Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout00 - Written CommentsReceived After Agenda Printed June 25, 2019 Written Comments June 25, 2019, City Council Consent Calendar Comments The following comments on items on the Newport Beach City Council agenda are submitted by: Jim Mosher ( iimmosher(@yahoo.com ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach 92660 (949-548-6229) Item 1. Minutes for the June 11, 2019 City Council Meeting The corrections suggested below in strikeout.underline format are to the passages from the draft minutes shown in italics. The page numbers refer to Volume 64. Page 121, Item XII, paragraph 3: "Jim Walker, owner of The Bungalow Restaurant, discussed the support of local restaurants at City events, explained why it is difficult for the NBRA BID to change to the 1996 1994 BID law, took..." [see video at 2:18:45. Mr. Walker did not mention any specific law, but the discussion he was referring to involved the 1994 law. There is no 1996 BID law.] Page 127, paragraph 3 from end, last sentence: "Mayor Pro Tem O'Neill indicated he would not support additional personnel at this time." Page 128, Item 22, paragraph 1: "Community Development Director Jurjis reported the reason for the code amendment is due to the current code only allowing attaGhe detached units and not detac-hea attached units." [see video. Director Jurjis correctly explained the reason for the amendment. It is unclear why his explanation became inverted in the draft minutes.] Page 129, paragraph 1: "Jim Mosher believed this is a gift to the private investors since it would allow them to invest tax free, and questioned whether the project is a residential project and subject to Greenlight (Charter Section 423)." [My characterization of the request for the Council to authorize tax-free status for the bonds to be issued to fund private for-profit investment in the Harbor Pointe Senior Living project drew a strong rebuke from Mayor Pro Tem O'Neill. To be clear my choice of the word "gift" may not have been technically correct, but in my view the tax free status afforded to municipal bonds is intended to allow cities to borrow money at lower rates than private borrowers. Although the Mayor Pro Tem is correct that the City of Newport Beach is not responsible for the legislation creating the California Statewide Communities Development Authority, the Council was being asked to declare Harbor Pointe to be a "public benefit" project, giving the private developer the tax-free status normally reserved for cities. That adds to the City's competition in the tax-free bond market and reduces the interest cost advantage this city, and others, can hope to enjoy should they themselves need to borrow (as Newport did for the Civic Center). It was that transfer of a future City cost advantage to private hands that I was referring to as a gift. As to some offsetting financial public benefit from the project, it might be noted that Table 2 (mislabeled 150 Newport Center") of the Fiscal Impact Analysis, presented to the Council in connection with the request for the General Plan Amendment on February 12, 2019, estimated the net revenue to the City would be small, and less than if the existing use continued.] June 25, 2019, City Council Consent Calendar Comments - Jim Mosher Page 2 of 11 Item 3. Ordinance No. 2019-10: Adoption of an Ordinance Amending the Municipal Code to Rename the Multiple Residential Detached (RM -D) Zoning District to Medium Density Residential (RMD) and Include Reference to Attached Dwelling Units (PA2019-065) There is little doubt the zoning in the Santa Ana Heights area where the "RMD" designation has been applied was always intended to include the possibility of attached as well as detached dwelling units. Nonetheless, there are a number of points the Council should consider before moving forward with adopting this ordinance: 1. The addition of a "Multiple Residential Detached" Zoning District to the Zoning Code in 2010 does not appear to be entirely the clerical error City staff now claims it to be, and the Council may be making a mistake in completely obliterating it. 2. This proposal is coming to the Council to "legalize" a part of the Planning Commission's recent approval of the three-story, eight -unit "Mesa Drive Townhomes" project at the northeast corner of Mesa Drive and Santa Ana Avenue (PA2017-218), which, as the PC recognized, was in glaring inconsistency with the description of the Zone, and which has been separately called up for review by the Council. 3. The detached/attached issue was glossed over in the previous approval by both the PC and the Council of the three-story, seven -unit "Santa Ana Avenue Cottages" on the lots immediate north of the "Mesa Drive Townhomes" proposal, which was approved by the Planning Commission as Item 2 on its November 17, 2016, agenda (see minutes), and appealed but sustained (by all but Mayor Dixon) as Item 12 on Council's February 28, 2017, agenda (see minutes). The Final Tract Map and construction was approved as Item 7 on the Council's October 23, 2018, consent calendar. That project is currently under construction and is distinctly out of character with its surroundings. 