Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0 - Public Comments"RECEIVED AFTER AGENDA PRINTED- "E),i3L) G 0011 mol—))u & ZS_l3 June' 25, Z =01'3 bouncil Agenda Item Comments The following comments on items on the Newport Beach City Council agenda are submitted by: Jim Mosher (Llm_ma,herCa7yahoo.com ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach 92660 (949 -548 -6229) Item 1. Minutes for the June 11, 2013 Meeting The draft minutes appear accurate, so these are comments on the activities reported in the minutes, rather than suggested corrections to them. 1. On page 189, Item 1, paragraph 3: a. I believe the statement that the ad hoc committee "interviewed over 30 candidates" for appointment to the City's boards and commissions may be an exaggeration. They committee have reviewed that many applications, but according to the Clerk's records only about 19 appear to have been scheduled for in- person interviews. b. I believe it would be useful for the committee to hold the interviews at noticed public meetings, so that interested members of the public can also get a feel for the candidates. If the candidates are uncomfortable with that, they are probably poor candidates since if appointed they will be expected to work in public. 2. On page 199, in the last line, regarding the Mobilitie application to erect a telecommunications "obelisk" on Newport Coast Drive, the statement by the Mobilitie representative "that Sage Hill School was also evaluated, but it was determined that it would not meet t he required coverage area" is surprising since the staff report indicated the site would have been suitable but the School was not receptive to working with the applicant. Item 3. Temporary Closure of Selected Streets and Parking Lots for the July 4th Holiday Period 1. Under "Funding Requirements" on the first page, it is not entirely clear to me what the $15,000 impact quoted in the report refers to. a. Is that the cost of the entire police effort, or just that connected with enforcing the restrictions? b. One assumes that if the paid parking Superior /PCH lot were open it would be full. Does the fiscal impact estimate include the lost parking revenue? 2. 1 have observed that the Superior /PCH lot has been closed on other holidays, such as Memorial Day. a. When the Coastal Commission approved the development of the lot, were they made aware parking might not be allowed on holidays? b. What is the plan in future years when Sunset Ridge development has been completed? I believe the Coastal Commission had the impression parking would June 25, 2013 Council agenda item comments - Jim Mosher Page 2 of 6 be available at all times. Will the park and /or lot in fact be closed on the July 4th and perhaps other holidays? Since it is planned as a family friendly park, closing the park would seem inconsistent with the "family friendly 4th" concept. 3. Finally, some may be surprised to hear that the City's designation "destination marketing" contractor, Newport Beach & Company, mentioned at a recent presentation in the Civic Center Community Room that one of their strategic goals was to make Newport Beach the epicenter of 4th of July activity in Southern California, their current effort being enlarging the size and duration of the Newport Dunes event, but with no mention of the City Council Policy B-12 agreement giving Newport Beach residents free access to the fireworks show. The effort to reclaim Newport Beach's title as epicenter of 4th of July activity seems at odds with the City's recent efforts in the opposite direction. Item 6. Request for Support of Boundary Line Agreement between 2808 Lafayette Property, LLC and the State Lands Commission This seems a complex issue with competing private and public interests. In my view, the open - ended endorsement of the private property owner's request is overly broad, and until the details are worked out, it is not clear to me that the precedent it might set will be in the best interest of all harbor users, whether they be boaters or those who might want to enjoy the long envisioned (but still non - existent) continuous publicly accessible harbor front boardwalk. Item 7. Police Department Computer Aided Dispatch /Records Management System (CAD /RIPS System) This is a large contract and on -going commitment, but aside from noticing the misplaced end of parenthesis in the agenda announcement (corrected above) I have not had time to review it, and do not expect to have time to do so before written comments on the agenda are due. Item 10. Amendment to the Santa Ana Heights Residential Equestrian District I seem to recollect that at the community meeting at the Santa Ana Heights Fire Station, some residents felt continuing the permit requirement might be desirable to ensure that lots with multiple horses are kept in compliance with health standards. Although the proposed ordinance maintains the current standards (handwritten page 28), those residents might possibly be concerned by the deletion on handwritten page 27 of the expectation of annual inspections by Vector Control and Environmental Health and other requirements. Is it planned that administrative procedures will be put in place to ensure the original intent is achieved, or is