Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout00 - Written CommentsReceived After Agenda Printed May 26, 2020 Written Comments May 26, 2020, Council Agenda 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 ll. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON CLOSED SESSION As justification for speaking behind closed doors without disclosing to the public any hint of what the discussion will be about, the agenda cites what the public might guess to be an extremely unusual circumstance: Government Code Sections 54956.9(d)(2) and (e)(1). For that particular undisclosed "anticipated litigation" exception to the open meeting rules to apply, it would have to involve a situation where "there is a significant exposure to litigation against the local agency' and "discussion in open session concerning those matters would prejudice the position of the local agency in the litigation" because it involves "Facts and circumstances that might result in litigation against the local agency but which the local agency believes are not yet known to a potential plaintiff or plaintiffs." In other words, such an agenda listing is an admission the City has done something illegal that the injured parties who might sue the City over it do not (yet) know has happened. It is troubling that the City would be hiding its own knowledge of any of its illegal acts from public scrutiny (and thereby keeping those potentially injured unaware of those acts). It is even more troubling that such agenda listings have become commonplace in Newport Beach. Item 1. Minutes for the April 30, 2020 Special Emergency Meeting, May 2, 2020 Special Meeting, and May 12, 2020 City Council Meeting Suggested corrections: The passages shown below in italics after a page number annotation are from the draft minutes with suggested corrections indicated in strut underline format. The page numbers refer to Volume 64, as listed at the bottom of the draft pages. April 30, 2020 Special Emergency Meeting In my roughly 11 years of closely watching what the Newport Beach City Council does, April 30, 2020, marked the first time it managed to hold a meeting without my knowing it was doing so. Having learned, after the fact, that it happened, I found it disturbing on many levels. Primarily because of the misinformation the council heard about California's rules for holding emergency meetings, as well as our Mayor's May 22 statement in Stu News that "If I need to call another emergency meeting before our regular meeting on Tuesday, I will do so." But also because found it hard to believe an idea that City staff had volunteered to the Council in open session as an entirely feasible option two days before — namely a "hard" closure of the City's beaches — could require not only an emergency meeting but closed session discussion within it when the same was ordered by the Governor. An additional irony is that if the Council's concern was simply to become informed about how City staff was going to respond to the state's beach closure order, a noticed public meeting — May 26, 2020, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 2 of 11 emergency or not — was not required to do so. This is because paragraph 2 of the Governor's March 21 Executive Order N-35-20 permitted members of city councils to receive updates on COVID-19 related matters at unnoticed meetings, and to ask questions of the presenters, as long as they didn't discuss the matter among themselves. It is surprising the Mayor and staff would not have been aware of this, since per page 381 of the draft minutes, "Council was invited on a phone call with the California Governor's Office of Emergency Services" (made "legal" by the same order). If, on the other hand, Council's intent in holding an emergency meeting was to micro -manage staff's response, I feel that is inconsistent with our Council -City Manager form of government. Under that form, the Council's role is to publicly set policy and staff's role is to implement it without interference from the Council. Under that policy, and in particular Section 2.20.060 of Chapter 2.20 (Emergency Services), the City Manager is the Director of Emergency Services tasked with coordinating emergency responses. As to the misinformation, I believe the Mayor is confusing "emergency meetings" with "special meetings." Newport Beach City Councils have held hundreds of special meetings over the years. They can be held at any time for any purpose, provided the public is given at least 24 -hours advance notice. Emergency meetings, by contrast, dispense with the 24-hour notice requirement, and can be held on a single hour's notice to the public, or even less in the case of a "dire" emergency. In this case, according to the present Special Meeting notice, the meeting was noticed to the press at 3:40 p.m. on April 30 and convened at 5:15 p.m., 1 hours and 35 minutes later. Since the bulk of the public (as I was on April 30) will not know such emergency meetings are happening, or be able to attend on such short notice, holding them is supposed to be an extreme exception to the rule. And, until now, they have been in Newport Beach, with the City Council (as best I can tell), in its entire history, having held just one other emergency meeting.' Given their rarity, the Clerk may have been unfamiliar with the post -meeting requirements of Gov. Code Sec. 54956.5(e). It requires posting minutes of what happened at an emergency meeting "as soon after the meeting as possible," together with other required information, in a public place for at least 10 days. Although a video of the