Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout00 - Written CommentsReceived After Agenda Printed May 24, 2016 Written Comments - Consent Calendar May 24, 2016, Council Consent Calendar Comments The following comments on items on the Newport Beach City Council agenda are submitted by: Jim Mosher ( jimmosher(aD-yahoo.com ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach 92660 (949-548-6229) Item 2. Minutes for the May 10, 2016 Study Session and Regular Meeting The page numbers below refer to Volume 62 of the draft minutes. The passages in italics are from the draft with suggested changes shown in underline format. Page 628: under Item II: "SS2. Presentation Recognizing "Poppy Month"— deferred'[?] Page 628: under Item SS4, paragraph 1: "... , use of Public Art and the Cultural Facilities Fund, and use of contract labor." Page 628: under Item SS4, paragraph 2: "In response to Mayor Pro Tem Muldoon's questions, Library Services Director Hetherton explained the average annual gift of $200, 000 to the library from the Library Foundation." [?] Page 629: paragraph 5: "Lesley Miller, Palm Desert Art Commission and Newport Beach Arts Foundation member, expressed opposition to the sculpture proposed to be installed on Balboa Island." [?] Page 629: paragraph 2 from end: "Harbor Resources Manager Miller discussed funding for the Central Avenue pLer including $350,000 from the Newport Harbor Yacht Club and $100,000 in State funding." [?] Page 631: paragraph 1: "Public Works Director Webb further discussed the project to rebuild the cap at the end of Bay LLsiand Bridge." [note: the comment was in reference to a project on Edgewater Avenue. Although "Bay Bridge" is what was said, that term more often refers to the Upper Newport Bay Bridge, separating West from East Coast Highway.] Page 631: paragraph 2: "Public Works Director Webb further discussed the seawall projects and reviewed the Water Quality and Environmental ClP in the amount of $6.6 million." Page 635: Item 9, end of paragraph 5: "She noted that ExplorOcean participates on BVAC, but input was not required from the two properties." [I am unable to guess from the context what "two properties" the Community Development Director was referring to.] Page 635: Item 9, paragraph 8: "Craig Smith, Balboa Village Merchants Association, stated the merchants contributed $37 million in sales tax to the City's budget and parking revenue was a major source of funding for the sign. He discussed the importance of the sign for the success of the businesses. He believed this was an investment in future revenue growth." [The minutes seem accurate, but the Council should be aware the claim made about the amount of sales tax revenue from Balboa Village seems improbable. According to the draft Budget Detail for FY2016-17, the City's expected share of sales and use taxes for the entire city in the current year as just $32 million, which was apparently an May 24, 2016, Council Consent Calendar Comments - Jim Mosher Page 2 of 8 all-time record. In addition, it might be noted that the group calling itself the BVMA is (to the best of my knowledge) entirely funded by the City's General Fund to the tune of around $40,000 per year, with no contribution at all from its merchant "members." Since the archway sign's primary purported purpose is to promote the merchants, it seems noteworthy they have not offered (as far as I know) to use a single penny of the money given to them, apparently for self -promotion, to defray its cost.] Page 635: Item 9, paragraph 9: "Craig Batley, BVAC member and Balboa Village Merchants Association, discussed revitalization of the area and the need for a landmark sign identifying the Village." [This could be what was said, but I am unable to find any record that Mr. Batley was ever a member of BVAC. The preceding speaker, Craig Smith, was a member of BVAC's predecessor, the Citizens Advisory Panel that advised the Council's Neighborhood Revitalization Committee, but I do not believe Mr. Batley was a member of that, either.] Page 640: paragraph 6 from end, sentence 2: "He reminded Council that the Planning Commission did not have the authority to approve the CUP, until the code was amended ahow despite it already allowing bundled event permit approvals." Page 640: paragraph 2 from end: " t®�� Gerry fieri, Newport Beach Chamber of Commerce Commodore, stated the Dunes am is considerate of its neighbors and encouraged Council to approve the permit." Page 642: Item 14, paragraph 5: "Jim Mosher questioned the Greenlight limit related to fair housing bonus units." Item 4. Resolution of Intention to Renew the Corona del Mar Business Improvement District and Levy Assessments in Fiscal Year 2016-2017 1. The structure of the CdM BID has always seemed strange to me in that a large part of its efforts are directed towards streetscape enhancements which permanently impact the property owners, yet the decisions are made by the tenants (the business owners). 