Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout00 - Written CommentsRECEIVED AFTER AGENDA PRINTED June 14, 2016 Written Comments June 14, 2016, Council Consent Calendar Comments The following comments on items on the Newport Beach City Council agenda are submitted by: Jim Mosher (iimmoshernyahoo.com ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach 92660 (949-548-6229) Item 9. Minutes for the May 24, 2016 Study Session, Regular Meeting, and Joint Meeting with the Finance Committee The page numbers below refer to Volume 63 of tate draft minutes. The passages in italics are from the draft with suggested changes shown in s*.�i it underline format. Page 3: paragraph 2, sentence 2: "Public Works Director Webb stated the study provided a better opportunity for funding." Page 3. Item SS5, paragraph 2, line 2: "..., provided background on the Highway and ""a�'s Mariners' Mile segment, .. „ Page 3: paragraph 3 from end: Manouch Moshayedi stated Uber and driverless cars were coming in the future." [?, is this based on a speaker card? The media uniformly reported the recent purchaser of properties on Mariners' Mile as indicated, and that seems how he introduced himself in the video.] Page 3: paragraph 2 from end, sentence 2: "City Manager Kiff stated {# the area would still be at Level of Service E with six lanes." Page 4: paragraph 4: "Council Member Petros stated that businesses appreciate some level of certainty in their decision making; however, he believed there was a complete lack of certainty on Mariners' Mile ..." Page 4: paragraph 5: "In response to Council Member Selich's questions, Public Works Director Webb explained that the curbs would be moved #e on the insia land side of the road, not on the water side, the sidewalk would be reduced from twelve to six or eight feet, and the right-of-way would need to be obtained." [?] Page 9: Item 6 (Establish a Trial Anchorage Area West of Lido Isle — Harbor Commission Recommendation): Although the draft minutes don't get into that level of detail, I believe the Council was assured that as a condition of using the Trial Anchorage every visiting vessel would be required to submit to a dye tablet test to demonstrate they had a functioning waste water holding tank system. From the subsequent Harbor Commission meeting it now appears that statement may have been incorrect, and compliance with the request to test is voluntary. Page 13: paragraph 9 from end, sentence 2: "He suggested undergrounding be done when the alley was is upgraded." Page 13: paragraph 6 from end, sentence 2: "He noted that Council can still decide to not form the district even if 50% or more voted in favor." June 14, 2016, Council Consent Calendar Comments - Jim Mosher Page 2 of 7 Page 14: paragraph 1 after motion: "Mayor Dixon expressed frustration with the n dissension in Newport Heights and believed that voting on the issue would resolve the matter." Pages 15-17: Joint Meeting with the Finance Committee: to the best of my knowledge, these minutes have not been submitted to the Finance Committee for their review or approval. Page 15: paragraph 4 from end, sentence 2: "Finance Director Matusiewicz discussed PERS limited eaFnin earnings which might increase the unfunded liability." Page 16: paragraph 2 from end, last sentence: "He stated the Cityeeld should not make irresponsible choices based on politics that were not financially sound." [?] Page 16: last sentence: "He suggested extending the schedule for replacing docks be extende and selling the hotel property." Item 3. Resolution Authorizing the Temporary Closure of Selected Streets for the July 4th Holiday Period I appreciate that the City sponsors a fireworks show at the Newport Dunes, but the resolution does not logically explain why visitors to "ocean front beaches between the Santa Ana River and the West Jetty" would be expected to create traffic problems on San Joaquin Hills 'Road and Back Bay Drive. Item 4. Calling the November 8, 2016 General Municipal Election The proposed schedule for reviewing the analysis and filing arguments regarding the Charter amendment seems to end well before the due date for submitting the materials to the County Registrar. Is there any reason the intervals couldn't be expanded to give more time for each step? Attachments A and B refer to "the election of members of the City Council to represent the Second, Fifth and Seventh Districts." This is incorrect. Until such time as Newport Beach changes to district elections, I believe it should read: "the election of members of the City Council from the Second, Fifth and Seventh Districts." City Charter Sections 400 and 401 call for elections from districts, not by district. The representative elected from each district is expected to represent the entire City, not just the district in which they live. Attachment C, page 4-13, first paragraph ("B"). "The County will print and mail sample ballots and candidate statements to all voters in Spanish and r hinesa English." [Is this a typo? The following sentences say materials will be sent in Spanish and Chinese to those requesting them. Why would we pay to also send translations to "all" voters, including those who did not ask for them?] June 14, 2016, Council Consent Calendar Comments - Jim Mosher Page 3 of 7 Attachment C, page 4-14, first paragraph ("3"'): "The candidate shall be required to pay for the cost of printing the candidate's statement in a foreign language requested by the candidate per (B) of Section 2 above, in the main voter pamphlet." [?? Section 2.6 says nothing about candidates requesting translations. Was this intended to be a reference to provision A.2 of Section 3 (the present section)?] Attachment D: My recollection is the proposed Charter amendment itself (placed before the electorate by Resolution No. 2015-44) was brought forward rather hastily in 2015, with no committee review or study session, and with little or no discussion, let alone debate. At the time I did not understand the haste, and doubted it was well -considered. It still seems strange to me that a proposal to