April 30 meeting was posted fairly promptly, minutes are something different, and provide a quick and easily accessible text summary of the key actions. As of this writing, no minutes, draft or otherwise, have been added to the official public record of the April 30 meeting. And the present copy, found in a place not expected from the April 30 ' That was on December 1, 1994, in response to the Orange County Treasurer's announcement of the insolvency of an investment pool in which the City participated. And it is unclear from the minutes if even that was held on less than 24 -hours notice (the absence of any public comment suggests the public did not know it was happening). May 26, 2020, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 3 of 11 meeting archive, did not appear until May 21, three weeks after the emergency meeting. It is hard to believe that three weeks was "as soon after the meeting as possible." Page 380, Item V, paragraph 1: "Andre Ruben Figueroa inquired about the possibility of submitting weekend closure plan that was discussed on April 28, 2020, to Governor Newsom for approval." [see correspondence, page 69] Page 380, Item V, paragraph 3: "^n u., de of ed c eake - Brenda McCroskey read a letter she regarding supporting the weekend beach closure." [The speaker's last name can be heard in the video at 7:40, and the letter is that submitted by Ms. Croskey (pages 32 and 118 of the correspondence.] Page 381, starting at paragraph 7: The repeated references on this page to voting requirements in Government Code Section 54957, demonstrate a profound misunderstanding of the Brown Act on the part of the Mayor, uncorrected by the City Attorney. Page 381, paragraph 8: is particularly problematic, attributing to the Mayor comments made by the City Attorney. The next to last sentence should read: "He City Attorney Harp clarified that the Governor has ordered the closure of all Orange County beaches starting May 1 st, including no public access to restrooms, parking facilities or recreational boats, and no activities are permitted on the beach, including sunbathing, walking, running or water sports." But this still completely omits the colloquy between the Mayor and Council Member Brenner regarding the meaning of the first motion — which occurs starting at 40:00 in the video, between the Mayor's first motion and the vote on it, as well as comments by Council Member Herdman and Mayor Pro Tem Avery, also preceding the vote on the first motion. In that colloquy, the Mayor conflates Government Code Section 54957 (allowing closed sessions to discuss threats to public security) with Section 54956.5 (allowing councils to hold emergency meetings), citing Section 54957 to assure his colleagues that in voting to hold an emergency meeting "You're not finding that you disagree with the Governor's order.... You're not even passing judgment on the order that just came out from the Governor," but instead they are simply making a finding that the order meets the "remarkably low bay" of threatening to disrupt access to a public facility (in this case beaches). In fact, the bar to holding emergency meetings is supposed to be remarkably high. As the California Attorney General's 2003 Brown Act summary, they are supposed to be "extraordinarily rare" (page 15). To justify an emergency meeting, one looks to Section 54956.5 (not Section 54957, which contains no voting requirements). Per Section 54956.5, to make the first vote, a majority of the council must agree "an emergency situation" — "defined as a work stoppage, crippling activity, or other activity that severely impairs public health, safety, or both" -- exists "involving matters upon which prompt action is necessary due to the disruption or threatened disruption of public facilities." May 26, 2020, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 4 of 11 Contrary to what the Mayor said, in voting to hold an emergency meeting, the Council agreed that the Governor's order, rather than improving public health and safety (as the Governor intended it to do), severely impaired one or both. That is very much passing judgment on the value of the order and making a statement of disagreement with it. The second vote on page 381 similarly misstates that "Section 54957 requires a two-thirds vote to go into Closed Session." The voting requirement is in Section 54956.5 and it refers to a decision at an emergency meeting (which are normally required to be open to the public and press2) to go into closed session pursuant to Section 54957. Section 54957, in turn, allows closed session discussion of threats to public security or access to public facilities only when discussion in public would reveal previously unknown vulnerabilities to potential bad actors.3 Finally, it might be noted that the city councils in Huntington Beach (agenda, minutes) and Dana Point (agenda, minutes) also held emergency meetings on April 30 in response to the Governor's order calling for a hard closure of all Orange County beaches. They were in even likelier violation of the Brown Act in using closed session to discuss not only the purported threat to public safety, but initiation of litigation against the Governor. With or without a two-thirds vote, the latter is not a possibility contemplated to happen at an emergency meeting per Section 54956.5. May 2, 2020 Special Meeting I applauded Mayor Pro Tem Avery's motion to adjourn this meeting at its outset, because it seemed, to me, to have been called based on a wasteful, if not infantile, conflict of political egos, with the City clearly on the losing side. It appeared some Council Members were eager to sue the Governor over issuing an order, without consulting the Council, overriding the Council's previous direction to City staff. Yet in giving that direction, two days earlier, the Council did see any need to consult the Governor (despite the Mayor's previous pledge that in responding to COVID-19 the City did not see themselves as experts and would seek guidance from above, instead of state or county epidemiologists, they relied on a psychiatrist and administrator at Hoag Hospital whose institution would, arguably, benefit from increased business). 