2. Of the streetscape enhancements, the one that most bothers me is the so-called "Gateway" project: not because it is wrong, but because it has long been championed and promoted by a BID Board member who happens to be a co-owner of one of the restaurants that stands to benefit from the improvement quite differently from the BID members in general — all without ever recusing himself. a. Most recently he arranged a request for modifications to make the public space more suitable for use for outdoor dining — when creation of a publicly -funded space for for-profit private outdoor dining was not supposed to be the reason for promoting the improvement. b. Considering the citywide taxpayer money going into this, it especially rankles me to hear this referred to as "an important gateway to the City." It is not a gateway to the City. It is at best a gateway to the CdM business district, and even then, only if one ignores the CdM businesses to its west. May 24, 2016, Council Consent Calendar Comments - Jim Mosher Page 3 of 8 3. Regarding the staff report and the generally excellent Annual Report: a. It is not at all clear what the intended significance of Attachment B ("CdM 81© Letter Regarding News Racks") is. i. Item 6b of the Annual Report (staff report page 4-9) states that the BID expects to receive $25,000 of "City support for the newspaper rack program," but that is not shown in the budget on the next page. ii. By approving this item would the Council be approving the $25,000 request and corresponding modifications to the BID budget? b. Also regarding the budget, the first line under "Improvements" says $22,000 would be going to the "Marguerite Project." However, the first page of the Annual Report (staff report page 4-5) says the "Marguerite Project" has been suspended and the $22,000 would go towards "the Flower Street Sign Program." c. Finally the budget ends with a "Bad Debt Expense" title under which no entry has been made. Is this because the Member Assessment are listed as "net"? Item 5. Resolution of Intention to Renew the Newport Beach Restaurant Association Business Improvement District and Levy Assessments in Fiscal Year 2016-2017 1. My understanding is the original name of this entity is the "Newport Beach Restaurant Improvement District" (see Ordinance 95-55), and I am not aware of the name having been subsequently changed. 2. The Annual Report seems to me very heavy on jargon masquerading as content, and the content one can discern through that smokescreen does not always seem to be accurate. For example, it seems to say Newport Beach and Company provides accounting services to the BID, while the more straight forward staff report says the City provides those services. 3. Although Newport Beach and Company has provided far more energetic, and perhaps effective, marketing support than the previous contractor, I am uncomfortable with the seeming merging of the BID with "Dine Newport Beach." The latter was a creation of NB&Co independent of the BID, and a too close relation would seem to me to create a strong, and not necessarily healthy, sole source mentality for future marketing choices. 4. 1 am also uncomfortable with the "NBRA BID Partner Program" of Attachment C. This seems to getting the City into the business of commercial advertising, which I don't think is a proper governmental function. If NB&Co wants to get into that, and it is compatible with their corporate structure and by-laws, that is their decision but I don't think the City should then think of them as their sole source contractor for TOT expenditures. 5. Finally, the restaurant BID has long recognized that it assesses businesses (such as grocery stores and mini -marts) who may contribute more dollars than most restaurants, May 24, 2016, Council Consent Calendar Comments - Jim Mosher Page 4 of 8 yet receive little or no benefit from the BID's activities (in fact the promotion of restaurants may actually take business away from them). a. Much has been said, but little done over the years about changing the membership rules and the equity of the assessments. b. In the present Annual Report, it is disappointing to see this topic relegated to a note at the bottom of the budget on the last page, and not mentioned at all (that I can find) in the body of the report. c. Changing the assessment structure after the BID has been renewed, which seems to be what is being proposed (yet again), seems a little underhanded. In addition, since after restricting the membership the note suggests the annual revenue will be substantially greater than it is now, this implies some of the remaining members will have to pay a great deal more. Do the restaurants who are not represented on the Board really want this? The Council may well want to do some independent research on that. Item 6. Establish a Trial Anchorage Area West of Lido Isle - Harbor Commission Recommendation It seems to me the last requested CEQA finding — that this action "has no potential for causing a significant effect on the environment'— would be difficult to make without further analysis and discussion. 2. Despite six of the seven Harbor Commissioners supporting this proposal, it seems curious to a non -boater like me that one would want to allow boats to anchor in something designated as a "Turning Basin." Indeed, NBMC Section 17.25.020 seems to give special priority to avoiding channels and turning basins. But perhaps the present proposal is no more curious than allowing much of the open turning area to be twice a year obliterated by a private for-profit boat show hosted by one of the Commissioners — a matter that does not seem to need Commission review or approval. 