non- systematic complaint -based enforcement now regarded as-sufficient? Item 11. Marine Avenue Business Improvement District FY 2012 -2013 Annual Report Regarding Item "5) Surplus Carryover from Fiscal Year 2012 - 2013," 1 am unable to find anything in the California Streets and Highways Code that would justify the BID Board selling or donating June 25, 2013 Council agenda item comments - Jim Mosher Page 3 of 6 the remaining BID assets to a non - profit of its choice. On the contrary, the Streets and Highways Code seems clear that on the disestablishment of a business improvement area, all assets held by the City in trust for those assessed are supposed to be liquidated and the proceeds proportionately returned to those who paid the levies. In the present case, the situation is clouded by the City having added a substantial amount of public General Fund monies to the pot, but it would seem the principle still applies. It is also unclear to me that the selected recipient, the Balboa Island Improvement Association, a 501(c)4 "Civic League/ Social Welfare Organization," can legally operate the former BID website marketing select merchants. Item 12. Balboa Village Business Improvement District FY 2012 -2013 Annual Report My comment is essentially the same as on the previous item. Although donating assets back to the City is commendable, I believe the part that derived from BID levies is supposed to be liquidated and returned to those who paid in. The plan to donate the website to an as- yet- to -be- determined organization is similarly problematic, since it is less than clear that website will continue to benefit all of those who paid in. Item 13. 2013 Drinking Water Quality Report on Public Health Goals I could be wrong, but I don't recall this state - required report, or the data it reports on, having been reviewed by the Water Quality /Coastal Tidelands Committee. Staff's conclusion that the cost of action would not be justified by the benefits is probably correct, but it would seem like that should have been reviewed by the citizens who will be impacted by that decision. Item 14. Use Fees at the Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve I wholeheartedly agree with the recommended action, but have to question how the presence of this item on the present agenda squares with the newly adopted City Council Policy A -6. That policy now requires the Council to request a vote at a subsequent meeting to decide whether it wants to put an item on the agenda following that. Although the new A -6 allows the City Manager to put items on the agenda "in the course of operating the City," this policy statement does not seem an item normal or essential to operating the City. Alternatively, if the City Manager had a sense that a majority of the Council would have wanted this on the agenda, it is difficult to see how that consensus could have been detected without violating the Brown Act. This is not to object to the item, but rather to suggest the new Policy A -6 is silly and unworkable. Item 15. Renewal of the Corona Del Mar Business Improvement District (BID) for Fiscal Year 2013 -2014 I continue to think City staff is completely misreading the clear language of the California Streets and H_ighway_s Code under which the BID (really a "business improvement area," not district) exists. June 25, 2013 Council agenda item comments - Jim Mosher Page 4 of 6 1. The purpose of the "Parking and Business Improvement Area Law of 1989" (S &H Sec. 36500 et seq.) is to revitalize physically blighted areas, which I don't think is really the purpose of either of the two BIDs up for renewal on the present agenda. 2. The code does not merely "authorize," it requires the city council to appoint an advisory board; but aside from allowing appointments to be limited to those levied, it does not otherwise specify the mechanism for the appointments, or the terms of service. In view of that the reasonable expectation is the Council would fall back on the direction given to it by the people in the City Charter, which in Article VI1 instructs the Council on the procedures to follow when they need to appoint an advisory board. The Charter calls for four year terms which, prior to Measure EE, were supposed to be staggered. Nothing in the Streets and Highways code contradicts or pre -empts this. 3. Contrary to what the staff report implies, what is being renewed is not the BID (or BIA), but the levy for the coming year. 4. The Streets and Highways code is also silent on whether the City can contract out the administrative functions necessary to implement the recommendations of the advisory board, but if it chooses to do so, having the same body (the BID Board) serve as both the advisor and the administrator seems unwise to me. 5. I think the staff report would have been more useful, in allowing the public to weigh the merits of renewing the BID, to have provided some indication of the number of businesses that will be assessed, and the approximate dollar range of the individual assessments. 6. It would also seem useful to explain why the BID board members, spending and making recommendations for the spending of other's money, are not subject to the normal FPPC rules of disclosure and recusal from conflicts of interest. BID board members actively promoting and voting on projects specifically benefitting their own businesses, possibly to the detriment of others, should raise red flags. 