change the City Charter would be presented to voters with so little review or vetting of the actual language. Rereading the action from May 26, 2015, it seems to me what is being proposed is more of an amendment to Section 1108 ("Tax Procedure," which says the procedure for levying taxes "may be prescribed by ordinance") or Section 412 ("Adoption of Ordinances and Resolutions") than a new stand alone provision. If inserted as new provision, it would seem to me it would more logically replace the "reserved" Section 1107 (which once limited the taxes that could be levied without approval by three-fifths of the voters) than reserved Section 1115 (which until recently had to do with registering warrants for payment of City bills). The opening phrase "Notwithstanding any conflicting provision of this Charter" (such as perhaps Sections 1108 or 412?) suggests how this change meshes with other parts of the Charter has not been carefully thought out, and may force future generations to analyze the order in which the "Notwithstanding ..." provisions were adopted (the most recent presumably taking precedence over the earlier ones?). Finally, the cumbersome (and completely unnecessary) legalistic style of repeated representations of small numbers ("at least five (5) of seven (7) votes") is inconsistent with the style of the remainder of the Charter (in which numbers are simply written in plain English). Attachment F proposes to authorize just one Council Member to "file" an argument in support of the Charter amendment. Does this mean the other Council Members are not authorized to sign as co-authors? Item 5. Senate Bill 272 - The California Public Records Act: Local Agencies: Inventory 1. Near the middle of the second page of Attachment B, I assume "Biddging"s should be "Bidding"? 2. In that section and the one following it, the items listed under "Purpose" actually seem to be "Product" names, and no statement of their purpose seems to be given. 3. Some of the statements of purpose and types of data collected are so cryptic as to leave a lot of guess work to the public. For example, what type or category of data is "Librarian"? 4. The "Custodian Dept." (Police?) is not listed for Sungard ONESolution. June 14, 2016, Council Consent Calendar Comments - Jim Mosher Page 4 of 7 5. Is this list really complete? For example, I believe Library Services collects patron information through its computer reservation system as well as in connection with use of services offered through its "eBranch," which I believe are separate from Millenium. Does the City regard such things as exempted as a "cyber security" or "access control" system? Item 6. General Fund Budget Surplus Utilization Policy 1. Section 1 of the proposed Resolution is missing a comma after "reference." 2. Section 2 is missing comma after "resolutions." 3. 1 find the policy presented as Exhibit A slightly ambiguous as to the extent to which the determination of the exact amount of the Budget Surplus is left to the discretion of the City Manager and to what extent it is the result of a wiggle -room -free predetermined mathematical calculation (such as subtracting year end expenditures, encumbrances and commitments from year end revenues). I assume the intent is to provide discretion? Item 7. Adoption of Fiscal Year 2096-97 Appropriations Limit The staff report is less than clear about how the Gann limit, and in particular the "appropriations" referred to in it, relate to the City budget. I believe it is trying to say we don't have enough tax revenue available to be mathematically able to spend more of it than the "appropriations limit" imposed on us, but it's hard to tell what taxes and which appropriations it applies to. 2. The second "Whereas' of the proposed resolution implies the California Government Code contains a Chapter 1205. That does not seem technically correct. a. The Government Code contains no such chapter. Division 9 (Sections 7900 — 7914) was in fact added by Chapter 1205 of the Statutes of 1980, with Section 7910 being last amended by Chapter 263 of the Statutes of 2007. b. I would suggest: "WHEREAS, Government Code Section 7910 was added 4e ALY Chapter 1205 by Statute of the Statutes adopted at the Regular Session of the California Legislature in 1980;" 3. Section 7910 contains a 15 day noticing requirement, in advance of the adoption of the resolution, during which the basis of the proposed determination is supposed to be available for public review. I am unable to find anything in the staff report or resolution assuring the public this requirement was fulfilled. Indeed, the last sentence of the staff report saying notice of the meeting was published on June 4, 2016, might be taken to suggest only 10 days was provided for public review, and that notice appears to have only announced the proposed limit, not the basis of its determination. June 14, 2016, Council Consent Calendar Comments - Jim Mosher Page 5 of 7 Item 10. Purchase of Command Post Vehicle This staff report presents an interesting contrast to similar vehicle purchase requests from the Fire Department, which generally include as an attachment what seem like hundreds of pages of detailed component specifications. The present method seems to save paper. Item 11. Approve of Purchase Agreement with Haaker Equipment Company for One CNG -Powered Sewer Cleaner Truck As Item 16 at its March 26, 2015, meeting (page 148 of the 183 page agenda packet), the Costa Mesa Sanitary District Board of Directors approved, for similar purposes and also relying on the NJPA process, the purchase of a 6 cubic yard VacAll sewer cleaning truck for $329,618.22. Since 6 cubic yards appears to equate to 1212 gallons, is the present proposal to order a smaller unit (700 gallons) at a higher price ($498,636.64)? It might be noted that CMSD staff chose VacAll over the Vactor brand (the City's chosen vendor), and didn't even seek a demonstration from them, in part "because historically Vactor trucks have been more expensive than their competitors." The staff report is also unclear as to whether the "Equipment Replacement