3. Regarding the proposed Resolution 2016-65 of Attachment D: a. The long and convoluted first "Whereas" contains a reference to "State Constitutions." I believe that should be "State Constitution" or perhaps even more explicitly "California State Constitution." b. Section 1 allows the Harbor Resources Manager to extend the trial by one month. Is this something new? The next to last "Whereas" does not mention this as having been part of the Harbor Commissioner recommendation. 4. The next to last paragraph of page 2 of the staff report mentions the existence of a west anchorage would allow the east one to be close for special events, creating a large open area there. I don't recall this being discussed at the Harbor Commission as a reason for creating a west anchorage, but wouldn't it be easier to simply use the large open area that already exists in the west area when the private boat show and proposed anchorage are not there? May 24, 2016, Council Consent Calendar Comments - Jim Mosher Page 5 of 8 5. The staff report includes attachments whose significance does not seem to be explained in the report. Was the letter on page 6-13 and 6-14 sent to all the locations depicted on both pages 6-15 and 6-16, or were those pages part of the letter? Item 7. Approval and Award of Copier Maintenance Contract The staff report recalls the effort to reduce the number of copiers and printers during the move to the new City Hall. It might have been helpful to indicate if City staff has been able to continue to hold the line, or if the number of devices has begun to increase once again. Item 8. Professional Services Agreement to Develop a Revitalization Master Plan for Mariners' Mile I think more than a few in the public will be surprised to see PlaceWorks selected as the contractor for this new land use public engagement effort, since they are the firm that helped us shape the land use recommendations for the ill-fated Measure Y in 2013-14. 2. The statement in the staff report that of the 28 consulting firms contacted, only PlaceWorks and one other (unnamed) responded with a proposal suggests that a greater effort needs to be made to find firms that can more accurately gauge public sentiment in Newport Beach. 3. 1 am further concerned that projects with the word "revitalization" in them tend to devolve into plans for the giveaway of taxpayer dollars to business owners in selected areas. 4. Whoever might be selected, setting the dollar amount would seem a little premature since the public and Council will just be hearing about important aspects of the area as Items SS4 and SS5 at the afternoon Study Session, and to the best of my knowledge the Council has not settled on a desired scope for this effort. Item 9. Agreement for the Purchase of a CNG 3 -Axle Dump Truck This sounds like a needed replacement, but I would note that the recently revised Council Policy FF -99 appears to place on the Municipal Operations Department the responsibility for deciding when replacement of vehicles in other departments is warranted. Is any check or balance (that is, review by an independent department) needed when the department requesting the replacement is Municipal Operations itself? Item 10. Update on Water Use and Conservation Efforts April 2016 1. Regarding the chart of "Overall Water Consumption Reduction" on page 3 of the staff report, it was apparent at the April 26, 2016, meeting that there were some errors (see written comments) in the comparable chart for March presented then (as part of Item 9) or in the still earlier one for February, presented at the March 22, 2016, Council meeting (where it was part of Item 13). May 24, 2016, Council Consent Calendar Comments - Jim Mosher Page 6 of 8 a. I believe that corrected reports were prepared in response to the public comments. Given that effort, it is unfortunate that since no Council member followed up the accuracy of the corrected charts do not seem to have become part of the official record, leaving a lingering uncertainty as to how reliable the numbers are. b. It might also be mentioned that with regard to the City's water consumption numbers, page 2-6 of the draft document for Item 11 (below, the latest Urban Water Management Plan) contains the disturbing statement that "The City's Data Validity Score was 61 out of 100." Without further explanation, that does little to increase public confidence in the accuracy of the water conservation reports. 2. From the proposed new Emergency Regulations of the State Water Resources Control Board (Attachment A) it appears the City will have until June 15th to develop a new conservation goal (that will, oddly, be effective June 1St, before it has been announced) based on the shortfall the City is expected to have to meet demand after three more dry years. Since when new development is proposed in Newport Beach, the EIR always seems to say there are adequate water supplies available, will the conclusion be no further conservation is required? Item 11. 