Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout00 - Written CommentsReceived After Agenda Printed June 22, 2021 Written Comments June 22, 2021, 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 June 8, 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 59, paragraph 2, sentence 1: "In response to Council Member Duffield's questions, Community Development Director Jurjis advised that affordability is based on a family of four and the average income for the County, the Average Area Median Income (AMI) for Orange County is roughly $100,000, very -low income is $50,000, moderate income is $100,000, ..." [Note: AMI, as used by HCD, stands for "Area Median Income." The video shows what was said was "average" and then "median" (and then "point in the middle" to explain what "median" means). "Average" is different measure of a "point in the middle" and there is no such thing as an "average median." As to the numbers quoted, it would be remarkable if the AMI for Orange County were precisely $100,000. HCD's tables put the official number for a family of four in Orange County at $103,000 starting in April 2020 and $106,700 starting in April 2021.] Page 60, paragraph 2 from end, end of line 8: delete comma after "Listen and Learn sessions". Page 61, paragraph 3: "Council Member Dixon suggested the solution is a 60/40 mix of market - rate and affordable housing, the number for the Airport Area can be reached by adjusting the percentage with a few more hundred market -rate units�tafi: Staff adjusted the Airport Area number so that market -rate units subsidize affordable units;. _She supported listing ADUs at 1,500 units, scheduling a Council discussion relative to the inclusionary ordinance sooner rather than later, and delaying submission of the draft Housing Element." Page 62, Brenner, bullet 1: "Utilized slides to highlight her meeting with State Senator Dave Min and George Lesley at the Field of Honor and their discussion about local issues; ..." Page 68, first full paragraph, sentence 2: "After discussing whether the existing BID €ups funds could be used to form a 1994 BID, everyone agreed that existing BID funds could not be used for this purpose." Page 68, full paragraph 2, sentence 1: "Council Member Dixon reiterated that during the meeting, a path forward was identified related to the disposition of existing funds, and the information was new and had never been discussed publicly, stated that approximately 90% of restaurants participate in the NBRA BID and its meetings, .." [Note: I believe this is what was said, but as the only member of the public (and City staff, for that matter) to have regularly attended City BID Board meetings for the past 10 years or so, I can testify that while 90% of food vendors in Newport Beach may have paid their assessment to the NBRA BID, participation in the board meetings other than by currently - appointed board members has been essentially non-existent. In fact, there have been many times when the board had difficultly mustering even a quorum of its own members. The only June 22, 2021, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 2 of 5 meetings at which a handful of non -board members showed up were the required annual meetings, especially the one held a few years ago on a Hornblower Cruise vessel. It also seems important to understand that many of the food vendors assessed to support the NBRA BID are not what the general public would regard as "restaurants" and receive little or no benefit from it. Although the creation of the BID may have been originally well-intentioned, it evolved into something where the elite administer a program for the benefit of the elite, subsidized by those without the time or energy to protest. This is exemplified by what seems to be a new belief among many that the BID exists primarily to support a "Restaurant Week." Restaurant Week, although coordinated by the BID, was, however, originally a separate function with a separate budget, funded entirely by those who wished to participate, and not by the general assessments.] Page 68, full paragraph 4: "In response to Mayor Avery's questions, Mr. McClain believed the LABRA is essential to the destination and helping restaurants with employees and marketing, pledged to ensure that a new organization thrives and moves forward within a year, and stated a loan from Newport Beach & Company is a possibility." [Note: On short notice, the existing NBRA BID board held a special meeting on June 16 to consider proposals from City staff and Newport Beach & Company for disposition of the $80,000 expected to remain in the BID's bank account on July 1 (see audio recording promptly posted in response to a public Records Act request). The options included: (1) returning the money to the current year's assessment payers and the approximate rate of $450 each; (2) giving $40,000 to NB&Co to put on a Restaurant Week in 2022 and returning