Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout00 - Written CommentsReceived After Agenda Printed January 9, 2018 Written Comments January 9, 2018, Council Consent Calendar Comments The following comments on items on the Newport Beach City Council agenda are submitted by: Jim Mosher ( limmoshera-vahoo.com ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach 92660 (949-548-6229) Item 3. Resolution Updating the List of Designated Employees for 2018 Under the City's Conflict of Interest Code Since this is billed as an "update" it would certainly have seemed helpful for the staff report to have highlighted or redlined what is being updated/changed compared to previous years. That would have allowed the Council (and public) to focus on those changes, and whether they agree with them, or not. I am embarrassed to say I haven't looked at the current set of Form 700 financial disclosure statement filings required by this code. In past years, one obvious observation was the disparity in different departments' interpretations of the outside consultant escape clause on staff report page 3-8. Some department directors excused nearly all their consultants from the filing requirement, others excused almost none. My guess is that was more a reflection of differences in Director attitude than in the work performed. That said, despite the good intentions of the Political Reform Act, I have found the Form 700 filings of surprisingly little use. First, the public has no way of knowing if the filers are being honest (and it is the dishonest ones we are most worried about). Second, even if one could assume every filing was totally honest, one has to wait until April to learn of gifts and conflicts that might have influenced decisions made in the previous year, anywhere from 4 to 16 months earlier. This is particularly problematic with regard to gifts, because if they are eventually disclosed on the Form 700 (as they are required to be), I believe they do not need to be disclosed at the time of the decision. Item 4. Request to Retain Existing Improvements within the Public Right -of -Way Adjacent to 900 Avocado Avenue 12.3 feet does not seem to me a minor encroachment into the planned public right of way, particularly at this location where, after installation of the ADA ramps, pedestrians waiting for the lights to change, or to move past each over in different directions, are confined to a very small strip of level sidewalk. I see no reason why so wide a planter is needed, nor does The Irvine Company's consultant in their letter on page 4-5 seem able to explain what it is for. In a City where we are supposedly interested in reducing vehicle traffic by making our streets more attractive to pedestrians and cyclists, I would suggest the Council ask the Irvine Company to move the wall back, at least a reasonable distance. January 9, 2018, Council Consent Calendar Comments - Jim Mosher Page 2 of 3 Should the Council not choose to do that, the staff report assures the Council and public that "The encroachment agreement is recorded onto the property's title and provides important notice and protections for the City and for the current and future property owners." Why are we not shown this encroachment agreement recorded onto the property's title so that we can judge for ourselves whether the protections of the public's rights to this land are adequate? And under that agreement, exactly what will be the rights of the "current and future property owners," and why is it in public's interest to protect them? Finally, since it appears staff is asking the Council to in effect permanently deed valuable public property to The Irvine Company for no obvious public purpose or benefit, is TIC expected to pay the people of the City compensation? If so, what? Item 6. Amendment to Sound Media Fusion Sound Monitoring Services Agreement I find it interesting that through all the discussion about sound monitoring of outdoor events at the Newport Dunes, I do not recall anyone mentioning that this is the site of one of the permanent sound monitors (Noise Monitoring Station 7) used to enforce the Settlement Agreement against John Wayne Airport. While the monitoring by Sound Media Fusion is primarily in response from the complaints of neighbors across the water, it seems reasonable to wonder how many hours of the year the noise from events at the Dunes renders JWA Noise Monitoring Station 7 incapable of effectively measuring aircraft noise. Item 7. Agreement for Refuse Container Collection Services with Roberts Waste & Recycling, Inc. City staff seems extremely happy with Roberts' service. My only experience with what I believe to be them is in connection with the three or four old-style residential -type trash containers the Mariners Branch Library keeps by the bicycle racks next to the Vincent Jorgensen Room. While Roberts' seems to empty the containers, they don't appear to me to have been particularly diligent about picking up the trash that often lies on the ground around the containers, which is sometimes quite considerable. That loose debris, as well as general scattered windblown trash in the nearby landscaping, can seem like it lays there for days. Item 9. Appointment to the Corona del Mar Business Improvement District Advisory Board of Directors Normally the application is attached to the staff report. It is unclear why none is provided here. January 9, 2018, Council Consent Calendar Comments - Jim Mosher Page 3 of 3 Exposing the applications in the Council agenda packet seems important since it means it will be archived with the other meeting materials, and years later people can discover who these appointees were. Unrelated to that, the staff report perpetuates the City's long-running misunderstanding about the terms of office for Business Improvement District Board appointments, which it continues to say is limited to one year. This supposedly comes from state law, but the state law actually provides no direction other than that the City Council must appoint a board. Since the City Charter at the time the CdM BID Board was created called for Council -created boards to have staggered four-year terms, that's what they should be. City staff objects to this, claiming the BID, under state law, has to be "renewed" each year. This, again, is a misunderstanding. What has to be renewed each year is the levy supporting the BID activities. The BID itself is permanent. It does not go away even in a year in which the Council chooses not to renew the levy. As far as I know, the only way for the BID to end is for the Council to dissolve it by ordinance, following the fairly elaborate procedure specified in the state law. Item 10. Reconsideration for the Request to Install Toshiba Classic Street Light Banners I submitted written comments on this item when it was on the November 28, 2017, consent calendar as Item 19. The principal reason for waiving the policy against using City streetlights for commercial advertising seems to continue to be that this particular running of the golf match is benefitting Hoag Hospital. One has to question whether that will always be the case, and whether the waiver will automatically be reconsidered in the event of a change? Since the present request is for a smaller number of banners for a longer period of time, one also has to wonder if approval of the present action (for 80 banners from January 16 to March 12) clearly rescinds the prior approval of 153 banners from February 12 to March 12, or if a future operator could claim a right to pick and choose between the two (or do both)? Finally, the staff report appears to include (on page 10-8) only 1 of the 4 maps needed to know where the 80 banners would be approved to go. Although the approved streetlights are listed by number on page 10-7, the missing maps would have been helpful for visualizing the extent of the request.