4. While the "Mesa Drive Townhomes" project has brought attention to the previously - ignored detached/attached "error," no one seems to have noticed the 2010 Zoning Code contains what appears to be an even more serious error about the allowed density of development on these lots. At the time of annexation, the promise was very clearly to retain the County's "R-4" limit of one dwelling unit per 3,000 square feet of land area on these lots, NOT the one unit per 1,000 sf limit of the larger "R-2" lots to the immediate north of these along Santa Ana Avenue. As a result, the Santa Ana Avenue Cottages project, on an 11,489 square foot site, should have been limited to the (existing) three units, and the Mesa Drive Townhomes project, replacing two single-family homes on a 14,180 sf site, should have been limited to four units. 5. In addition to needing to address the apparent density error as well as the detached/attached error, the Council should be aware that much of the ordinance being presented to them involves "corrections" to tables in the Zoning Code that were not presented to or reviewed by the PC. Those tables contain additional errors and inconsistencies which staff is not pointing out to the Council or asking it to address. June 25, 2019, City Council Consent Calendar Comments - Jim Mosher Page 3 of 11 To elaborate on these points: The Existence of a "Multiple Residential Detached" Zoning District in the 2010 Code May Not be an Error The purpose of the Zoning Code is to implement the General Plan. Although the 1988 General Plan Land Use Element distinguished between "Single Family Detached" and "Single Family Attached" land uses, it did not seem to see any need to dictate if "Multi -Family Residential" properties would need to be developed with attached or detached dwelling units (see page 19 as reproduced in Resolution No. 88-100). By contrast, the revised Land Use tables and maps submitted to voters for approval with Measure V in 2006 did (see Resolution No. 2006-77, page 4) while retaining the Single Unit Residential Detached (RS -D) versus Single Unit Residential Attached (RS -A) distinction, it added that distinction to multifamily housing to create two distinct land use categories: Multiple Residential (RM) and Multiple Residential Detached (RM -D). As indicated in the staff report to the Planning Commission, voters were asked to apply the RM -D category to Bay Island and a number of sites in Newport Coast (note: although large parts of unincorporated County land, including West Santa Ana Heights, had been added to Statistical Area J6 of the City's General Plan by "prezoning" in 2004 [see Resolution No. 2004-51, they do not seem to have been part of the 2006 General Plan as presented to voters). It therefore seems natural, and perhaps even necessary, that the 2010 Zoning Code, intended to implement the 2006 General Plan, would have Multiple Residential (RM) and Multiple Residential Detached (RMD) Zoning Districts corresponding to the two distinct multi -family land use categories in the plan. In fact, the description of the purpose of RMD in the Zoning Code is an almost exact paraphrase of the description of RM -D in the General Plan. Ironically, and perhaps ineptly, in 2010 the plain "RM" zoning was applied to Bay Island (despite it being "RM -D" in the General Plan in 2006), and the "RMD" zoning was applied to the strip of Santa Ana Avenue in West Santa Ana Heights despite it having being designated plain "RM" in the General Plan as amended during the annexation in 2008 (note: the zoning for the properties in Newport Coast designated RM -D in the 2006 General Plan is implemented through a Planned Community text without invoking RMD zoning districts). Continuing the irony, despite declaring the existence of Multiple Residential Detached (RMD) Zoning Districts (for which Bay Island — a series of detached homes on a single large lot not subject to a PC text -- would be the only candidate at present), the present implementation of RMD does not (despite the title) limit construction to detached units, and if applied to Bay Island would impose additional restrictions (such as setbacks) that were likely not previously applicable there. And despite an appropriate General Plan designation, we have, at present, no zoning district that, if applied to it, would restrict Bay Island (or the areas in Newport Coast) to detached units. It would seem that to correctly implement the 2006 General Plan, more than two kinds of "RM" zoning districts are needed, and simply redefining RMD to include attached units will not cut the ice for the City as a whole. June 25, 2019, City Council Consent Calendar Comments - Jim Mosher Page 4 of 11 Through a Series of Errors, the Current General Plan and Zoning Misstate the Density of Development on Certain Lots in WSAH Allowed by the County Before Annexation The confusion regarding the intent and implementation of the "RMD" designation, that has existed in the Zoning Code since 2004, can be better understood if one traces its history. Prior to 2004, the City's Zoning Code contained a "zoning district" name