7. With regard to the accomplishments cited in the Annual Report, I don't know if "the annual business membership promotional publication called the Directory' (mentioned under "Marketing Campaigns and Collateral Materials" on page 3) is the same as the on- line Business Directory on what the % says is the BID website ( http.ltwww.cdmviliage.com ), but I note the latter lists 173 businesses, some of which appear to be in the BID area, and others not. The on -line Directory also appears to omit a number of the businesses levied, including several of the nominees for the BID Board. 8. Regarding the nominees, it is puzzling that one of them, Mr. Svalstad, may pay the levy, but does not appear to actually own a business in the district. Although the City's business license database gives the address of his - B.P.S. Newport Financial" as " "2865 E Coast Hwy," that seems out of date. The aforementioned BID Directory lists two addresses: "260 Newport Center Drive" (business) and "1717 Bayadere Terrace" (mailing), neither of which is in the BID area. June 25, 2013 Council agenda item comments - Jim Mosher Page 5 of 6 Item 96. Renewal of the Newport Beach Restaurant Association Business Improvement District (BID) for Fiscal Year 2093 -2011 My comments on this item (technically the "Newport Beach Restaurant Improvement District') are much the same as on the previous item. In addition: 1. It was refreshing to see, at recent BID Board meetings concerning the formulation of a Strategic Plan, that the problem of involuntarily assessing food - serving businesses (such as supermarkets, gas stations, and fast -food chains) that derive little or no benefit from most BID activities may eventually be addressed, although I see little of that in the present staff report. 2. It might be noted that although the BID Board may have seen bits and pieces of the Annual Report, to the best of my knowledge they never publicly reviewed, or approved, the final product being presented to the City Council, which I understand was prepared by an outside consultant hired by the City with General Fund monies. Item 97. Ground Lease by and between the City of Newport Beach and the Girl Scouts of Orange County for a Portion of farina Park Although I appreciate that the Girl Scouts are a wonderful organization, I have some misgivings about dedicating public land, essentially permanently, for private use at, essentially, no cost. 1. Are the Girl Scouts really unable to pay? 2. Are there not many other equally worthy organizations that would like a City- provided location? 3. My understanding, possibly incorrect, is that the existing Girl Scout House has been used more for adult leadership activities than for actual scouting purposes involving scouts. If correct, what guarantees are there that the new facility will, for the next 50 years, be any different? Item 96. Appointments to the Land Use Element Amendment Advisory Committee Regarding the applicants, who appear to have been interviewed, the Council should be made aware that one (Mosher) is a known troublemaker. Item 99. Consulting Services Related to an Amendment to the General Plan Land Use Element 1. It seems hard to believe that only one firm was interested in bidding on this project. 2. It seems equally improbable that the most probable estimated cost of providing these services has been thoughtfully determined to be $499,995.00 as opposed to the slightly June 25, 2013 Council agenda item comments - Jim Mosher Page 6 of 6 rounder $500,000. Although it seems to have become a part of our culture, I would think the Council, and public, do not need to see deceptive pricing. 3. Regarding the proposed Scope of Services, assuming the intention is to maintain the City's General Plan as a coherent, interconnected whole, can't it be reasonably anticipated that significant changes to the Land Use Element are going to require changes to other sections? Is the consultant expected to address that problem, or will it be handled separately? Item 20. Appointments to Boards and Commissions Although the staff report suggests "The process to fill the vacancies shall be followed in accordance to Council Policy A -2," as the June 11 staff report indicated, the Council may actually be waiving parts of Policy A -2. In particular: 1. Some of the nominees for the Building and Fire Board of Appeals would, if appointed, be serving more than two consecutive four -year terms. 2. Laird Hayes, if appointed to the Parks, Beaches & Recreation Commission, would presumably be expected to resign his current seat on the Water Quality /Coastal Tidelands Committee. Item 29. CITY INSURANCE RENEWALS Please see my comments submitted to the June 24, 2013, meeting of the Council's Finance Committee. Primarily: 1. 1 think it would be helpful for the public to better understand the claim history that has caused carriers to become hesitant to offer policies with a $500,000 per occurrence "deductible." 2. One wonders if a different broker might have found carriers offering comparable policies with lower premiums?