Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0 - Written CommentsFebruary 25, 2014, City Council Agenda Item Comments The following comments on items on the Newport Beach City Council agenda are submitted by: Jim Mosher ( iimmosherlc-)vahoo.com ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach 92660 (949 -548 -6229) STUDY SESSION Item 4. Priority Setting Presentations I continue to see many of the things announced as "coming in 2014" as being staff - selected initiatives, that although they may be inspired by what staff perceives as public desires, have never had any public discussion. For example, I do not recall the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission, or the Council, ever discussing the conversion of tennis or basketball courts to "pickleball." The same could be said of nearly all the other programs described in the PowerPoint posted in advance of the meeting. Staff seems to be more announcing its direction for 2014 than asking the Council, or anyone else, for advice. Item 5. Business License Requirements and Real Estate Agents The PowerPoint posted in advance of the meeting calls attention to Title 5 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code which, quite aside from the question of Real Estate Agents, seems to include extraordinarily broad definitions of the kinds of organizations and activities that need to have business licenses. In view of the previous year's Council priority to clean up obsolete, inaccurate and cumbersome provisions, this whole area might merit a more general review. As a slightly irrelevant observation, I notice that in Section 5.04.060 as it presently appears on- line, in the first line of paragraph 2, the word "all' is probably intended to read "shall." REGULAR MEETING Item II.B. Conference with Labor Negotiator (Closed Session) It is good to see the Council recognizing that the scope of discussion allowed under the previous item ( "Public Employee Performance Evaluation ") does not include discussion of compensation, and hence the need for this separate item, during the discussion of which one assumes the employee in question will not be present. Item 1. Minutes for the February 11, 2014 Regular Meeting The page numbers below refer to Volume 61. The passages in italics are from the staff report, with suggested changes shown in sā– ā€¢°c=.,kn *^ t underline format. Note: like everyone else, I make many mistakes. In my suggested corrections to the previous meeting's set of draft minutes, I inadvertently recommended changing "Terry Welsch,' Banning Ranch Conservancy' to 'Welch,' as it now appears near the top of page 439 of the approved minutes. Although the Clerk, and Council, graciously accepted my suggestion, the correct spelling is actually 'Welsh.' February 25, 2014, Council agenda item comments - Jim Mosher Page 2 of 5 Page 448: Since the video shows Mayor Hill was present and presiding for Items II and III, the statement that "Mayor Hill arrived at 5 :36 p.m., Council Member Petros arrived at 5 :45 p.m., and Council Member Daigle arrived at 5 :50 p.m." would seem to belong after the "IV. CLOSED SESSION - 5:20 p.m." heading rather than before it. That is, Mayor Hill was apparently absent from the closed session from 5:20 to 5:36, but present before that. Page 448, under Item III, line 4 from end: "... where Council entered into negotiations with Michael Meesim Mooslin ..." [note: the name was being quoted from the February 12, 2013, Closed Session agenda (Item II.A)] Page 450: In view of the confusion expressed by Council Member Daigle at the bottom of the page about when consent calendar items can be pulled, it would seem that in future agendas it might be helpful to add to the Section XIII heading the words: "Xlll. CITY COUNCIL ANNOUNCEMENTS OR MATTERS WHICH COUNCIL MEMBERS WOULD LIKE PLACED ON A FUTURE AGENDA OR PULLED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR (NON - DISCUSSION ITEM)," although even that does not completely correct the awkwardness with which this item has been handled since the public was denied the right to ask for separate discussion of consent calendar items. Page 453, paragraph 3 from end: "She stated there has never been a policy discussion in relation to this matter and suggested inserting "desires, " in terms of if the City "desires" to have this policy; it could consider and discuss it at a future date." [delete semicolon] Page 455, paragraph 2 under Item 5: "He added that it is backed by Democrat Democratic and Republican Mayors alike and is fully consistent with the direGtiens being imposed direction we have been going, does not impose on anyone and is done through collective bargaining units." [note: the words in red are the ones used by Council Member Curry per the video. Arbitrarily substituting "Democrat" for "Democratic" could be viewed as a partisan effort to demean members of one party, and in any event, since municipal politics are supposed to be non - partisan, party affiliations should play no role in City decision making.] Page 456, paragraph 5: "City Manager Kiff responded affirmatively adding that it will be seen in the reports from the Building Department mperU and the budget reconciliation at the end of the year. He added