Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0 - Public CommentsSeptember 24, 2013 City Council Agenda Item Comments The following comments on items on the Newport Beach City Council agenda are submitted by: Jim Mosher ( iimmosher(c-)vahoo.com ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach 92660 (949 -548 -6229) STUDY SESSION Item 4. Land Use Element Amendment- Suggested Land Use Changes Since this does not appear to represent a thoughtful and comprehensive reassessment of the people's vision for the future of their city, it is difficult to see the proposed package of special interest changes to the Land Use Element as anything more than an end -run around the "Greenlight" (City Charter Section 423) provisions, whose presumed purpose was to give residents a chance to vote on the merits of individual projects that significantly exceed the development limits of the current General Plan; and for the developers, rather than the taxpayers, to shoulder the costs associated with processing such deviations. From what I have seen of the matter so far, the intent is further obfuscated by describing the developers' requests in terms of Average Daily Trips added or subtracted, when Charter Section 423 is actually couched in terms of Peak Hour Trips, making it unnecessarily difficult to tell which proposals, if offered separately, would require voter approval. Item 5. Visit Newport Beach - Annual Presentation The agenda does not make it clear if this a voluntary update or a contractually required one. If it is a required report, it would seem like it should be presented and reviewed as part of the regular meeting as well as at a study session. In the absence of any pre- meeting materials to review, I have these comments on Visit Newport Beach: 1. At the Regular Council meeting on July 10, 2012, where advance materials were provided to the public in connection with Item 12 ( "Visit Newport Beach, Inc. (VNB) and Newport Beach Tourism Business Improvement District (NBTBID) Annual Reports ") I was roundly criticized by then VNB Board of Directors Chair Tom Johnson for calling the Council's attention to Line Item 67104 in the financial summary indicating that VNB was proposing to spend $105,000 of the City's Transient Occupancy Tax on an Annual Dinner for the Board of 24 or so Directors. Mr. Johnson said the Council should be looking at Line Item 44200, where the amount listed is $6,000. The latter is in fact the revenue expected from the event (I am guessing from ticket sales or sponsorships), and the former its expense, so the net cost to the taxpayers of the dinner is presumably the difference between those or $99,000. 2. Mr. Johnson also declared that to prevent such unwelcome scrutiny in the future, VNB would bar the public from all future meetings. VNB, as the "Owners' Association" for the TBID, actually has a legal obligation to welcome the public to its meetings whenever it is September 24, 2013 Council agenda item comments - Jim Mosher Page 2 of 4 discussing matters related to the TBID. Arguably all meetings of the VNB Board, and its Executive Committee, deal with matters potentially relevant to the TBID. It was comforting to see the September 4, 2013 meeting of the "TBID Board of Director's" formally noticed on the City website, an apparent first. 3. Aside from the July 10, 2012 reports mentioned above, it is unclear VNB has produced any other of the required reports. Yet the annual report for the TBID, and Council review of it, is required by California Streets And Highways Code Section 36650. 4. Council oversight of the many millions of public tax dollars spent through VNB was supposedly improved by the December 13, 2011 appointment of Dennis O'Neil to the VNB Board /Executive Committee. However a recent Public Records Act request for copies of any communications between the City and Mr. O'Neil yielded a single brief e- mail exchange regarding notification to VNB of items such as a 2012 regional Junior Lifeguards event, which Mr. O'Neil had been unaware of. In the absence of any other disclosable communications it is unclear how the City is exercising its oversight of TOT expenditures through Mr. O'Neil — and as a result of the one communication found, VNB does not appear to have promoted or attempted to capitalize on the 2013 Junior Lifeguards event, or at least it was not publicized on their calendar. 5. Regarding the agenda description of "Newport Beach and Company" (NB &Co) as the "umbrella organization" ( "the area's destination marketing association ") under which VNB falls, my understanding from the VNB Chief Financial Officer is that VNB is, and will continue to be, a separate organization, not in any way under NB &Co. I also understand that NB &Co, although incorporated with the State of California, has not yet received IRS certification as a 501(c)(6). 6. In view of this, I find it curious that VNB (which is an established 501(c)(6)) and NB &Co appear to have the same Board. I also find it curious that the so- called "TBID Board of Director's' consists entirely of the General Managers of the "member" hotels. Normally the members of the board of a non - profit would not be allowed to have a direct financial interest in the organization's activities (a Chamber of Commerce, for example, would promote business generally, and not the specific businesses of its Board members). Yet the entire purpose of the TBID appears to be to generate profit for the Board members and the businesses they work for. It seems odd that generating profit would be a legitimate purpose for a "non- profit." REGULAR MEETING Item 1. Minutes for the August 13, 2013 Study Session and Regular Meeting The passages in italics are from the draft minutes, with suggested changes shown in =«:.