HomeMy WebLinkAbout0 - Public CommentsRECEIVED
Comments on July 24, 2012 City Council '9'NF` j "l VA I0: 00
Comments by: Jim Mosher (iimmosher(a7vahoo . com ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach 92660 (949-
548 -6229) {;, =r� C
T"Ic tal Ty' C,' _F (
c�,9CH
STUDY SESSION
Item 2. Presentation by ExplorOcean
This will presumably be similar to earlier presentations made to various City commissions and
committees. On -going questions are:
0 The architecture of the building seems incompatible with the low -key "village" Design
Guidelines adopted in earlier years. It may also clash with and detract from the area's
current iconic structure, the Balboa Pavilion.
0 The design of the waterfront area may be based on unrealistic assumptions about the
availability of entitlements to develop over the public tidelands.
0 Traffic and parking are obvious unknowns. The difficulty of accessing a remote location
on the Peninsula during the popular summer months would seem to limit the venture's
success; yet if it is as successful as everyone hopes, its success would exacerbate an
already difficult situation.
0 An amenity of this sort would seem more logical at a location more readily accessible to
visitors, such as along Mariners Mile, or at the Museum's old location near the Back Bay
Bridge.
REGULAR MEETING
Item 1. Minutes from July 10, 2012
0 1 have submitted separate written comments highlighting probable typos in these.
Item 4. Complimentary Hotel Rooms Ordinance
0 It is not unprecedented, but it nonetheless seems a bit unusual for an ordinance to be
introduced on the Consent Calendar where it may not be subject to discussion.
Hopefully the Council Members have read the proposal to see that it meets their
expectations.
July 24, 2012 Council Meeting comments by Jim Mosher Page 2 of 4
o The staff report says it will not exempt "rooms that have been exchanged or bartered for
services," however it is not at all obvious to me how that assurance is implemented by
the proposed red -lined insertion of Section 3.16.040(E).
3 The proposed language in fact includes the disturbingly ambiguous phrase that the
classes of "comped" rooms exempted from TOT are those "including but not limited to"
the specific examples cited. At least at first blush this would seem to be an open
invitation for hotel operates to comp and exempt most anything they want.
Item 8. Lido Isle Bayfront Lot Lease
C It is not obvious from the staff report if this proposal, and its consequences for waterfront
uses, has been reviewed by the Harbor Commission. Should it have been?
Item 9. County Dredging agreement
The staff report is confident the County will sign on to this agreement, but that seems to
be based on assurances from staff and one supervisor.
a Is there a "Plan B" if the full board doesn't sign on? Will we offer to fund this segment of
the dredging ourselves? Or will it not be done?
Item 11. Building Inspection and Plan Review Services
G It appears the City is, for unknown reasons, outsourcing one building plan check
position, with that separately hired person working either at City Hall or at a remote
location.
3 This begs the questions of: (1) Is it really desirable to outsource resident - serving
positions? and (2) If it is advantageous to outsource one person, why would it not be
even more advantageous to outsource them all?
o Without further information, it seems fundamentally incompatible with the idea of City -
provided services that some residents might find themselves interacting with an outside
private firm that has been given the authority to approve or deny their plans.
C Beyond that, it would appear to me we are proposing to pay the outside firm more than it
would cost us to perform the same services in- house. I base this on the assumption
that the fee we charge for building plan checking is intended to cover the actual cost of
providing the service.
July 24, 2012 Council Meeting comments by Jim Mosher Page 3 of 4
o According to the recently approved Fiscal Year 2012 -3 budget, the cost to the
City of senior plan check engineers (including all benefits) is about $175,000 per
year or $84 per hour (the range is from $95,260 for the lowest paid technician to
$185,807 for the highest paid principal — that is, $46 to 89 per hour). This would
suggest the labor cost of the plan check fee is about that much (or less,
depending on the level of inspector assigned to the job).