applicable to lots on which more than two dwelling units could be constructed: the Multifamily Residential (MFR) District. As indicated without full explanation on page 22-28 of the much longer staff report provided to the Council when this item was introduced as Item 22 at the June 11 meeting, the RMD designation was added by Ordinance No. 2004-1 to implement the General Plan designations in the accompanying Resolution No. 2004-5, both of which were part of a "pre -zoning" effort in anticipation of a request to annex from the County what was known as "Area 7" (which included what we now call "West Santa Heights" as well as the still unincorporated Santa Ana Country Club and a large area south of Mesa Drive) and the "Emerson Tract." The effort at the time was to exactly match both the allowances and restrictions imposed by the County zoning. Apparently because the County zoning had slightly different setback rules, and also different default density rules, for its multifamily zoning than applied to the City's MFR districts, it was felt expedient to introduce a new RMD district to match the former County rules. Among these differences was the County's default requirement for 3,000 sf of land area per dwelling unit (which translates into a density of 14.5 du/acre) unless shown otherwise on the maps, compared to the City's default of 1,200 sf per dwelling unit (density of 43.6 du/acre) in MFR districts. The 3,000 sf/du requirement was reflected in the table in former NBMC Sec. 20.10.030 as amended by Ordinance No. 2004-1 on January 27, 2004, as shown at the bottom of page 22-32 of the June 11 staff report. As explained in detail in the January 13, 2004, staff report that accompanied that legislation, some of the multifamily lots had a County designation of "R-2," with the 1,000 sf requirement, while others were "R-4," with a 3,000 sf limitation. 3,000 sf per dwelling unit is also the default requirement in the "RMF" districts of the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan, as can still be seen in the current NBMC Sec. 20.90.090.F.3. See also the table on page 7 of the January 13, 2004, Item 17 staff report comparing the County to the proposed City zoning regulations. As explained see top of page 8, the "RMD(1000)" designation was to apply to the former County R-2 area north of Mesa Drive, but that was not all of Santa Ana Avenue north of Mesa Drive. The smaller lots immediately north of Mesa Drive, on and around Savanna Lane, were intended to continue the R-4/RMD default of 3,000 sf per unit, as were all those along Santa Ana Avenue south of Mesa Drive. See the illustration in the January 13, 2004, staff report showing the RMD district (with the default of 3,000 sf/unit — as opposed to RMD(1000)) extending north of Mesa Drive: June 25, 2019, City Council Consent Calendar Comments - Jim Mosher Page 5 of 11 PQ0ro(1000 ,f. Plan a x. _ _Z4 OS-A f (Santa lira CountryCkrh) WrV r CN See also the amended Districting Map 67 as adopted into the City's Zoning Code by Ordinance No. 2004-1 (with the boundary between normal "RMD" [3000] zoning and "RMD(1000)" highlighted by the added red arrows). It might be noted that in the drafting of Ordinance 2004-1, the default RMD density limit had been inadvertently set to 2,000 sf per unit (21.8 du/acre), but that error was noticed and (partially) corrected during the review by the Planning Commission [see Item 17 minutes from November 20, 2003, referring to the erroneous page 31 of the October 23, 2003, staff report, from which the item had been continued]— in part for fear that leaving it at 2,000 would trigger the need for a "Greenlight" (City Charter Section 423) vote because it would increase the number of dwelling units June 25, 2019, City Council Consent Calendar Comments - Jim Mosher Page 6 of 11 allowed under the General Plan compared to what had been allowed under the County plan. However, as happens, the correction as not complete, so the description of RMD in the amended Section 20.10.010 described the "Medium Density Residential (RMD) District" "Provides for medium density residential development up to approximately 22 dwelling units per gross acre, including single-family (attached and detached), two-family, and multi -family." The 22 du/ac figure came from the 2,000 sf/unit restriction. After the correction, it was presumably intended to say 14 du/ac" based on the 3,000 sf/unit standard. So how did the 3,000 sf/du default limit for RMD properties get lost from the Zoning Code? As happens in Newport Beach, no sooner did the Title 20 (the Zoning Code) get amended by the Planning Division with Ordinance No. 2004-1 in late January (effective at the end of February), but another department — in this case, the City Attorney's office — brought to the Council an ordinance to amend Title 20 to address a different problem they'd been working on — in this case group homes. And the version of Title 20 they used as the basis for their redlining was the pre -Ordinance No. 2004-1 one, which did not include the RMD district. The City Attorney's recommendations were adopted as Ordinance No. 2014-16 on September 28, 2004 — some eight months