2015 Urban Water Management Plan look forward to the discussion of this at the June 14th City Council meeting, but it seems strange to me that (to the best of my knowledge), the City's Water Quality/Coastal Tidelands Committee has neither contributed to the preparation of this document, nor even been kept apprised of its progress. Item 12. Set Public Hearing Date to Adopt Fiscal Year 2016-2017 Budget I have no problem with setting a budget hearing date for June 14, 2016. I am concerned about the statement in the Discussion on page 2 of the staff report that "After hearing public comment, the Council shall adopt the budget at the June 14, 2016, meeting." As the report acknowledges, the City Charter does not compel adoption of the budget before June 30th. I would think the Council would want to retain the flexibility to delay its decision until its June 28th meeting, depending on what it hears on June 14th, as I would anticipate additional time might be needed for a thoughtful review. For example, as of this writing (on May 23rd), with the Charter's 35 day deadline fast approaching, the Performance Plan portion of the proposed Fiscal Year 2016-2017 budget has not yet been released. And as a further example, the Budget Checklist of Attachment A brings to light budget details about nearly all of which I would have questions— which is not to say I would not have similar questions about the huge number of budget decisions hidden in the draft budget line items not May 24, 2016, Council Consent Calendar Comments - Jim Mosher Page 7 of 8 exposed in the Checklist. But it is hard to question the Budget Detail line items when one does not know in detail what those appropriation estimates are based on, or even for. As to the May 24, 2016, Checklist: It would have been helpful to indicate exactly which Budget Detail line items are being proposed to be changed by the amounts specified. 2. What did the Police Department's "Civilian Fraud Investigator" do? And why is the position being eliminated? Hasn't Newport Beach had some success in investigating and prosecuting fraud? 3. Are the "Community Services Officer" changes related to the School Resource Officer program? Are the schools still paying for half of that? 4. Regarding the "Heroes Hall" at the OC Fair and Events Center: from the presentation we heard at an earlier Council meeting, Costa Mesa donated $25,000 to the project, which made some sense since it is in Costa Mesa and attracts visitors to their visitor - dependent city. The benefits to Newport Beach are less clear. Was the intention that the venue be at least partially privately funded? If all Orange County cities contributed $25,000 of taxpayer funding, how would that affect that model? 5. Considering the commitment at the last Council meeting to explore airport -related initiatives, the recommendation to reduce "expected airport analysis needs" by $241,000 (the largest single reduction proposed) may come as a shock to some. Is this related to an end to expenses related to the negotiation of the Settlement Agreement extension? If so, shouldn't that have already been reflected in the current year's budget? The recommendation appears to be to completely eliminate the "City Council Airport Issues" allocation on page 3 of the City Council section of the Budget Detail (page 45 of the 470 page PDF) — an item that does seem to exist in the current year, but was proposed to be reinstated, but now is not?? How are airport -related matters proposed to be funded? As an example of the public's (and possibly the Council's) confusion over this, the recent approval of Contract # 7071-1 with Tom Edwards (Item 10 on March 22, 2016) provided no indication of what line item the $70,000 per year would be expensed to. Is he being let go? 6. Does the "Additional steam cleaning - Balboa Village & McFadden Square" include taxpayer -funded cleaning of private areas, such as the boardwalk at the Fun Zone? This has always seemed odd since the Corona del Mar BID has to pay, out of their "private" revenues, for steam cleaning of the public sidewalks in their area. 7. Although I love classical music, the $60,000 recommended for a single performance by the "Pacific Symphony on the Civic Green" seems highly questionable to me. Not only is this out of proportion to the City's Arts budget, but the Pacific Symphony normally performs only a short distance away in Costa Mesa. What about this event is unique to Newport Beach? How does it fit into any coherent vision of what the City stands for or is trying to accomplish? How does it benefit the artists most in need of aid and promotion? And although it can't be discerned from the Checklist as presented, isn't the May 24, 2016, Council Consent Calendar Comments - Jim Mosher Page 8 of 8 recommendation to use money recouped from Balboa Theater contributions? If so, wouldn't it be more appropriate to use such money to fund some kind of performance in Peninsula Park? 8. Regarding the $12,500 requested for the Balboa Village Chalk Art Festival, if this, too, is to be paid from the Balboa Theater funds, it seems a more appropriate use, but details of the 6 -hour event, which seems to be being promoted by local merchants, were vague, at least as presented to the City Arts Commission. If there is true interest in this, I would think the merchants should at least match the City contribution with their own private monies -- not to be confused with parking revenues and other City gifts to the merchants such as the $40,000 per year given to the rag -tag group of non -dues -paying "members" of the so-called Balboa Village Merchants Association. As with the previous item, there does not seem to be anything that is culturally or artistically unique to Newport Beach about this.