Under the terms of the contract we will be paying the outside firm one -half of the
plan check fee from the developer plus $75 per hour of City funds.
o By my math, the one -half of the plan check fee the City will retain should be
enough to cover about $84/2 = $42 per hour of labor costs. That is insufficient to
pay the contracting firm the $75 per hour we have promised them, so it seems to
me we are losing money on the deal.
o Note: the current Master Fee Schedule indicates a basic building plan check fee
of $142 per hour, which evidently includes costs other than the inspector labor.
is unclear if the outside contractor would be absorbing any of those, but even if
they did, we would still not be retaining enough of the fee to pay the contractor
the promised $75 per hour.
Item 14. Temporary Use of Lower Castaways
a The staff report does not explain if the City has a Coastal Development Permit (CDP) for
this site, and if so if the proposed use is compatible with it? Or does a new CDP need to
be obtained?
• The staff report also does not mention the use of the site by The Irvine Company's
CalRec division, or what entitlement they may have to use the same areas.
• When before the Zoning Administrator, it appeared the parking areas designated for the
two licensees appeared to overlap, so a part of the area was being rented twice.
Apparently that has been corrected.
• This is described as a temporary use, but when considering the request for the land use
permit from the Bayshores residents, the Zoning Administrator asked if the request was
triggered by some unusual amount of building activity in their community. The response
was there was not, so this would seem to be a request for a permanent use by them.
That said, it is unclear if they were actually wanting to pay continuously for 30 spaces at
all times, or were imagining they could pay on an as- needed basis. However that may
be, the dedication of public property for the exclusive use of a small group of individuals
raises questions of equity.
• Dan Purcell has communicated to me an additional concern with why, if it was known
when the Mariners' Pointe project was being considered for approval that there would be
July 24, 2012 Council Meeting comments by Jim Mosher Page 4 of 4
insufficient on -site area to accommodate the construction workers, that was not
mentioned and addressed in the conditions of approval.
Item 15. North Newport Center Planned Community Amendment
U It is unclear to me that the 79 unbuilt hotel units in the Marriott Block 900 /Anomaly 43
would be exactly equivalent in any respect to 79 permanent residential units.
C The number is also suspiciously similar to the 79 the Santa Barbara Condominiums units
to be developed on the Marriott tennis court site. Is it possible these same unbuilt rooms
have been previously "converted" for another use?
U Even if these are different rooms, the 79 unbuilt rooms in Block 900 represent a promise
to provide visitor serving amenities in the Coastal Zone. "Moving" them to San Joaquin
Plaza, which is outside the Coastal Zone, would mean reneging on that promise.
Wouldn't that require an amendment to the City's Coastal Land Use Plan and approval
by the Coastal Commission?
Item 18. November 6, 2012 General Municipal Election
I have multiple problems with this item, and will submit separate written comments on it.
RECEIVED
2412 10 24 °M 2:34
Comments on July 24, 2012 City Council App da
., ur
Comments by: Jim Mosher ( iimmosher(a )vahoo.com ), 2210 Private R',oad;
July 24, 2012 Council Agenda Item 18 comments by Jim Mosher Page 2 of 8
Attachment B: Resolution No. 2012 -68: Consolidation of Council Election
(handwritten page 9)
Note: There is a separate Resolution No. 2012 -71 calling for consolidation of the Charter
Amendment proposition with the General Election. It is unclear why these could not be
combined, or, if they have to be separate, why the boilerplate contents of the two is different.
• For the same reasons mentioned under Resolution 2012 -67, 1 object to the language, in
the first Whereas and in Section 1, saying the Council members are being elected to
"represent" districts, and request that it be changed as described there.
• In Section 2, the request that "only one form of ballot shall be used" does not seem
realistic or practical. I know the ballot used in my precinct differs from that used in other
precincts. I would suggest this be revised to request "a single ballot shall be used"
(meaning that the City is not requesting a separate ballot for the municipal issues).
• The promise in Section 4 "to reimburse the County for any costs" seems overly broad.
The language used in Section 4 of Resolution 2012 -71 ( "to reimburse the County for any
cost attributable to the City's General Municipal Election ") seems better.
o Again, it is unclear both why there are two separate resolutions of consolidation
and why they don't use the same language.
