Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout00 - Written CommentsReceived After Agenda Printed May 11, 2021 Written Comments May 11, 20213 City 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 1. Minutes for the April 27, 2021 City Council Regular Meeting The passages shown in italics below are from the draft minutes with suggested corrections shown in strwkeout underline format. The page numbers refer to Volume 65. Page 14, paragraph 5, first sentence: "Council Member O'Neill noted that creating overlay zones does not change the Land Use Element or the General Plan, but applying an overlay to a development project could trigger a Greenlight vote." Comment: I believe the minutes reflect what was said, but what was said does not reflect how Greenlight works, at least as I understand it. Greenlight is triggered by (among other things) the Council increasing limits in the General Plan on the allowed number of housing (as an overlay would presumably do). Council approval of individual projects within the General Plan limits do not trigger Greenlight. Page 17, paragraph 3 from end: "Mayor Pro Tem Muldoon stated flexibility in the location of some of the sites could be beneficial in light of potential geographical restraints caused by Greenlight, and supported an increase at Banning Ranch, Coyote Canyon and other lec-atier� locations, and retaining as many options as possible." Page 17, next to last bullet: "For Banning Ranch, increase the dwelling unit count to 50," Comment: the video indicates this is what Director Jurjis said, but 50 dwelling units would be a major decrease, not an increase. I think he meant to say "For Banning Ranch, increase the dwelling unit c-oun density to 50 units per acre," Page 18, paragraph 5: "Council Member O'Neill noted the importance of referring to our residents and assured that eve .9 the things Council Member Brenner Dixon listed is are not part of the draft Housing Element, but Council will talk about all of those topics." Comment: This was in response to Council Member Dixon's request for public outreach regarding the Lido Village property owner's request to be listed as an opportunity site. Page 25, paragraph 5, last sentence: "He requested Council direct the applicant to redesign the project to comply with the Loc -al Coastal Act, not reduce parking, and to prepare an EIR." Comment: The speaker did not say "Local" and there is no "Local Coastal Act." Page 25, paragraph 2 from end: "David Tanner referred to his written comments and expressed the opinion that the rooftop deck and the flat roof on the residential building are not allowed, the project impacts public coastal views, staff and the Planning Commission determined the project is consistent and approved the findings, the Coastal Commission approved the findings, Council has to interpret the LCP, the project is not consistent with the LCP, the resolution and findings are not accurate, ..." Comment: The video confirms this is what Mr. Tanner said, but I believe he meant to say "the Coastal Commission approved the policies" (and the Council has to interpret them). May 11, 2021, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 2 of 2 Item 6. Resolution No. 2021-40: Resolution of Intention to Disestablish the Corona del Mar Business Improvement District and Fix the Time and Place of a Public Hearing City staff has historically read many things into the state law governing 1989 BID's that are not there, including details as to how board members are appointed that would override the directions to Council in Article VI I of our City Charter for appointing members to advisory boards. Streets and Highways Code Subsection 36551(a), regarding disposition of assets on disestablishment reads in full: "Upon the disestablishment of an area, any remaining revenues derived from the levy of assessments, or any revenues derived from the sale of assets acquired with the revenues, shall be refunded to the owners of the businesses then located and operating within the area in which assessments were levied by applying the same method and basis that was used to calculate the assessments levied in the fiscal year in which the area is disestablished." Staff has somehow (top of page 4 of the staff report) found in this a state directive that "Per the 1989 Law, physical assets of the BID may be donated to a non-profit or sold." As best I can tell, there is no mention in the 1989 law of "physical assets" or "non -profits" other than the mention above, acknowledged by City staff, that "revenues derived from the sale of assets acquired with the revenues" are to be refunded to those assessed. The most straightforward reading of that is that there is no option for disposing of the assets at less than their value (and hence without generating revenue). The staff report is unclear on how Visit Newport Beach, currently a taxpayer -funded enterprise, intends to use the holiday decor. Assuming they intend to continue decorating PCH through CdM, it is laudable they would want to take this over, how could they justify the continuing expense of decorating a single part of the city? Also glossed over in the staff report is the fact that a substantial part of the BID's revenues in its last year of operation came from the City General Fund and not from assessments on members. In effect, the City was the largest assesse. At the BID Board's last meeting it was explained that those were COVID-relief related funds that were segregated and separately spent, so any remaining funds derive from the members and should be refunded to them. While there is a logic to that, it seems it should at least be mentioned. Item 7. Resolution No. 2021-41: Resolution of Intention to Renew the Newport Beach Restaurant Association Business Improvement District, Levy Assessments in FY 2021-22 and Fix the Time and Place of a Public Hearing While I respect the efforts of the BID board, if interest in the BID and its activities is evidenced by attendance at its required annual meeting open to the full membership, the level of interest is low. I do not support its renewal. I suspect its mandatory assessment on those in the food serving industry is, for most, more of a burden than a gift.