the rest; or (3) giving the entire $80,000 to NB&Co for a year of general marketing and a 2022 Restaurant Week. Somewhat surprisingly in view of present and past board members' pleas to the Council on June 8, a 5:3 majority of the board members in attendance on June 16 found the $450 of option 1 more valuable to them than anything NB&Co could do with the money. It might also be noted that the authority of the BID Board to approve any of these options without further direction from the City Council seems questionable since: (1) they are supposed to be solely an advisory (not an administrative) board, and (2) none of these options were disclosed in the current year's plan as approved by the Council. Moreover, it is unclear the distribution plan is equitable since most of the remaining funds appear to result from a stockpiling of prior year's assessments (and perhaps even City General Fund contributions) and may not have been paid in by those to whom the money is being "returned."] Page 68, paragraph 3: "Council Member Blom commended staff's preparation of the budget and the Finance Committee's detailed review, and indicated balancing the budget is always important, with a budget of approximately $300 million, $32,000 variance is not a variance at all, many cuts have been proposed to balance the budget, ..." [Note: Although from the video the word spoken sounds like "variant," this seems to have been a reference to the table on page 19-6 of the staff report (see also Slide 4 in staff's presentation) where $31,975 is highlighted as a "variance" in proposed versus projected ending unrestricted fund balance. The suggested phrasing is from the video.] June 22, 2021, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 3 of 5 Page 73, paragraph 2 from end, last sentence: "Community Development Director Jurjis added that the resolution extends the existing permits to September 6, 2021 without review, however, after September 6, 2021, businesses will have to submit a new permit application for review by staff." [Note: The minutes accurately reflect the confusing statements made both orally and in the staff report about what restaurant owners will have to do "after September 6" to maintain outdoor dining. Since the temporary permits are proposed to end on September 6, 1 assume that to legally continue such activity uninterrupted on September 7 and beyond, they will have to apply for and get approval for a more official permit well before the September 6 ending date.] Page 74, Item 22, paragraph before motion: "City Clerk Brown announced that Sharon Wood received four votes, so it would be appropriate to waive the portion of City Council Policy A-2 regarding service on only one standing Board, Commission or Committee." [Note: The Clerk may also wish to make the same correction to the motion. Incidentally, the Mayor forgot to invite public comment prior to the vote on the appointment of a City representative on the Visit Newport Beach Executive Committee. Had he done so, I would have informed the Council that I have the "experience in tourism or hospitality industry' preferred of appointees (and I'm not sure Ms. Wood does): I spent the entire summer of 1965 working the late-night shift as an assistant dishwasher at the just -opened and then ultra -chic Century Plaza Hotel in West LA. Had the Council known this, the outcome may have been different. They may wish to reconsider their vote...] Item 10. Amendment No. One to Grant Agreement with BVMA, Inc. for COVID-19 Economic Relief Funding Support The staff report glosses over the fact that, according to the minutes of the June 23, 2020, meeting, after narrowly approving the $40,000 grant to the Balboa Village Merchants Association, the Council narrowly denied a similar request for $20,000 from the Balboa Island Merchants Association. That might, in part, explain why BVMA did not pursue the plan to market BIMA, considering the latter had no new money to contribute to the effort — although according to the minutes both organizations had cash on hand. All of this raises, once again, the question of why merchants in these particular areas are singled out for government largesse, while similarly -positioned merchants elsewhere in the city are not. One also has to wonder if the members of these associations contribute anything themselves to the financing of their initiatives? Or do they consist simply of people volunteering to spend the money given them by the City? Whether giving money to private merchants provides a public benefit is a policy decision for the Council. But if it is good policy, it seems to me it should be applied equally in all areas. June 22, 2021, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 4 of 5 Item 11. Installation of Disabled Transfer Lift at Marina Park It is not entirely clear how this Council member -requested item, with its extremely brief staff report, got on the agenda without