Attachment C: Resolution No. 2012 -69: Regulations for Candidate's
Statements (handwritten page 11)
• The staff report should perhaps alert the Council to the option they have under Elections
Code Section 13307(a)(1) of increasing the allowable length of the candidate's
statements to 400 words.
• However that may be, it is unclear why this resolution is being considered since a similar
resolution was presumably adopted in previous years and would be continuing in effect.
• Should this resolution be required, the provisions regarding charges would appear to
affect future elections, but not the one in November, since under Elections Code Section
13307(e) a change to charges would have to be announced at least seven days prior to
the opening of the nominating period (which has already passed).
• On page 13, in Sections 5 through 8, the introductory "That' in each declaration seems
unnecessary and out of place.
July 24, 2012 Council Agenda Item 18 comments by Jim Mosher Page 3 of 8
Attachment D: Resolution No. 2012 -70: Calling Election for Charter
Amendments (handwritten page 14)
Note: just as one wonders if the two separate resolutions requesting consolidation of elections
could be combined in one, one wonders if this resolution could not be combined with the one
calling for an election on the same day for the Council seats?
G Section 1:
o I do not think combining the 37 proposed revisions to the existing Charter
language into a single measure serves the citizenry well. The compression of so
many proposed changes into a single ballot statement leads to a result which is
inevitably unclear, incomplete, inaccurate and misleading.
Adding to the 37 changes to existing language the new, separate and completely
unrelated issue of a red light traffic camera prohibition is, to me, unconscionable.
I agree with Councilman Rosanky's concerns at the July 10, 2012 City
Council meeting, that the last minute addition of the red light section may
well have violated the Brown Act. The Council had previously announced
that proposals for the ballot measure were to be vetted through a citizen's
Charter Update Committee, and the July 10 agenda said nothing other
than that the Council would be acting to "accept, reject or amend" the
committee's recommendations. The red light proposal is hardly an
amendment to a recommendation of the Committee. Among other things,
those with views on the matter (including those from the red light camera
industry) had no knowledge the matter would be discussed on July 10,
and hence by not knowing they needed to attend that meeting were
deprived their right to inform the public's representatives of their views,
and possibly to influence the language selected. Instead we seem to be
relying on the City Attorney's suggestion that the same language had
already been thoroughly discussed in Anaheim. That is hardly the kind of
carefully announced open public discussion expected in California, and
the idea that the basis of the Council's action is unimportant because the
voters will ultimately have a chance to decide is at best a sorry excuse.
The red light issue should, at the very least, be presented to voters as a
separate proposition.
o The remainder of the proposition is also, in my opinion, poorly thought out, as will
be explained separately, below.
o The proposed statement of the combined proposition consists of 74 words with a
5 word title. Elections Code 10403 says that in a consolidated election what is
printed on the ballot has to follow the statewide rules, which under Section
9051(b) limits the "ballot label" to 75 words, which I think may include the title
July 24, 2012 Council Agenda Item 18 comments by Jim Mosher Page 4 of 8
(otherwise the space limitation could be circumvented by using a very long title) —
and needs to include a financial impact summary. The proposed language does
not appear to comply with those standards.
o Beyond that, I find the wording of the proposed statement strong biased and
prejudicial, in violation of Elections Code Section 9051(c).
o Additional comments on the proposed ballot statement are given at the end of
this document.
a Although Section 2 announces the full text of the amendments is attached to the
resolution, it is unclear if the Clerk is being authorized to order the printing of the full text
of the measure in the sample ballot.
o It is also unclear if the voters are being asked to approve just the crossed out and
underlined changes or, alternatively, are being asked to approve the full attached
text.
This is a less esoteric question than it might at first seem. In 2010 voters
approved (in Measure V) a change to Charter Section 402 -B which
included a statement setting the Council member's reimbursement for
expenses to $441.15 per month — although that was neither crossed out
nor underlined. Was that part of what was being voted on or not?
C The title page to Exhibit 1 is missing the resolution number.