this is a qualification -based selection, not a low -bid selection and explained each." Page 456, line 4 from end: "Jim Mosher commented on provisions in the Brown Act intendin intended to prevent public policy from being discussed in Closed Session." Page 458, paragraph 4, line 2: "In response to Council Member Petre Petros' inquiry..." Page 459, paragraph 5: "Community Development Director Brandt advised that the views presented are conceptual and vas were used as the basis for the environmental document; Page 460, line 3: "He reported that the concerns were 'fluffed" uP off with a statement that the EIR is only about legislative proposals and that it is not about the specific project ..." Page 460, paragraph 2 from end: "Mayor Pro Tem Selich stated the that he is impressed with the work the applicant has done ..." February 25, 2014, Council agenda item comments - Jim Mosher Page 3 of 5 Page 462, paragraph 1 under Item 12: "... and reported that the various components of the proposed program is are contained within the staff report." Page 463, line 3: "He asked that in the future, they be kept apprised of plans and activities and that members are notified timely en of meetings so that they have an opportunity to review the plans and provide comments." Page 463: There is some lack of clarity as to how the motion adopted relates to the six "strategies" listed in the attachment to the staff report. For example, the specific reference in the motion to a "Resident Preferential Parking Program (RP3) for Streets between 7th Street and Adams Street" is presumably intended to refer to "Strategy 6," but in the attachment, that strategy calls for a "Residential Permit Parking Program." It is even less clear if the direction "to establish the Balboa Village Parking Management Plan and Overlay District" encompasses all five of the remaining strategies, or just some of them. Page 464, last paragraph: "Additionally, he reported reading the FHWA (Federal Highway Administration) manual and ... discussed the context of sensivriit7 sensitivity and livability and noted this is one of those roadways where accessibility and mobility must be analyzed." [note: Mayor Pro Tern Selich seems to have been correctly quoting the words "sensitivity and livability" from the paragraph above Figure 2 -5 on page 6 of the Highwav Functional Classification Concents. Criteria and Procedures manual (2013 edition)] Item 3. Introduction of Ordinance No. 2014 -5 Regarding Sound Amplification Permits Since the purpose of the Newport Beach Municipal Code is to serve the people, I find it rather extraordinary that a new law would be introduced on the Consent Calendar, meaning staff expects it to be subject to no discussion by the Council. This particular example seems particularly extraordinary since I do not recall the Council requesting a new law of this sort, nor does the staff report provide any concrete examples of the problem it purports to solve. Instead, this seems to be an example of staff generating policy which may or may not be a priority of the Council or the people in general. That said, the idea that the issuance of sound permits, and the determination of compliance with them, is administered by the Finance Director (which seems to be part of the existing code) seems odd to me, since it is not an area in which a Finance Director would be expected to have any expertise. Item 4. Back Bay Landing, Second Reading Having not carefully read the EIR, in reviewing the minutes of the previous meeting at which it was certified I was surprised to see the applicant's reference to the "EIR Rejected Alternate Access Alignment' (Draft Minutes, page 458, third full paragraph from end). I am not sure what this refers to, and if it entails the possible extension of the proposed public waterfront promenade along the entire waterfront, so that it connects directly to the Newport Dunes waterfront instead of via Bayside Drive ā€” something the applicant's lawyer said was "infeasible" because the waterfront trail was interrupted by a "private" beach. Whatever the EIR may say, I February 25, 2014, Council agenda item comments - Jim Mosher Page 4 of 5 think this is a coastal access issue which has not yet been fully explored, and in view of the applicant's creative solution for getting the public over the dry-stack boat launch waterway, it is difficult to see how getting pedestrians and bikers over or around a private beach would be ,.unfeasible." [note: I have not reviewed the ordinances or PCDP attachment] Item 5. Balboa Pier Parking Rate Modification 1. The attached Resolution No. 2014 -16 would seem to be an entirely new resolution, so the significance of the red - lining shown in it is unclear. Has the Council seen an earlier version that this is a variation of? 2. Resolution No. 2013 -33, as signed, doesn't seem to be "unclear" (as stated) regarding the holiday rates for RV's and buses at Corona del Mar State Beach. It clearly states RV's are $100 per day and buses are not allowed, which would be more accurately described as a screw -up compared to what was apparently intended ($25 for RV's and $50 -100 for buses). The new resolution fails to clarify if the "corrected" holiday rates are intended to apply, like those at the Balboa Pier, only on the actual holiday, or for the entire holiday weekend. It would seem the public has a right to know what the Council's intention is. 3. The resolution also fails to clarify what criteria the City Manager is expect to use in exercising his new authority to "annually increase or decrease Zone 29 hourly and daily maximum parking rates." Is this supposed to be pegged to inflation? Or is it part of a plan to circumvent the Coastal Commission by raising rates the maximum allowed without a new permit each year? 4. 