going through this Council's Policy A-1 process. Or was it voted on at an earlier meeting not mentioned on in the report? Whatever its origin, the quoted price estimate of "$5,000 to $6,000" (which apparently doesn't include installation or maintenance) seems remarkably low for any kind of City project. Is there a plan for where it would go at Marina Park, what capabilities it should have, who would be authorized to operate it and whether a more expensive model would be needed to free the City of liability for providing equipment that might fail? As the Council is probably aware, the Coastal Commission, at their meeting last Wednesday, expressed a desire to see something similar installed at the County's Harbor Patrol facility, but it sounded more involved than this report would suggest. Item 12. Community Programs and Special Event Grants Recommendations for Fiscal Year 2021-22 At the start of the second line of staff recommendation "b)" (three lines up from the bottom of agenda packet page 12-1) the letter "c" is missing (this error in the staff report seems to have been corrected in the agenda printout for this item). 2. In recommendation "f)" on page 12-3, what is the relationship between the $12,500 carryover being approved there for the Corona del Mar Scenic 5k to the separate $12,500 being requested for approval for the same event in recommendation "e" on page 12-2? a. Are they the same $12,500? Or is the Council being asked to approve a new allocation plus a carryover? b. What was the fate of funds granted for other events (such as the Chamber - sponsored Boat Parade) that were not held due to COVID? What is different about the 5k? 3. On page 12-13, if Item C2 did not apply in FY2020-21, would they not be a new event? Or were they granted funds in an earlier year? Item 15. Resolution No. 2021-62: Proclaiming the Termination of the Local Emergency Declared on March 15, 2020 I applaud the Council's new-found ability to request items of interest appear on the next meeting agenda, as the Brown Act (specifically, Subsection 54954.2(a)(3)) would suggest they should be able to do, although I'm not sure how this item evaded this Council's more cumbersome Policy A-1 process, or what the rush was. More critically, on page 3, under "Fiscal Impact," the staff report says "it remains unclear if the termination of the local emergency will in any way limit the City's access to additional funds from federal or state resources or reimbursements related to the pandemic." June 22, 2021, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 5 of 5 Isn't it critical that this be fully understood before the Council rushes into adopting a resolution that might prevent the City from receiving relief it would otherwise be eligible for? As to the emergency ordinances, and non -emergency resolutions, on page 2 the staff report mentions "On June 8, the Council adopted Resolution No. 2021-58, which automatically extended the emergency temporary use permits for outdoor dining until September 6, 2021, and provided permit holders who wish to continue their permitted outdoor uses the option to apply for a limited -term permit." Although I did not comment on it at the time, I have considerable concern about procedural aspects of the action taken by the Council on June 8: 1. Resolution No. 2021-58 effectively modified Emergency Ordinance No. 2020-005, which clearly stated in Section 7 that the temporary use permits issued under it would expire 14 days after the ordinance is terminated, which, according to Section 11, would happen with the adoption of the presently proposed proclamation. I am not sure when the Council was empowered to use a resolution to amend the provisions of an ordinance, and neither the June 8 staff report nor Resolution No. 2021- 58 explains. If an ordinance was needed to institute the program, it would seem to me an ordinance would be needed to extend it. In effect, Resolution No. 2021-58, like Emergency Ordinance No. 2020-005, suspends enforcement of the existing Municipal Code, and in a situation that is no longer regarded as an emergency. 2. As to that existing Municipal Code, it would seem to me staff will have difficulty approving the applications it receives for the promised "regular" limited term use permits it has invited prior to the (extended) September 6 expiration of the emergency use permits. My reading of NBMC Subsection 20.52.040.E.1.c ("No Similar Activities for Thirty (30) Days") is that a Limited Term Permit cannot be issued under the existing code unless no similar activity occurred at the location for that number of days prior to the requested time. This would seem to disqualify all the existing ETUP holders unless they voluntarily suspend operations for 30 days. Or does staff feel Section 2 of Resolution No. 2021-58 waived that aspect of the Municipal Code as well? Again, can resolutions override regulations adopted by ordinance?