after the ordinance that had added "RMD" to the Municipal Code. Ordinance No. 2014-16 enacted a completely new version of former NBMC Section 20.10.010.H, thereby deleting the definition of RMD as a designated type of zoning district, as well as the "Land Use Regulation" table of former Section 20.10.020 (see page 5). Some of these sections were subsequently amended by Ordinance No. 2006-27 and 2008-5, again without noticing the omissions of "RMD." As a result, from 2004 through 2010 our Zoning Code had a table of "Property Development Regulations" (in former Section 20.10.030) showing a "RMD" development type with a minimum 3,000 sf/du, but no explanation of what "RMD" was or what uses were allowed in the district. By the time the annexation of a much reduced portion of West Santa Heights became imminent in late 2007, and with the General Plan update measure submitted to the voters in 2006 having omitted the Council's previously -approved 2004 prezoning of "Area 7," staff presented the Council with a new General Plan amendment in the form of Resolution No. 2007-78, offered as Item 14 at the December 11, 2007, meeting. By this time, the General Plan had taken to designating the allowed multifamily densities on the map, and this resolution designated the properties near the corner of Santa Ana Avenue and Mesa Drive as having a General Plan land use designation of "RM — 43 /ac" (see page 5) — a designation supposedly supported by what the December 2007 staff report claimed to be "West Santa Ana Heights Prezoning" map resulting from Ordinance No. 2004-1 (see page 13, also shown to the Council without clear attribution on page 22-43 of the recent June 11 staff report). This shows Ordinance No. 2004-1 as having applied a "RMD(1000)" zoning to all the lots along Santa Ana Avenue in West Santa Ana Heights that were not in the Specific Plan. But this is not correct, and this map does not reflect the County -consistent zoning adopted by Ordinance No. 2004-1 and Resolution No. 2004-5 as illustrated in the diagrams copied above. Since the correct RMD development requirement of 3,000 sf/du (11 du/ac) had been missing from the Zoning Code since 2004, when the revised Zoning Code was adopted in 2010, someone June 25, 2019, City Council Consent Calendar Comments - Jim Mosher Page 7 of 11 apparently copied the standards from Ordinance 2004-1, but changed "3,000 sf/du" to 1,000 sf/du" to match the erroneously -widely -applied "43 /ac" designation in Resolution 2007-78. The evidence that this was a mix-up is at least as strong as the evidence that it was intentional. In particular: 1. There would be no need to label properties "RMD(1000)" if 1,000 sf/du was the default requirement (a number in parenthesis indicates the default number is being overridden). 2. The new description of "RMD" inserted into Section 20.18.010 says it is for "exclusively detached" development — as in the 2006 General Plans new RM -D category — which was never appropriate for or assigned to these areas of Santa Ana Heights. 3. If it referred to the old (very short-lived) RMD district designation from 2004, 1,000 sf/du would be inconsistent with its description in Ordinance 2004-1 as being "for medium density residential development up to approximately 22 dwelling units per gross acre." That is, if 1,000 sf/du were the proper default standard, the default density would be twice what is normally allowed in the district. In short, to the extent it has been the City's intent to preserve the zoning previously imposed by the County, the stated allowable density for the lots at the northeast corner of Santa Ana Avenue and Mesa Drive is as erroneous as the restriction to detached units. If that remains the Council's intent, they both need to be fixed — not just the "detached" issue. Not correcting the density issue is leading to a proliferation of out -of -character, excessively -dense development at and around that corner. Those seeing the Santa Ana Cottages project currently under construction (seven units where the County would have allowed only three) have ample reason to wonder how it got approved. In addition, since "Multiple Residential Detached" (RM -D) is a land use designation in the current General Plan, the Council may wish to ensure that a corresponding zoning designation exists in the Zoning Code, with possibly a different designation for the areas of mixed attached/detached multi -family construction in Santa Ana Heights. Additional Problems Highlighted by this Proposed Ordinance A close reading of the June 11 staff report (Item 22) will reveal that a number of items being presented to the Council for approval as parts of Ordinance No. 2019-10 were neither presented to nor reviewed by the Planning Commission at their May 9, 2019, meeting (as their Item 5). It might also be noticed that the Resolution No. PC2019-12, adopted by the PC, refers to an "Exhibit "A recommended for Council approval, but the attachment does not seem to be part of theop sted resnlutinn_ Among the things I notice in those previously unreviewed portions: 1. Section 3, on page 3-4 of the current staff report recommends an amendment to Zoning Code