santiago and University. I am not familiar with the new median landscaping at San Joaquin Plaza, mentioned at the bottom of page 6-2, but the installation along Irvine Avenue might be described as rather "sparse." It is not as attractive as what was done on Dover Drive and would probably be rather jarring were it not immediately adjacent to the natural open space of the Upper Bay. May 23, 2017, Council Consent Calendar Comments - Jim Mosher Page 6 of 7 Item 7. Approval of Amendment No. One to Professional Services Agreement with Everest International Consulting Inc. for Further Analysis Related to Federal Emergency Management Agency's Preliminary Flood Maps Should FEMA's more generic flood risk projections be correct, it is not entirely clear to me that the City is doing homeowners a service by seeking an opinion assuring them they have no risk, or that it is not creating a liability for the remainder of the City's residents if those affected fail to buy insurance based on the City's assurances. As such, one hopes Everest's conclusions are truly objective and "better" than FEMA's, and not merely trying to bolster a wished for result. As a layman in this area, it is hard for me to believe that Balboa Island, for example, is not at risk of flooding in the next 100 years. Does Everest assume any liability if their conclusions are flawed? Regarding this particular contract amendment, the staff report indicates "Plan B" is needed only if FEMA rejects the City's previous comments — something we don't yet know, but expect to know momentarily. The staff report is less than clear on the extent to which this new $75,000 expense, if approved "in anticipation," can be avoided if a Plan B is not needed. Will it be spent only if the response to the previous comments is inadequate? Item 8. Amendment No. One to Lease Agreement with Lighthouse Cafe, LLC, for the Restaurant Space at Marina Park Located at 1600 West Balboa Boulevard and a Waiver of City Council Policy B-13 I have no objection to the food cart (and, indeed, it would seem like a good addition to the park), but the Council's existing restrictions on alcohol sales seem appropriate to me, particularly at a family-oriented facility like Marina Park. I see no reason to change them. It also seems worth noting that the Council is much less experienced than the Planning Commission in dealing with alcohol service requests, which usually involve a Conditional Use Permit application, reviewed by the Commission, rather a lease amendment. That process is normally accompanied by a Police Department report, absent here, highlighting the overconcentration of spirits -serving establishments on the Peninsula with their attendant problems. In addition to the questionable policy deviation of sanctioning an area with an "over 21" feel in what was intended to be a family -friendly facility, it would seem the City would want to lead by example and not contribute to the problem. My understanding (possibly incorrect) was that the was a Ruby's Diner proposal operating under a cuter name (appropriate to the location in a fake lighthouse). I don't see alcohol, at all, on the Ruby's beverages menu, let alone distilled spirits. Is the Council being asked to say a family dining concept like that isn't viable at a family park in Newport Beach? May 23, 2017, Council Consent Calendar Comments - Jim Mosher Page 7 of 7 Item 9. Airport Consulting - Contract with Tom Edwards While I appreciate Mr. Edwards paid service in this position since 2008, and his previous involvement in airport issues as a Council member and concerned citizen, I remain puzzled why the Council should regard him as the best or only possible candidate for providing its continuing need for this service. Item S16. Amendment to the JWA Settlement Agreement: Definition of Commuter Air Carrier or Commuter Carrier The staff report is a bit premature in saying that "SPON is expected to approve the amendment" (page S16-4). SPON may well sign, but its current position is it doesn't have enough information about the long-range ramifications of the requested change to make an informed decision at the present time. As to the City's decision, to be made by the Council, it would certainly seem to me that it would have been the expectation of the prior Councils that created our Aviation Policy (City Council Policy A-17) and Aviation Committee, that any proposed change to the Settlement Agreement, however innocuous, would be reviewed by that Committee. I'm not sure I understand why this one has not been. The prospect of this amendment, along with corresponding changes to the JWA Access Plan, was heard by the County Airport Commission as Item 4 on its May 17, 2017, agenda. A large quantity of correspondence from the air carriers, some for, some against and some wanting a different change in the definition was provided to the Commission, that I do not believe has been reviewed by the Council or the community groups. The issue was presented primarily as one of wanting to align the definition in the Settlement Agreement and Access Plan to correspond with a pay scale step based on seat count in the carriers' contracts with their pilots. It was not clear what relevance the County's definition of "commuter" would have to those existing contractual thresholds, or how "alignment" is possible if the various contracts had different thresholds. Possibly that is explained in the correspondence? Since the ability of particular models of planes to fly out of JWA would not be affected by the proposed change (they could all fly as "commuter" or "Class E," and neither commuter flights, nor Class E, of which "commuter" is a subclass, are limited in number), I would personally want to understand why a specific commuter definition (with a seat and weight limitation) was added to the Settlement Agreement (apparently in 2002). To me, it seems important to understand why it is there before changing it.