Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout00 - Written CommentsReceived After Agenda Printed May 26, 2015 Written Comments - Consent Calendar May 26, 2015, Council Consent Calendar Comments The following comments on items on the Newport Beach City Council agenda are submitted by: Jim Mosher ( iimmosher(o)vahoo.com ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach 92660 (949- 548 -6229) Item 1. Minutes for the April 28, 2015 Regular Meeting The page numbers below refer to Volume 62 of the draft minutes. The passages in italics are from the draft with amended numbering. Suggested changes are shown in stFikeeut underline format. Note: the draft page numbers are being used for clarity but since the last approved minutes ended on page 291, they appear to be wrong. That is "279" should be "292" and so on. Page 281 (= 294 ?): last paragraph before Item HE "Additionally, she suggested developing an audit a performance audit process, an internal audit process, and a budgeting process." Page 283: paragraph 2: "She requested placing consideration of contracting out for a third - party performance and process an audit of the Civic Center on Council's next agenda." Page 283: paragraph 3: "Council Member Curry reported visiting the Normandy landing sites and noted the 70th Anniversary of D Bay VE -Day this month and the 71st Anniversary of the Landing on Normandy next month." Page 283: Item XIV, paragraph 1: "... Jim Mosher requested increased clarity and details regarding how much taxpayers will be contributing towards the BIDS and where in the budget the levies are shown being received and going out." Page 287: Item 15, paragraph 3: "He highlighted information regarding CDBGs within the staff report and commented on the bulk of the money net going towards administration,— but_and towards Balboa Village." Page 288: paragraph 2: "June Mayer Maier, Ebb Tide Mobile Home Park resident, reported..." Page 292: The conversation after the Motion on jetpacks is reported out of sequence. Mayor Selich's comment came between the City Manager's first comment and the City Attorney's comment, not after the City Manager's second one. Not only would the sense of the comments be just as clear if reported in the true sequence (as the City Charter would seem to require), but the text would make a lot more sense when compared to the video. Page 293: paragraph 2: part "a" of the motion near the top of the page seems like describes what preceded the motion, and should not be part of it. Should it be deleted? Page 293: end of motion near bottom of page: "... and b) direct the City Clerk to publish Resolution No. 2015 -34 within fifteen (15) days within of its adoption and at least ten (10) days before the public hearing on May 26, 2015." Page 295: paragraph 3: "Council Member Muldoon stated that the existing threshold of four Council Members discussing an issue is too high but that a free - for -all would be too low." May 26, 2015, Council Consent Calendar Comments - Jim Mosher Page 2 of 7 Page 297: paragraph 7: "John Sturgess clarified that the proposal is to have the City purchase the land and assume the liability, and that nearby residents would lean band together and finance the construction of a low- maintenance, open -space park." Page 297: paragraph 4 from end: "In response to Mr. Sturgess'request, Council Member Curry commented on the an alternate proposal and noted that it would require the City to take on additional debt." Item 3. Amendment to Newport Beach Municipal Code Chapter 14.16 (Water Conservation Ordinance and Supply Level Regulation) Since the public thought an ordinance had been introduced at the Council's last meeting, and would be returning for adoption, it would have seemed helpful for the staff report to have explained why each of the additional changes is being proposed. The second paragraph of the "Abstract" section of the staff report, which may have been intended to do that, is so garbled am unable to make any sense of it. Section 14.16.020 : "Billing unit" is an entirely new definition, but "Base amount' is not. Having all of "Base amount' underlined makes it difficult to tell what is new about this. It appears the concept of a rolling average of periods without drought restrictions is being replaced with a fixed base year of 2013. Section 14.16.070.F: The description of how much water can be used to refill a swimming pool is much less ambiguous than it was, but it is possible the reference to "once per week" could be improved. It would seem to me the intent is to set a reasonable weekly allotment for a pool, equal to the area of the pool times a depth of 6 inches. Whether that amount is reached by adding water once or more than once during a particular week would seem irrelevant to me. The total amount used is evident from the water bill and enforceable. The frequency is not. I would suggest "F. Customers may use no more than six inches per week of potable water to fill or refill a residential swimming pool or outdoor spa ease a week." By comparison, it might be noted that UC Davis ANR Publication 8044 suggests the amount of water needed for maintaining turf grass (I assume in a "green" condition) in coastal Southern California is about 1 inch per week in summer, and a little less than half that in winter, so a pool or spa at the proposed level is using considerably more than landscaping. Section 14.16.080.F: See previous comment. In this case the proposed limit is 3 inches per week (times the area of the pool or spa). Section 14.16.110.C: The proposal here is to add to the "Relief from Compliance" section a new criterion involving residential users of less than 10 billing units per month. Without further explanation it is unclear how this level was chosen or what its intended purpose is. Does being over this level disqualify a property for a waiver? Or does being under it assure one of consideration? I don't follow how it works. May 26, 2015, Council Consent Calendar Comments - Jim Mosher Page 3 of 7 More importantly, I am bothered by the language that is not being proposed for change in the section that precedes this, Section 14.16.110.13, regarding the procedure for applying for "Relief from Compliance." Not only does the existing code refer to the Utilities Department and