- ,,.en,^ t underline format. The page numbers refer to Volume 61. Page 263, last paragraph: "He reported that there is ae a degradation of service by transferring from copper to fiber; however, users would find increased internet speed September 24, 2013 Council agenda item comments - Jim Mosher Page 3 of 4 and service." [note: the "however" phrase would make no sense if there were no degradation] Page 268, last paragraph before "XII ": "... the British Council Consul General..." Page 272, paragraph 3: "... and referenced written eemmunieatfen communications he distributed that offer a solution to the problem." Page 272, paragraph 6: "Tara Riley Tongue Reilly -Tung, representing families living on Aralia Street..." Page 272, paragraph 9: "In response to Mayor Pro Tem Hill's question, Ms. Riley - Peng!ue Reilly -Tung reported..." Page 273, in Motion by Council Member Selich: "... and ei introduce Ordinance No. 2013 -17, ... Page 274, in Motion by Council Member Selich: "... and e) receive and file an annual report ..." Page 279, paragraph 4: "... and suggested that State Controller John Chang Chiang audit the proposals." Page 280, paragraph 8: "...and pointed out that that the City already has a track record with them." Page 282, paragraph 1: "...including the cost of seven new trucks at approximately 250,00 $250,00 each, the total of ,ti r ^ ° taAb.,"h'^s re- establishing service in -house would be $5 million to $6 million." Page 282, paragraph 2: "City Manager Kiff clarified his response to Council Member Refir --4 Selich's previous questions." Page 285, line before Wl ": 42 " [This appears to be a working note accidentally retained in the final draft. The fact that the meeting recessed and reconvened is noted at the correct point two paragraphs later.] Page 286, paragraph after Substitute Motion: "SubsgtiFte Mo4enRetis 5;FC ^):o #eaa -" [This entire paragraph appears to consist of working notes accidentally retained in the final draft. The items noted are all reported elsewhere.] Page 286, end of paragraph 3 from end: "She believed that it is in the public's interest to eliminate the nonconforming use." Page 287, second "amended" motion: 'AFnen•'^-'sUbstifute Substitute motion to the ^,,,otia substitute motion by Council Member Daigle, seconded by Council Member Petros ..." [fhe recording indicates Council Member Daigle referred to her motion as a "Substitute to the substitute," but in the minutes it might be more clearly distinguished from the previous substitute motion by calling it a "Substitute motion to the amended substitute motion" or more simply a "New substitute motion. "] Page 287, sentence after that motion: "The ameneleel substitute motion to the {nation substitute motion carried by the following roll call vote:" [Whatever phraseology is selected in the previous sentence should be repeated here, or alternatively: "Council Member Daigle's September 24, 2013 Council agenda item comments - Jim Mosher Page 4 of 4 substitute motion carried by the following roll call vote:" to distinguish it from the previous "amended substitute motion" by Council Member Selich.] Item 4. City of Newport Beach Energy Action Plan The environmental findings in the staff report seem significantly different from the exemption citied in the resolution itself. I'm not sure I understand why this is. 2. The attachment is a rather lengthy document. It is not entirely clear the degree to which its formal adoption commits the City to executing the specific "Action Steps" cited. Item 8. Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Consolidated Annual Performance And Evaluation Report (CAPER) Program Year 2012 -2013 The same comment applies as when the Action Plan was reviewed by the Council on April 23: if one sets aside the writing of routine loan repayment and publics works reimbursement checks, the administrative fee seems very high compared to the amount of money dispensed for community services. It would seem this program could be administered more efficiently. Item 11. Amending Newport Beach Municipal Code Sections Relating to Piers that Encroach in front of Adjacent Properties and Commercial Indemnity 1. Please see previous comments on earlier versions of this item. 2. Aside possibly from adoption of the indemnity language, Council Member Gardner's recommendation to the leave the review process as it is seems the proper one. 3. The current review process was adopted in 1967 to remove old and unwanted pier encroachments from the harbor in an orderly and minimally intrusive way. The number of ownership changes triggering the review is so small that it has placed very little burden on City staff or on elected or appointed officials. On the other hand, the idea that anyone, including a family, would have a permanent vested immunity to a periodic and perfectly legitimate review of the circumstances of their permit is inconsistent with the City's recent efforts to establish that private use of the public waters is at the discretion of the City, and not by right: the abutting property owners are allowed to rent at the pleasure of the City, they do not own the water. 4. Rather than deleting the review process, the Council would seem better advised to estabfish criteria the reviewing authority could use to decide when an existing encroachment serves a public purpose, and when it does not. 5. The present effort has also drawn attention to NBMC Section 17.60.060(E), which was apparently added by Ordinance 2013 -001 in March as part of the dock fee restructuring. It appears to give commercial dock builders the right to propose docks in front of other people's property with no involvement of those other people. I doubt that it was carefully debated at the time, and it should perhaps be reexamined.