Table 4-1 regarding "Animal Keeping" where the zoning district currently listed as "RM -D" is to be corrected to "RMD". June 25, 2019, City Council Consent Calendar Comments - Jim Mosher Page 8 of 11 a. The staff report fails to call the Council's attention to the column headed "Maximum Number of Animals per Site". b. The word "Site" is a term defined in Title 20 (Section 20.70.020.S) as "a lot or adjoining lots under single ownership or single control, considered as a unit for the purposes of development or other use." In other words, an entire apartment complex is a single site. c. Per the line under the headings, a total of three cats and/or dogs is allowed in an entire multi -family complex. d. I somehow doubt this is either the Council's intent or something City staff would cite offenders for. e. Shouldn't this be corrected? 2. On page 3-5, the third row from the top lists "RA" as a zoning district. There is no "RA" district (see Section 20.14.020 for a complete list of zoning districts and Section 20 for a "complete" list of residential districts). As indicated in following rows, the intended designation is presumably "R -A". Shouldn't this be corrected? 18.010 3. Section 4, on page 3-7, recommends an amendment to Table 1-1 of Section 20.14.020, showing how the "General Plan Land Use Designations [are] Implemented by Zoning Districts." a. The table, as amended continues to give the impression that we have a zoning district that implements the General Plan designation of "Multiple -Unit Residential Detached." We do not at present and the present ordinance does nothing to create one. Shouldn't this be corrected? b. Other General Plan Land Use Designations that have no zoning district defined to implement them included RS -A, CR, OS(RV) and TS. At the end of this table, on staff report page 3-9, where it lists "Overlay Zoning Districts," Table 1-1 fails to list the "H" ("Height") overlay district that was added to Title 20 by Ordinance No. 2015-12. Shouldn't this be corrected? Item 4. Resolution No. 2019-56: Adopting a Memorandum of Understanding with the Part Time Employees Association of Newport Beach (PTEANB) See comment on Item 6. Those who know about the City's system of MOU's with its labor groups would know this has to do with wages and benefits. Those who read the full title of the resolution would know the item involves salaries, but not necessarily benefits. Regarding the proposed MOU: Staff report page 4-11: Paragraph 2 of the Preamble contains what certainly appear to be extraneous words the Council may wish to delete in the interest of clariy: "... for the period from January 1, 2019 through January 1, 201-9 through December 31, 2021." June 25, 2019, City Council Consent Calendar Comments - Jim Mosher Page 9 of 11 Staff report page 4-13: Section 2.A.2.a: It seems likely this was intended to read " dvanGe Advance Approval - Employees must have ad anGeel advance approval from their supervisor to work overtime." — to mean the need to obtain approval "beforehand" or "in advance" rather than an approval that is in an exceptionally "high" or "advanced" state of development. One could even say "approval in advance." Staff report page 4-13: Section 2.A.2.a: The abbreviation "FLSA" is introduced without explanation. It appears to stand for the Fair Labor Standards Act. Staff report page 4-14: in "e. Workweek for Purposes of Calculating Overtime — Employees workweek shall begin on Saturday at 12:00 a.m. and will end exactly 168 hours later the following Friday at 11:59 p.m.": 1. To make it possessive, I believe there should be an apostrophe before or after the "s" in Employees. 2. 1 don't know what significance attaches to the "168," but of each year's 52 weeks there are two in which, due to the changing of clocks, the interval from one Friday -Saturday midnight to the next is not 168 hours. Item 5. Resolution No. 2019-57: Adopting a Memorandum of Understanding with the Newport Beach Fire Management Association (NBFMA) See comment on Item 6. Those who know about the City's system of MOU's with its labor groups would know this has to do with wages and benefits. Those don't would not. Item 6. Resolution No. 2019-58: Approving the Side Letter Agreement to the Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Newport Beach and the Newport Beach Firefighters Association The agenda notice provides no hint whatsoever of what the proposed agreement will change. That is in extremely questionable compliance with the Brown Act requirement that the public be able to tell from the agenda (without further research) whether a matter of interest to them will be discussed. Item 7. Resolution No. 2019-59: Proposed Deletion of City Council Policy 1-7 - Library Meeting Rooms and Approval of Newport Beach Public Library Policy 14 While I agree with the bulk of the recommendation from the Board of Library Trustees, I believe the question of jurisdiction over the Jorgensen Room at the Mariners Branch Library, redundantly mentioned in the deleted Policy 1-7, but currently and separately covered by Council Policy B-5, needs further dialog with the Council. Various documents connected with the