Fund" account to which this is to be expensed is part of the Wastewater Enterprise Fund or part of the General Fund. Whatever the source of the money, it would seem ironic if the Council is being asked to authorize paying premium prices for equipment when we have been told the City's wastewater effort has insufficient revenue to support itself. Item 15. Agreement with the Laguna Beach County Water District Being a good neighbor certainly seems like the right thing to do; but intuitively, assisting LBCWD to use water pumped from the same source the City uses must have some affect on the supplies potentially available to the City. Should this item perhaps be deferred until after discussion and certification of the City's new Urban Water Management Plan (Item 24)? Item 19. Request to Install Three Sidewalk Cafes along East Coast Highway within the Newly Constructed Corona del Mar Entry Area Sidewalk This staff report is curious in that it assures the Council (under Discussion on page 2) that "three Use Permit Amendments to allow for outdoor dining were reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission on June 9, 2016" — yet the report appears to have been prepared and distributed to the Council before the June 9t" hearing took place. June 14, 2016, Council Consent Calendar Comments - Jim Mosher Page 6 of 7 It therefore fails to inform the Council that with the hastily prepared planning staff reports given to them, the Planning Commissioners were poorly informed of how these requests deviate from standard Council Policy (primarily by the installation of permanent barriers effectively ceding the public property for exclusively and permanently private use as if it were part of the abutting private parcels). It also fails to communicate to the Council the one thing the Planning Commissioners most wanted communicated: namely that they thought the compensation to be paid by the applicants to the City for use of the public sidewalk (something City staff vaguely thought was in the range of $258 per year) was wholly inadequate to compensate the public for the loss of their amenity or to reflect its private value to the applicants. It seems not very long ago that the Planning Commission (Item 3 on August 21, 2014) and City Council (Item 13 on October 14, 2014) were considering the propriety of portable A -frame ("sandwich") signs along PGH in Corona del Mar, and considered them acceptable only if they were kept strictly on private property. Now we allowing, if not encouraging, permanent private usurpation of the pedestrian right of way. Not only are we allowing the public sidewalk to be taken away, but we are giving it away before even seeing how the $500,000 sidewalk expansion will work. In funding it, taxpayers were told the widening would create a public gathering space. Permanently dedicating it to private use severely restricts that potential. At the Planning Commission hearing I suggested the City wait at least a year to see how the new area is used before making any decision about it. I think that remains a good suggestion. The only justification for these requests that I heard was that it allowed dining with dogs. Since I do not believe dogs drink alcohol, my suggestion was, and continues to be, that the sidewalk dining at these locations be limited to non -alcohol service. That would eliminate the need for the barriers, allow the tables to be taken in when not actually in use, and generally free up the public sidewalk when outdoor dining is not taking place (which is likely to be a substantial portion of the year). I believe that not only serves the intended function but is much more in keeping with the kind of use of the public sidewalk for outdoor dining envisioned by Policy L-21. It should additionally be pointed out that, despite what the staff report implies, the Avila's request has nothing (at least that I am aware of) to do with the recent sidewalk expansion at PCH and MacArthur. It is, instead, a proposal to permanently barricade off a substantial portion of a long existing nearby sidewalk, forcing pedestrians to walk over a manhole cover. It seems to me this sets a very bad precedent for further encroachments into the long existing and currently unobstructed sidewalk along PCH. Finally, I share former Mayor Pro Tem Daigle's written concern that the sidewalk expansion has been relentlessly promoted, and repeatedly voted upon, by a BID Board member who (as a co- owner of the Bungalow) is clearly affected by it differently from the average citizen. To me, that invalidates the entire process. June 14, 2016, Council Consent Calendar Comments - Jim Mosher Page 7 of 7 Item 21. Annual Measure M Fund Eligibility Requirements This report seems less than completely self-explanatory. For example: Page 21-2 of the staff report says "Newport Beach will receive approximately $1.9 million in fiscal year 2016-2017 for city street projects under the Fair Share Program." Yet the table on page 21-3 shows a total of $4,842,000 under "Measure M Fair Share (12201)" and a total of $1,958,500 under "Measure M Comp. (13501)" (a program that I am not sure is explained). 2. It similarly asks the Council to certify that the City has complied with OCTA's "Maintenance of Effort' requirement by spending at least $8,868,393 on street related items out of discretionary general funds. But under "General Fund (010)," the table lists only $7,764,900 for FY 2016-2017. 3. 1 am also not sure I understand the significance of programs with all zero entries. For example, the second one on page 21-9 and the first on pages 21-10 and 21-11. Item 22. Board and Commission Scheduled Vacancies - Confirmation of Nominees It seems worth noting that, to the best of my knowledge, at least some of the nominees have never shown enough interest in the positions for which they are applying to have attended, let alone spoken at, a meeting of the relevant body. I don't know if the question of their prior participation was asked by the nominating committee, but I would think it might carry some weight in considering their qualifications.