2 See page 18 of the California Attorney General's 2003 Brown Act summary. 3 The history of Section 54957 is detailed in a recent unpublished California appellate court opinion, Los Angeles Times Communications LLC v. Southern California Regional Rail Authority (8280021, 2019). In that decision, two of the three justices found justification for an emergency meeting to discuss a possible threat to public safety in closed session. The third found justification for a closed session, but not at an emergency meeting. Applying their reasoning to the present case before the Newport Beach City Council, the Council would have to find not only that the Governor's order posed a threat to the public requiring immediate action to defeat (justifying an emergency meeting), but that public discussion of the City's strategy for defeating the order would reveal vulnerabilities in that strategy which, if known to potential malfeasants, could be used to further endanger the public (to justify a closed session). May 26, 2020, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 5 of 11 Page 383, Item V, paragraph 1: "City Attorney Harp reported that the Cities of Huntington Beach and Dana Point, the Balboa Bay Club, Pacific City Investments, and Lido House LLC filed a lawsuit against Governor Newsom in order to open beaches and stop the enforcement of the Governor's order, ..." [The video (which provides no download options) confirms this is what the City Attorney said. However, he inadvertently left out the Lounge Group, LLC (owner of Malarky's, Stag Bar, etc.) as one of the plaintiffs.] Page 384, Item VII, paragraph 1: "City Attorney Harp announced that a motion was made by Mayor O'Neill and seconded by Council Member Dixon, to ratify the filing of an amicus brief in the litigation against Governor Newsom to get temporary and permanent injunctions barring the Governor from closing beaches in Orange County, and that the motion was approved 5-2, with Council Members Herdman and Brenner voting "no."' [It might be noted that this special meeting was called for the express purpose of discussing the initiation of litigation against the Governor and his appointees. As the Mayor pointed out, ratification of an amicus brief is not the same as initiating litigation or joining an existing lawsuit. The minutes do not disclose what the vote was on the question of initiating litigation, or not. Shouldn't the public know? Subsequent to the meeting, I put in a Public Records Act request to view the amicus brief, a link to which was later supplied in a City News Splash. I changed the request to one for any records indicating the cost to the City of having the outside counsel, Ring Bender LLP of Costa Mesa, prepare the brief. Not only has no City contract with Ring Bender ever been added to the City's Charter -required contracts archive, but the PRAR response was that no records existed as to the cost. Even to a non -lawyer, the brief made what appear to be ridiculous and unsupportable claims, including that the state possesses no police powers, even emergency ones, superior to those of cities, despite clear law to the contrary, especially in state -declared emergencies. It is not clear under what authority the brief was filed prior to direction from the Council. The Council's most recent Legislative Platform, adopted as Item 6 on November 5, 2019, authorizes the Mayor to send letters regarding legislation affecting local control. That is quite different from intervening in court cases with legal briefs.] May 12, 2020 City Council Meeting Page 385, Item V, Dixon bullet: "Announced she joined many of the Council Members, who supported the procession for Detective Jon Jarema as it drove from Hoag Hospital to Pacific View Memorial Park." [The video confirms the word "Memorial" was not spoken. But then "from Hoag Hospitaf' was not, either. Without "Memorial" it sounds like a reference to a City park.] Page 389, Item 17, paragraph 1: "Council Member Dixon indicated that she would like to make a motion to require a three -night minimum stay that would expire on June 16, 2020 or the end of the emergency, whichever occurs first, and that the prohibition would continue on Newport Island. She noted widespread support to end the prohibition and added that Newport Island is a unique situation and lifting the ban at this time should not apply to it." Note: A bit later, specifically starting around 29:50 in the video, Council Member Dixon makes claims about Newport Island being unique because it is a single-family area inadvertently May 26, 2020, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 6 of 11 changed to R1/R2 in the 2010 Zoning Code update, which unexpectedly made short-term lodgings permissible there. These claims do not seem to be supported by anything. The Comprehensive Zoning Code Update Summary of Change document on the Zoning Code page mentions nothing about any changes specific to Newport Island. Instead, Newport Island, like most parts of