construction of the Mariners Branch indicate that room, like the Friends Room at the Central Library, should be under the control of the Trustees. June 25, 2019, City Council Consent Calendar Comments - Jim Mosher Page 10 of 11 Item 9. Professional Services Agreement with Kearns & West for General Plan Update Outreach The Council might wish to be aware that on May 21, between the time the Steering Committee interviews the firms responding to the RFP and the meeting at which they made their recommendation to the Council, the person advanced to lead the Kearns & West effort, Jenna Tourje, was appointed as the Planning Commissioner from District 4 (Westside) in Costa Mesa. Nothing in her application would lead to think this would have altered the Steering Committee's recommendation, but I do not believe this information was disclosed to them, and to some it may seem strange to have a Planning Commissioner from a neighboring city leading the "Listen & Learn" in Newport Beach. They might suspect divided loyalties in deciding what approaches to take. Beyond that, I do not have the impression the Steering Committee has a clear and united vision of what they expect the consultant to do. The Council may also wish to know that the idea of opening the cost proposal from the most highly ranked respondent to an RFP seems to be a practice somewhat unique to Newport Beach, and I'm not sure where it comes from (probably an internal administrative procedure that is no publicly posted?). Other city councils, in making a choice among proposals for general plan consultants, have seen both the rankings and the costs of each respondent so they could pick what they felt was the right blend. Item 12. Revocable License Agreement with Lido Group Retail, LLC to Operate a Certified Farmers' Market Located in Lido Marina Village Especially since a farmers' market doesn't seem to be a uniquely coastal -dependent use, doesn't the City have an obligation to examine whether this proposal to close off a public street and reduce parking one afternoon a week is consistent with its Local Coastal Program? Item 13. Special Event Support Program Fiscal Year 2019-20 Funding Recommendations I do not believe a commitment to give $150,000 per year the Newport Beach Film Festival is appropriate. I do not know, and the staff report does not explain, what percent of their operating budget (or City permit expenses) this represents, but I believe events of this kind achieve a success which no longer requires taxpayer support to sustain. The OC Marathon, as an example, at one time received $50,000 yearly gifts from the City. When those stopped, it appeared to have no effect on the event, which by my observation continues to flourish. Item 14. Approval of Funding Support for the Balboa Village Merchants Association (BVMA Inc.) Since the Council is empaneling a committee to investigate the appropriateness of giving $40,000 grants to the Corona Del Mar Business Improvement District and the Newport Beach Restaurant Association BID, and since the "renewal" of even the assessments for those activities is on the regular calendar, it seems, to me, completely inappropriate for this item and the companion Item June 25, 2019, City Council Consent Calendar Comments - Jim Mosher Page 11 of 11 15 (regarding Balboa Island Marketing, Inc.) to be set for approval on the consent calendar without any public discussion. The staff report (end of paragraph 2 on page 14-2 and page 15-2) states that in 2013, "the City agreed it would provide $40,000 annually for five years to assist the new organization." That would be a $200,000 commitment for each organization, or $400,000 overall. The reference, lacking any further documentation, is, as best I can tell, to agenda Item SS2 at the Council's March 26, 2013, Study Session (see agenda). The staff presentation indeed suggests such commitment, but it is not normal for agreements to be approved at study sessions, certainly not ones of this magnitude, and the minutes do not indicate any vote having been taken. Had a vote been taken, it would, arguably have been in violation of the Brown Act, since the agenda did not alert the public to its possibility. Nor did the agenda for the subsequent business meeting on May 14, 2013 (where the disestablishment of former BID's were Items 12 and 13) announce any such arrangement was going to be considered. Although something about it is buried in the staff report, nothing about it was voted on by the Council, as best I can tell. As a result, the validity of any obligation on the part of the City appears extremely questionable. Beyond that, the statement of Profit & Loss on page 14-9 indicates this organization operates on no revenue at all other than the gifts it receives from the City and dispenses as it sees fit. I do not think taxpayer funding should continue. Item 15. Approval of Funding Support for Balboa Island Marketing, Inc. See comments on Item 15. The statement of Profit & Loss on page 15-10 indicates minimal revenue from sale of coffee mugs and hats paid for by taxpayers. Expenses include $1,300 of taxpayer money used to treat members to the Mayor's Dinner. Really?