Utilities Director -- suggesting staff has prepared its redlined version from something different from the existing code -- but under both the existing and proposed code it appears City staff has no authority to grant "Relief from Compliance" under any circumstances unless a written application for relief is submitted within 90 days from the declaration of a shortage. This would seem to me to lack the flexibility needed to deal with people who don't discover they are out of compliance until months after the shortage is declared or who encounter circumstances that changed after the stated time limit. It might also be noted that at the last meeting the Council was asked for direction on adding a blanket exemption from further mandatory reductions for properties below some minimal level of usage. Nothing proposed here seems to address that, although it would seem to be an efficient and paperwork -free method of dealing with people who have already cut back to levels where asking for a further cutback seems unreasonable. Relieving these people of the necessity of applying in writing or facing fines would presumably require adding something to Section 14.16.100 ( "Exemptions "), possibly depending on the number of people in the household. Item 4. Water- Propelled Vessels in Newport Harbor - Code Modification to Restrict and Regulate Operations I have never personally witnessed a JetPack America "flight," so I have to rely on the promotional video Chris Miller showed at the February 24, 2015, City Council Study Session, which certainly seemed to bolster the Harbor Commission's unanimous, and I assume thoughtful, conclusion that jetpacks are not compatible with the existing uses in our 5 mph harbor. My main problem with this is that when, on May 12, four Council members chose to reject what staff thought had been the Council's previous direction to ban jetpacks, and instead voted for an "alternative ordinance," the public, and apparently the Council, thought the alternative ordinance did the several things attributed to it in the staff report. As widely reported in the press, the list provided in the staff report appeared to say the alternative ordinance would, among other things, require annual review by the Council of a permit for a single commercial operator limited to a specific area (the Turning Basin) and hours (unspecified in the staff report). But when the proposed ordinance was op sted, it turned out to contain none of these features other than the ban on non - commercial jetpacks and the approval of jetpack permit(s) by the Council. Now, even the Council review feature has been eliminated without clearly notifying the public that an entirely new proposal has placed on the Consent Calendar. Many might see this as a bait - and - switch. May 26, 2015, Council Consent Calendar Comments - Jim Mosher Page 4 of 7 It is disturbing the ordinance introduced on May 12 did not contain most of the features the May 12 staff report said it contained. It is equally disturbing that the current staff report (or agenda) doesn't clearly inform the public the May 12 is being replaced, or why. It is even more disturbing that the new combination ordinance and policy being proposed for vote does not contain many of the features that seemed pivotal to obtaining the May 12 vote. In particular, neither the ordinance nor the policy appears to restrict jetpack operations to limited hours in the Turning Basin with annual review by the Council. Taking a high profile vote on one thing, then slipping something quite different through for final approval on the Consent Calendar is what many would see as the bait - and - switch. At the very least, if the ordinance gives the permit authority to the Harbor Resources Manager, as the new one does, the Council policy should include clear guidance on permissible locations and hours, as well as a more visible and public annual review of the permit, such as before the Harbor Commission or Council. It might also be noted that since it presupposes the Harbor Code has been rewritten, it seems premature to approve the proposed Council Policy H -6 until those code changes have been adopted, which will not happen at least until the next Council meeting. In other words, if the Council chooses to introduce a new ordinance placing the authority to issue jetpack permits with the Harbor Resources Manager, then the Council needs to discuss the policy that goes with it with direction to bring back a refined policy for adoption at such time as the ordinance is adopted. As currently proposed, the policy does not appear to ensure all the Council's publicly stated objectives will be achieved. Finally, it would seem good for the public to see the extended Marine Activities Permit that the staff report says was recently issued to JetPack America for the next six months, so that whatever conditions it has imposed are known to all, including the exact allowed operating areas and hours. Regarding the companion issue raised in the present staff report about requesting Council feedback on a "trial temporary anchorage" in the Turning Basin, it seems oddly placed on the Consent Calendar. One would assume the Council wants to hear their constituent's thoughts on this, but if it's on the Consent Calendar few even of those in attendance are likely to notice it on the agenda or know when to speak. It might also be noted that it is unclear if the Harbor Commission even has the authority to establish the proposed temporary anchorage without Council approval. Section 17.25.020 of the Harbor Code prohibits boaters from anchoring outside designated areas, and Section 17.05.070 requires the designated areas (of which there is currently only one) to be depicted on Council- approved maps. It is difficult to see how anchoring in the Turning Basin can be allowed even temporarily under the code without the Council informing all boaters of the authorized area's existence by depiction of it on a Council - approved map. May 26, 2015, Council Consent Calendar Comments - Jim Mosher Page 5 of 7 Item 5. Second Reading of Ordinance for Height Overlay District Zoning Code Amendment in West Newport Mesa (PA2015 -047) 1. The final "whereas" on page 2 of the or000sed ordinance being provided for second reading continues to say "A notice of time, place and purpose of the public hearing [on May 26] was given in accordance with the Newport Beach Municipal Code," yet this was noticed as a public hearing, nor does it appear as such on the posted agenda. 