the City in which STL's have traditionally existed, appears to have always been zoned to allow duplexes, and many of them date back many decades. Zoning in Newport Beach was first imposed by Ordinance No. 440 in 1936. Although the map posted in the online archive is illegible, there is no reason to think it's any different from that of Ordinance No. 525 in 1943, whose District Map 3 shows Newport Island entirely R-2. The 1988 General Plan Land Use Element (Resolution No.88-100), which preceded the 2006 one, allowed duplexes on any lots of 2,000 sq. ft. or more and anticipated essentially doubling the then -existing density (see page 30 [58 of the PDF] and the table on page 31). Similarly, the City's earliest Coastal Land Use Plan, adopted in 1982 by Resolution No. 82-25, designates Newport Island, like most of the Peninsula, as "Two -Family Residential" (see page 56 of 101). The current CLUP, dating from Resolution No. 2009-53, gives it the more specific designation of "RT -D Two Unit Residential - (20.0 - 29.9 du/ac)," which formerly would have been considered at the lower end of "high density." In fact, since most of the lots are about 0.1 acre, achieving the designated (and Coastal Commission certified) density would actually require nearly all the lots to be developed with two units. In short, Newport Island may be unique for other reasons, but it is not because of its zoning. Indeed, many of the current residents would likely object if it were downzoned to R-1. During the summer, Newport Island is unique in that it is the only area in the City's Coastal Zone where parking on public streets is restricted by a residents -only by -permit, preferential parking program (NBMC Sec. 12.68.060) — which seems to have been instituted by Ordinance No. 1883 in 1981 without benefit of a Coastal Development Permit. In 2018, residents of the similarly -situated "Finley Tract," across the Rialto Channel from Newport Island, subdivided by the same tract map (MM 004 98) in 1907 and now likely even more densely populated, requested a 24/7 residents -and -their -guests -only parking restriction there, as well (see Zoning Administrator Item 2 from December 13, 2018). The Coastal Commission subsequently found "substantial issue" with the Zoning Administrator's approval of a CDP for such a program (see CCC Item 9a from March 8, 2019). Additionally, neither of these areas meets the City's own standards for establishing Residents' Preferential Parking zones as specified in NBMC Chapter 12.68. They are allowed only at times and locations when visitor parking deprives residents of more than 50% of the public spaces. In both these cases, it is at all hours the residents' own cars, not visitors', that are occupying the large majority of the on - street parking. Page 390, paragraph 3: "Chris Neilsen Nielson commended Council on their efforts and noted his support for allowing short-term lodging; hoped to receive clear guidance following the meeting; and indicated units in the residential multifamily zone should be allowed." [see correspondence, page 9] May 26, 2020, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 7 of 11 Page 391, paragraph after first motion: "He added that the proclamati emergency will remain in effect until the local governing body terminates its respective local emergency." [See video at 1:26:15. The word used was "emergency." It was essentially a quote from Section 8 of the Governor's March 4, 2020, State of Emergency Proclamation. Local action can terminate the local emergency/proclamation, not the Governor's.] Page 392, line before Item 18: "The motion carried 5-2 (with Council Member Muldoon and Mayor O'Neill voting no Page 394, paragraph 9: "Public Works Director Webb reported the Ocean Front Bike Safety Improvement project involved Council Member Dixon working with the community to conduct a study of the splitting of the trails, which is the OGean Boulevard Gen to nayemen Ocean Boardwalk /Parking Lot Improvement project." [See video at 2:08:45. Director Webb referred to "the project above it," evidently meaning two lines above, not one. The Ocean Boulevard Concrete Pavement project (18R25, in Corona del Mar) has nothing to do with splitting trails on the Ocean Front Boardwalk. The Oceanfront Boardwalk project (20T11) does.] Page 395, last line: "Commentsig yen after reconvening:" [note: none of the draft minutes indicate how any of the public comments were received: in person, telephonically or by other means such as email.] Page 396, Ex Parte Communications, paragraphs 1 and 6: "... Nancy Soarbereu Scarbrough..." Page 397, last paragraph: "Stefanie Sitzer Pilalas, Appellant, agreed with Mr. h Ehrlich`s comments; ..." Page 398, paragraph 2: Meanie Cog Jeanne Fobes expressed her concern with the proposed parking structure roof." Page 398, paragraph 6: "Nancy Scarbrough opposed the parking project..." Item 10. Board and Commission Scheduled Vacancies - Confirmation of Nominees As one who has applied continuously for appointment to the Board of Library Trustees since 2009 and to the Planning Commission since 2011 (and, as best I can recall, has been interviewed exactly once and never nominated), the process this year seems unusually opaque: because the City Hall has been closed, the public has had no convenient way to even review the applications submitted. As usual, the report does not explain who applied, who was interviewed by the Ad Hoc Appointments Committee (I know I was not) or why the names listed were selected. The situation involving the City Arts Commission is particularly troubling. To ensure a