Attachment E: Resolution No. 2012 -71: Consolidation of Charter Election
(handwritten page 31)
Note: see comments on Attachment B, above. The need for two separate resolutions of
consolidation, and the lack of parallelism between them is puzzling.
Section 1: If Attachment B is a guide, this section should begin with something like:
"pursuant to the requirements of Section 10403 of the Elections Code, the Board of
Supervisors of the County of Orange is hereby requested to consent and agree to the
consolidation of a General Municipal Election with the Statewide General election on
Tuesday, November 6,2012, for the purpose of placing a measure on the ballot to
appear as follows."
o Without that a formal request to the County Board of Supervisors does not seem
to have been made.
G Section 2: see comment to Section 2 of Attachment B. I think this should request use of
a single (consolidated state%ounty /local) ballot, rather than the confusing request for
"only one form of ballot" for the City as a whole.
July 24, 2012 Council Agenda Item 18 comments by Jim Mosher Page 5 of 8
O See Attachment D for objections to statement of proposition on ballot.
Attachment F: Resolution No. 2012 -72: Filing Arguments Regarding City
Measure (handwritten page 33)
C See Attachment D for objections to statement of proposition on ballot.
o The purpose of Section 1 is unclear. The statewide rules for direct arguments to ballot
measures (which are echoed here) are set by state law, and both under Elections Code
Section 9281 and Section 1002 of our own City Charter can only be altered by
ordinance. The present resolution would be powerless to change those rules.
Attachment G: Resolution No. 2012 -73: Rebuttal Arguments (handwritten page
36)
C It is unclear why the City Council wastes time reenacting resolutions of this sort, which
simply copy the default statewide rules (apparently the only option available short of
enacting an ordinance with different rules). If Section 3 were deleted, then Elections
Code Section 9285(b) would leave it in effect until repealed.
G In Section 1, the unexplained reference to "Form of Statement To Be Filed by Author(s)
or[sic] Argument" seems to be a reminder about the "form statement" defined in
Elections Code Section 9600, which must be submitted with all arguments, direct or
rebuttal. The resolution would be clearer if it said something like:
"The rebuttal argument(s) shall be accompanied by the form statement required by
California Elections Code Section 9600."
Comments on the Substance of the Charter Proposal
(as shown in Exhibit 1 to Attachment D, handwritten pages 17 -30)
Note: time does not permit thoughtful comments on the merits of the revisions, so the following
comments mostly point out obvious procedural errors.
Items Not In Proposed Revisions
Since 2010 an effort has been made to remove gender specific references from the
Charter. Then City Attorney Hunt promised to remove all, but he missed about a dozen,
most of which were caught in the present update.
July 24, 2012 Council Agenda Item 18 comments by Jim Mosher Page 6 of 8
o Section 1102 (Budget. Submission to City Council.) continues to refer to "budget
as prepared by him." It is unclear why Council would not want to correct that.
G Section 706 (Planning Commission. Members.) says "There shall be a Planning
Commission consisting of seven members." This is redundant with the proposed
Section 707 and is unclear why Council would not want to repeal it.
C Sections 1402(a)- 1402(f) refer to now completed transactions and could be
deleted /repealed by the same logic that seems (incorrectly to me) to be dictating the
repeal of Sections 103 -105 ( "saving trees ").
Comments on Proposed Revisions
Note applying to many sections: there is no consistency as to whether the parenthetical
history lines inserted at the end of the charter sections by the codifier (such as "(As amended
effective June 6, 1974) ") are included in the redline or not, and if included, whether they are
crossed out, or not. The Update Committee was told these were not part of the Charter and
hence they should not be included in the redline.
Section 402. Compensation.
o Fails to state a date on which the compensation is to be set to the values stated, and
hence fails to offer the improvement over the current language suggested at the July 10
Council meeting. Also fails to state if benefits are included in the numbers, or, if they are
not, how the benefits are computed and if there is a limit on them.
o Perpetuates what appears to be an error on the part of staff whereby the augmented
stipend given to the Mayor is something other than 50% of the amount offered to other
Council members. All measures ever approved by the voters have set it to 50 %.