2. As Mr. Szecsei points out in Attachment CC -2, the proposed overlay, if adopted, will add an arguably circular and self- contradictory feature to the City's Zoning Code. It will promise readers that overlay districts will not be used to relax the standards found in the underlying zoning "district" (classification, yet then modify the RM "district" so as not to apply in the overlay area. 3. The map provided as Exhibit "A" to the proposed ordinance, although labeled "Height Overlay District," does not, in and of itself, make clear that the boundary of the District is coterminous with the RM properties depicted on it. This might be inferred from the text of the ordinance, but it might have been better to simply provide the revised Zoning Map authorized by Section 1 of the proposed ordinance so the Council and public can see how it is proposed to be shown. I don't think Exhibit "A" is that map. 4. It is not clear from either the ordinance or the map if the Overlay District would automatically expand or contract if the RM designations were changed in the future. Item 6. Resolution Reaffirming Support of Proposition 13 1. This item would seem to be improperly on the agenda in view of the Council's current Policy A -6, which would seem to require a formal vote on whether a majority of the Council wanted staff to spend the time necessary to prepare a resolution. Although changes to Policy A -6 were discussed at the last meeting, I do not recall them being adopted. 2. It would be interesting to know if the initial statement in the "Discussion" portion of the staff report -- that "in California, most properties are assessed at 100% of their "full cash value" as of 1975' -- is correct. At least on my street, I would guess at most 3 of 17 residences enjoy a 1975 base year as the result of having stayed in the same family since 1978. Perhaps "are" should read "were" in the highlighted sentence. In any event, it is curious the staff report says "1976' and the resolution says "1976'. The actual language in the California Constitution (Article XIIIA, Section 2) refers to the "1975 assessment' for the "1975 -76 tax bill." 3. Without further proof I would not accept the conclusion that Proposition 13 has been an unalloyed success for residents, renters and local governments. Not only the voters' intent with regard to commercial properties (the so- called "split roll" issue), but the formulas freezing allocations among agencies into decades -old ratios and the disconnect between current needs and current collections (making tax reductions virtually impossible if a need disappears) are highly problematic. And I think many of the May 26, 2015, Council Consent Calendar Comments - Jim Mosher Page 6 of 7 statements made in the proposed resolution are debatable. For example, is the "WHEREAS" at the top the second page, saying that prior to Proposition 13 voters "had rejected previous attempts to impose higher taxes on small businesses, knowing that these so- called "split roll "proposals would inflict irreparable harm on California's economy," factually correct? What proposal is being referred to? 4. In view of the above, I find it irresponsible for the Council to adopt such a resolution without a thorough public discussion. Items 10 -12: Approval of On -call Contracts I have not had time to review these, but in general I believe City staff has far too many "on- call" arrangements, including nearly all its legal outsourcing which is done "on- call" under supposedly pre- approved contracts with the consequence that neither the public nor I assume the Council knowing what is being spent on what, or who approved it. I believe this seriously undermines the intended contracting checks and balances of the City Charter. The original intent was that on -call contracts would be used in a limited way for very minor work where the dollar amounts were too small to justify individual per -job contracts. One assumes the annual total would also be small. I believe the City has drifted far away from that ideal. Large on -call contracts may be "efficient" for a private business, but without much stronger safeguards I do not think they are appropriate for a public operation supposedly subject to public scrutiny. Item 16. Changes to the Fiscal Sustainability Plan and Finance Committee Administrative Practices It has been my observation that the City undertakes many actions which it later forgets. This is understandable, but the present item is a case in point. 1. The City maintains a page on its website on which it has posted its "15 -Point Fiscal Sustainability Plan," but the page offers no explanation of where it came from or what guiding authority it has. 2. Using the staff report as a starting point, a little research reveals it was adopted by City Council Resolution 2010 -4 supported by a January 12, 2010, staff report. 3. A little further research reveals it was modified by City Council Resolution 2013 -43, changing the original 5% ceiling on General Fund contributions to the Facilities Financing to a 3% floor. But the web page was never modified to reflect this. 4. Perhaps forgetting the 2013 resolution, staff seems to have understandably, but incorrectly, used the out -dated web page as the basis of its current revision. 5. Whether this is the complete history, or not, I can't say, but I do believe that whatever was enacted by resolution can only be changed by a subsequent Council resolution, and not by a simple business vote. May 26, 2015, Council Consent Calendar Comments - Jim Mosher Page 7 of 7 6. 1 would further suggest that after five years the entire plan might merit a more comprehensive reassessment. 7. Finally, if, as the 2013 resolution suggests, this is a "policy of the City Council," one wonders why it isn't in the Council Policy Manual? With regard to the proposed changes to the Finance Committee enabling resolution, the proposed changes seem useful, but I find it hard to believe the Committee recommended these changes at their May 11, 2015, meeting since there was nothing about this on the agenda.