wide and changing representation on the boards and commissions the Council has a long-standing policy (Policy A-2) to limit appointments to a maximum of two four-year terms, with even a second term being offered as a reward for outstanding service during the first. May 26, 2020, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 8 of 11 In last year's nominations, Arlene Greer, having served two full terms on the Arts Commission, was recommended for an unprecedented third term on the understanding that the appointment would be for just one year, to give the Commission time to find a new leader (see Item 20 on June 11, 2019, and the letter accompanying her application). However, at the appointments meeting on June 28, the City Charter was cited as forcing all appointments to be for four years (minutes, Item 21).4 This is troubling because the nomination was based on the understanding it was for a short-term, gap -filling appointment, and the nomination may not have been made at all if it was understood it was to be for another full four years — creating an expectation that other board and commission members can, too, be appointed in perpetuity. And it is troubling because the anticipated resignation appears not to have materialized. Speaking of the City Charter, several of the City's boards and commissions pre -date it. One of those, the five -member Board of Library Trustees, will be observing a milestone before the Council's next scheduled meeting: the BLT was created by City Board of Trustees' Ordinance No. 166 on June 7, 1920 — one hundred years ago.5 Item XVI. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON -AGENDA ITEMS Recent City Council agendas exhibit a disturbing pattern in which the City's regular business is being conducted at irregular and unpredictable hours. This is in conflict with one of the primary purposes of California's open meeting law, the Brown Act, which was in enacted in 1953 to force correction of past abuses by ensuring not only that the meetings of local decision-making bodies be open to the public, but that regular meetings occur at a regular, predictable, pre -announced time and place (Gov. Code Sec. 54954). Council Policy A-1, adopted by resolution, fulfills that requirement by announcing the Council will convene to conduct regular business at 7:00 p.m., while Resolution 2019-104 set the days for 2020 (and reconfirmed a 4:00 p.m. start time for study sessions and closed sessions, only, reconvening at 7:00 p.m. for regular business). Yet on May 12, the Council began its regular business at 4:00 p.m., and in the present meeting it will apparently begin at 5:00 p.m., or soon thereafter (even though a separate special meeting beginning at 4:00 p.m. may or may not be over by then). On May 12, the press of deferred business due to the COVID-19 crisis, may have justified the early start --- despite which, per the draft minutes of Item 1, it ran to 10:42 p.m. On May 26, no such justification for starting early exists. In fact, the regular meeting agenda appears unusually light. 4 Charter Section 702 could conceivably also be read as limiting service to a single four-year term, as the people's mechanism to promote rotation of membership, in which case appointment for even a second term should not be granted even if Council policy allows it. 5 What is now called a "City Council" was originally instituted as a "Board of Trustees" for the municipal corporation. May 26, 2020, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 9 of 11 For a public whose ability to participate is already impaired by the COVID-19 crisis, conducting business at irregular and unpredictable times creates a further barrier and inconvenience. Indeed, those who tune in at the pre -announced 7:00 p.m. hour expecting to witness a Newport Beach City Council meeting may discover it is already over. Alternatively, those aware of the May 26 agenda who may wish to attend or phone in are apparently expected to start listening at 5:00 to learn at what time the meeting will actually be. The City may counter that Policy A-1 technically says that regular business will begin "at 7:00 p.m. or as otherwise scheduled due to the demand of business." But first, a resolution that sets a regular time that applies only when the City chooses to apply it is not setting a knowable regular time. And second, May 26 presents no "demand of business" requiring a different hour. Item 11. Emergency Ordinance No. 2020-005: Fast Track Back to Business - Emergency Temporary Use Permit Program Much as I believe the state has the legal authority to impose emergency orders on cities, I do not think governance by edict is a good thing. Several Council Members have faulted the Governor and his unelected appointees for using the COVID-19 emergency to issue vague yet overreaching orders. This proposal seems of exactly the same class. It gives the unelected Community Development Department Director sweeping authority to grant indulgences based on few discernable standards, and with no right for those unhappy with his decisions to appeal them to their elected representatives. It might also be noted that paragraph 2 of the staff report on page 11-2 suggests the ordinance was proposed with an understanding that "As of this writing, the State has allowed retail establishments to reopen with curbside pickup only. Restaurants are permitted to offer pick-up or delivery service, as they have since the start of the stay-at-home order. The State has not yet announced when Orange County restaurants will be permitted to offer dine -in service." All those state