Section 410 Quorum. Proceedings.
C As repeatedly pointed out to the Committee, the proposed language inadvertently
deletes any Charter requirement for the Clerk to record in the minutes how individual
members voted on ordinances and resolutions. It is doubtful this was the Committee's
intention.
Section 426 Prohibition of Automated Traffic Enforcement Systems (Red Light Cameras).
G This unreviewed section appears to me to contain at least one incomplete sentence.
Section 1114 Claims and Demands. and Section 1115 Registering Demands.
U The committee seems to have been unaware that "demands" are the invoices presented
to cities, against which "warrants" (or checks /payments) are issued. Why the Council (or
the citizens) would want to delete these time - honored provisions is unclear.
July 24, 2012 Council Agenda Item 18 comments by Jim Mosher Page 7 of 8
Section 1116 Independent Audit and Financial Statement.
0 The Committee removed the reference to "official" newspaper, apparently unaware the
term is used in many other sections of the Charter. (The definition of what it means was
inadvertently deleted when former Section 419 was repealed without sufficient thought
to its content in 2010.
Section 1400 Definitions.
0 It is unclear why the Council would want to add a definition of "public officer' since it
does not seem to appear anywhere else in either the existing or the revised Charter.
0 The other change, allowing automatic delegation of powers and duties is unwise and
poorly thought out.
Comments on the Proposed Ballot Statement
The following are comments on the 75 word summary of the Charter Update measure as
proposed to appear on the ballot:
"expand conflicts of interest protections"
I find this both inaccurate and prejudicial for in my view the proposed revisions to
Section 608 (Illegal Contracts. Financial Interest.) actually reduce conflict of interest
protections by making it legal for, among other things, the Council to make a contract in
which a member has a financial interest provided that member recuses him or herself.
0 The only "expansion" I am aware of is the addition of the word "committees," but exactly
what those are is not defined anywhere in the Charter, and whatever they are, the Acting
Assistant City Attorney said the protections offered by the new language are the same
as those already provided by California Government Code 1090. Hence that is not an
expansion of protections.
"make revisions to Council regulations, powers, and procedures"
0 1 am unaware of any change being made to Section 405 (Powers Vested in the City
Council).
0 On the other hand, the provision that all meetings be open to the public is being deleted,
and that major change is certainly not clearly disclosed in the ballot language.
"uniformly set officer compensation"
0 1 have followed the process closely and am unaware of what revision this might be
referring to.
July 24, 2012 Council Agenda Item 18 comments by Jim Mosher Page 8 of 8
"maintain Council compensation at current levels"
> This is highly misleading since the purpose of the revisions is to change a
reimbursement for expenses into a salary for employment, thereby legalizing the current
payment of benefits never previously contemplated in the Charter.
"clarify existing sections"
G The proposed changes to Section 421 (Contracts. Execution) and Section 1400
(Definitions) are hardly "clarifications." They are major changes in policy.
In summary, I find the proposed ballot language highly unsatisfactory and feel it validates the
impossibility of alerting voters to the content of 38 measures in 75 words, let alone making a
rational decision when disparate issues are lumped together. In my view the voters deserve the
dignity of a one vote per issue format, as would be the case if this were voter - proposed
initiative.
Draft Council Minutes for July 10, 2012 (July 24 Agenda Item 1)
The following are typos noticed in the Draft July 10, 2012 Minutes being considered for approval as
Agenda Item 1 at the July 24, 2012 City Council Meeting.
Submitted by Jim Mosher ( jimmosher@yahoo.com ; (949) 548 -6229)
Volume 60 - Page 5110 (item 2, second paragraph)
o ... Pol ov -inal Polychlorinated Biphenyls ..."
Volume 60 - Page 511 first line)
C given to not the charge the tax on ..."
Volume 60 - Page 512 (first paragraph)
U "... Further, he added that the public ..."