1 previously submitted some written comments to the Coastal Commission in connection with their hearing on this matter at their January 8, 2014, meeting, which I think remain largely valid, including the decreased convenience to parking lot users (compared to the current pay -on -exit system), and the question of why existing signs should indicate the public cannot cross the beach to get to the state waters between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m. even though the parking lot is open. I note that on page 5 of the CCC's "Notice of Intent to Issue Permit" prohibits any new signs suggesting access to the beach is limited. 5. 1 find the CEQA finding in the new resolution questionable since, as the Coastal Commission recognizes, a change in parking rates is likely to alter usage levels and patterns. Item 7. Amendment to Agreement with Urban Crossroads for Traffic Impact Analysis 1. It is good to see this matter before the City Council, although the staff report fails to make clear why Policy F -14 triggers a need for Council approval (likewise for Item 8). Apparently in this case, although the request for a $99,800 expenditure is within the City Manager's signing limit, when combined with earlier approvals the $321,400 total is not. 2. Not knowing what is involved in performing a computer traffic "analysis," I don't know if these are reasonable fees to be charged over less than a year, but if the new task only involves putting data into a computer model and recording the results, they seem very February 25, 2014, Council agenda item comments - Jim Mosher Page 5 of 5 high to me; and if the City has purchased a model, it is unclear to me why City staff could not be using it interactively at a much lower cost. 3. The staff report fails to make clear the significance of the words "with Airport Settlement Agreement," which figure so prominently in proposed Tasks 16 -18 (for which taxpayers will be paying $66,000) mean. The public, to the best of my knowledge, has not been told how the presence or absence of an Airport Settlement Agreement would affect traffic. Is an analysis "without Airport Settlement Agreement" also needed for some purpose? And if so, would it cost extra? Item 10. Water Taxi and Multiple Vessel Mooring System I have no objection to this item, but my understanding of City Council Policy A -6, as amended May 14, 2013, is that staff is not supposed to spend time preparing agenda reports on matters other than those the City Manager deems necessary for the normal operation of the City, unless instructed to do so by a vote of the full Council. In the present case, staff appears to feel they have been instructed, either directly or indirectly, by the Mayor to ask the Council to consider making certain changes to our harbor infrastructure. Although I feel it is a somewhat silly and unnecessarily restrictive policy, my reading of Section C.3.13 of Policy A -6 is that all that should appear on the present agenda is a vote as to whether the full Council would like staff to prepare a staff report. If so instructed, a report resembling the present one, and a vote on it, would come back at a future meeting. That said, a staff report with recommendations to explore implementation of the Mayor's ideas appears to have been prepared with minimal staff time, and I would like to offer the following comments on it: 1. I don't think this should be on the Consent Calendar, where the public will not hear the views of the remaining Council members on these issues. In particular, I am pretty sure the ad hoc committees that the Harbor Commission is being asked to form will be looking to the Council for direction as to the range of possibilities they are expected to explore, and conversely, avenues they should not waste time pursuing. Without a full and regular discussion of this item, they will have no sense of what the Council might want. 2. As an example, the staff report "Abstract" suggests that consideration of the Multiple Vessel Mooring System (MVMS) concept should be confined to the double -point mooring fields ā€” yet that limitation is not further elaborated upon in the body of the report, and the example of an existing MVMS provided in the attachment is said to be in the single -point mooring field. Likewise, the staff report suggests the evaluation of water taxi options should be limited to "green, electric" alternatives. My understanding of the Mayor's public remarks, as reported on the City website, was that electric taxis were a possibility, but not a requirement. Without discussion, the ad hoc committees will be unable to tell if what they see in the staff report are staff or Council limitations on their work.