and county orders have since changed, so does the City's emergency ordinance need revision, as well? As to the proposed ordinance, the staff report disturbingly and quite confusingly describes (on pages 11-2 and 11-3) a series of features that are simply not part of the proposal. For example, at the top of page 11-3, it says the ordinance allows "for the waiver of parking spaces and/or reconfiguration of parking and circulation areas to accommodate curbside pick- up, take-out windows, and expanded outdoor dining" and that it "allows for extended banner permit durations to advertise modified business operations during this time period." While it is technically true that the ordinance would allow such thing, it is not confined to them. It makes no mention of parking or banners. Instead, Section 2 (page 11-7) gives the Community Development [Department] Director blanket authority "to grant emergency temporary use permits, which allow for the temporary use of private property, parking lots, sidewalks and public property for commercial and religious uses." May 26, 2020, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 10 of 11 What an "emergency temporary use permit" may be is not otherwise defined, but Section 3 (page 11-8) goes further to allow the CDD Director to use these permits, much like the Governor with his emergency executive orders, to suspend any provision of the Municipal Code as well as any condition of any prior permits or regulations. Much like the Governor's emergency powers under state law, that is an extremely broad and ill- defined authority. The proposed ordinance does not explain who is eligible to apply for such permits. Apparently anyone could ask, for example, to operate their private business in the City Hall and the CDD Director is authorized to grant that request if he sees fit. That does not sound like good government to me. It sounds like making up the rules as one goes along — a mechanism ripe for favoritism and abuse. But as to the proposed substance, in Section 2, 1 would suggest the Director be allowed to revoke one of these permits for any reason (not just for violation of a condition). And also, that there be a mechanism for parties impacted by one to appeal, not just the applicant. There should also be a requirement for some publicly -accessible record of the permits that have been issued. Finally, do we really have to imitate Congress in inventing cute names for legislation that aren't really part of the legislation, and seem designed only to shame anyone who might consider voting against them? The "Fast Track Back to Business" ordinance? Really? Is that actually part of the name, or not? Why not label this the "Save America" ordinance or the "Make America Great Again" ordinance? No one could vote against that. Item 12. Ad Hoc Committee on Local Business Advancement Recommendations The Ad Hoc Committee's recommendations are understandable under the circumstances, although it is not clear why, other than tradition, these particular business groups would be singled out for public assistance, and things continued for "just one more year" due to circumstances tend to go on forever. The staff report does not make clear that the primary distinction between the 1989 law" and the 1994 law" is not so much about autonomy and oversight but rather that with the Council's consent and in the absence of an organized protest, a 1989 business improvement district can be created at the request of a small minority of businesses and imposed on all the others, while a 1994 business improvement district cannot be created without at least initial buy -in by a majority of the businesses to be assessed. Continuing the two 1989 BID's for another year means that in what is expected to be a challenging coming year, struggling businesses within their grasp will be forced to pay essentially a double business license fee for benefits that may not be apparent to or even wanted by them. For example, a market in Corona del Mar has to pay into both BID's at the top rate even though neither BID does anything obvious to further their success, and the Restaurant BID actually contracts for services likely to steer potential customers away from them. May 26, 2020, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 11 of 11 Since it is not mentioned in the staff reported, the Ad Hoc Committee may be unaware that per the NBRA BID's April 22 draft minutes, it intended to ask for a $75,000 contribution from the City. The City's reasons are especially obscure for supporting, to the exclusion of others, the two competing merchants associations on Marine Avenue (Balboa Island) and the one in Balboa (Village), all of which, as far as I know, collect no dues or revenue of their own, and exist solely on the basis of City handouts to them. This seems manifestly unfair to merchants in other areas of the City who may be facing similar challenges: McFadden Square, Lido Village, Mariners Mile, Old Newport Boulevard, Dover/Westcliff, Bristol Street, etc. If the City uses taxpayer money to support businesses in Newport Beach, I think it should be through a uniform program, available citywide, tied to neither geography nor business type. With regard to the reference on page 12-5 to the $250,371 of CARES Act funds "earmarked in the 2020-21 CDBG Action Plan" to help and support local small businesses, the 2020-2021 Annual Action Plan approved for submission by Resolution No. 2020-51 on May 12 anticipates, without further explanation, that those funds (whose origin is not identified) will assist only 3 businesses (see page 170).