Volume 60 - Page 513
o ... in drafting the amended language amended for Section 708...." (first paragraph)
o ... there was good public comment was received ...." (fifth paragraph)
u "... oral announcement with of topics to be discussed ..." (last line)
Volume 60 - Page 516
o ... congratulated Scott Paulsen Paulsen on his service ..." ( ?, second paragraph)
O "... and eame coming across two dead Koi ..." (third paragraph)
Volume 60 - Page 517 (item 11 title)
C "... ARTS COMMISSIONER ROBYN GR:c41?,Q, GRANT'S UNEXPIRED TERM..."
Volume 60 - Page 518
G Arts Commissioner Robyn Gr-aat ?s Grant's tern ..." (first line)
C ... with the City E- terk?s Clerk's Office ..." (second line)
o Note: The votes on the Consent Calendar and Item 5 are reported using the 2011 roster with
"Alayor Pro Tem Gardner, Mayor Henn, etc." This needs to be corrected to read "Mayor Pro
Tem Curry, M ayor Gardner, etc." (error is two places; the same error occurs in reporting the
vote on Item 10 on the following page)
G "... noted that the Council Policy number is was incorrect ..." (second paragraph fi -om end)
'/Volume 60 - Page 519
0 2011 roster used in reporting vote; needs to be corrected to read "Alayor Pro Tem Curry, Mayor
Gardner, etc." (vote at top ofpage)
o ... commented on the reported decrease in the number of visitors to the City in compared to
previous years ..." (second paragraph from end)
Volume 60 - Page 521
C ".., where there have has been ambiguity ..." or "... where there have been ambiguity
ambiguities ... "(second line from encl)
Corrections to July 24, 2012 Council Agenda Item 1; page 2 of 2
Volume 60 - Page 523
o • ... that people can rent kayaks and paddle boats ..." ( ?) I thought it was (stand up) "paddle
boards" but I'm not sure (first frdl paragraph)
o "... the City has protocol protocols for addressing these ..." (end of fourth,fidl paragraph)
G "... also need to get a marine activities permit." (following paragraph; should possibly be
capitalized: illarine Activities Permit ? )
Volume 60 - Page 524
U "... they nte4W iugeensidered to-be have been installed on a portion of Bayside Drive ..." (first
paragraph)
there is adequate site sib distance ..." (fifih paragraph)
Volume 60 - Page 525
o ... Mark Goodly ..." -- the media reported the name as Goodley; unless a speaker card was
submitted I would assume that is correct (.second paragraph)
o "... Scan MaErter Matsler ..." (fifth paragraph)
o "... Susan Goodlyy ..." —> Goodie), ?, see above (sixth paragraph)
Volume 60 - Page 527
G "...regarding the changes and components of being in..." — my guess is this was intended to be
consequences (below middle ofpage)
Volume 60 - Page 528
o In the vote at the top of the page it might be helpful to repeat that Mayor Pro Tem Curry was
recused (as was orally announced).
o '... that Council requested for further discussion ..." (second paragraph tinder Item 20)
o ... Regarding G ranters Charter Sections 402 -A ..." (third paragraph ender Item 20)
o ... August and December, where when there will be ..." (fou-th paragraph underltem 20)
Volume 60 - Page 529
o `...that the Charter Section might will curtail ..." (fourth paragraph)
Harris, Lillian
From: Robert C. Hawkins [rhawkins @earthlink.net]
Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2012 4:18 PM 1012 JUL ?. 4 °i1 5= 16
To: Brown, Leilani
Cc: Kiff, Dave; Harris, Lillian
Subject: Charter Update Arguments in Opposition 0' -, -10E OF
THE CITY CLEFK
CITY (? -' '' tT BEACH
I have reviewed the resolution and staff report regarding the captioned matter. I object
that the arguments for and against have different numerical word requirements. That violates
a whole host of statutory and constitutional protections. I encourage you to limit both to
the same word limit amount. Elections Code section 9282 simply states that no argument shall
be over 300 words. That should be the limit for both sets of arguments for and against.
Thanks for your cooperation. RCH
PFT-' : (j 111 fie ., �, �' �-