Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0 - Public Comments8113 b) le CO�1Vl� OV -Oq-13 Couv ments on April 9, 2®13 Council Agenda items The following comments on items on the April 9, 2013 Newport Beach City Council agenda are submitted by: Jim Mosher ( limmosher(a)vahoo.com ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach 92660 (949- 548 -6229) Item 2. Newport Harbor Entrance Tidal Gate This is an interesting concept, but given the enormous price tag it seems unlikely the Council would ever fund it. It is similar, I believe, to a proposal put forward by one of the applicants who was not selected for the Harbor Commission. Item 3. Balboa Island and FEMA/Flood Insurance Issues Having attended the March 16, 2013, Town Hall meeting at the Balboa Island Fire Station, I am aware that there are residents who questioned why the City chose to participate in a federal program which, as presented, imposed burdensome conditions on all homeowners in the affected zone (including those without mortgages) for the benefit of mortgagees who needed to have flood insurance to protect their lenders as a condition of their mortgage (and it appeared at the meeting that private flood insurance was available at a fraction of the cost the federal variety). I assume the City's participation in the federal program was originally approved by the City Council, but the meeting ended before that could be made clear, and it also left unclear how staff had become authorized to make changes to the depreciation schedule, with very serious consequences for residents, without public input or knowledge. Shouldn't those modifications, and the various alternatives available, have been brought to the Council for guidance? Hopefully answers will be provided in this Study Session. Item 4. Residential Lot Mergers A staff report in advance of the Study Session would have been very helpful. It is difficult to comment without knowing what is now being proposed. From the agenda description it sounds like staff may be suggesting dropping the matter. -,F _ ,Iii! a Item C. Conference with Labor Negotiators As mentioned orally at previous meetings, it would seem helpful for staff and Council to be more forthcoming in disclosing to the public what is being discussed in Closed Session, and why. Since this item disappeared from the agenda for several meetings, most of the public probably assumed the City's labor negotiations, certainly with most of the groups listed, had been concluded for a year or two. Has something come unraveled? Comments on April 9, 2013 Council agenda items - Jim Mosher Page 2 of 12 i" Item 1. Minutes for the March 26, 2013 Study Session and Regular Meeting. The page numbers in these suggested corrections refer to pages of Volume 61 as shown in the draft minutes submitted for the Council's review. Page 102: a Paragraph 2: "Council Member Petros believed that there would be a reduction in oversight as it relative to the City Attorney's Office and the change in contract terms." or "Council Member Petros believed that there would be a reduction in oversight as itFeladue relates to the City Attorney's Office and the change in contract terms." U Last paragraph, line 4: "San Miguel Park restroom, and picnic structure replacement, ... Page 103: O Paragraph 4 from end:"... and the possibility of a Big Canyon was Wash water quality and restoration projec t" Page 104: Paragraph 2: "George Schroeder emphasized the importance of the Balboa Boulevard landscaping project, adding that it was high on the Balboa Wllage Citizens Advisory Committee's priority list." [note: George said "Citizens Advisory Committee' and I assume the specific group he had in mind was the West Newport Landscaping Citizens Advisory Panel ( "CAP ") appointed by the Council's Neighborhood Revitalization Committee. BVAC's area of concern is far away from the proposed Balboa Boulevard landscaping. To add clarity to my remarks and George's, reviewing the CAP's materials from 2011, 1 see the proposal does prominently involve palm trees, but they are "California fan palms," which may be one of the few species acceptable to the California Coastal Commission, and possibly a reference to the existing median trees. The proposed canopy trees to be planted between them in the median are the African Tulip and Gold Medallion tree, which I doubt would be regarded as native materials. The same could be said for most of the proposed shrubs, vines, ground cover and accents. It might also be noted that under City Charter section 709 the advisory body designated by the electorate for "all matters pertaining to parks, beaches, recreation, parkways and street trees" is PB &R, and to date they have not reviewed, let alone offered advice, on this $1.85M proposal.] Page 105: Paragraph 2 under Item 5: "IT Applications Analysis Analyst Maglinti addressed the availability of the app ..." Page 110: Middle of long paragraph: "Further, the Committee will also act in a complementary way to the Water Quality /Coastal Tidelands Committee which Comments on April 9, 2013 Council agenda items - Jim Mosher Page 3 of 12 will be primarily concerned with ocean - facing beaches and water - quality issues." [The underline form of the committee name is the current one, and whatever may have been said it is probably best to stick to it.] Page 113: G Paragraph 4: "Motion by Council Member Gardner, seconded by Council Member Petros to a) approve and authorize the Mayor to execute the Agreement for Loan and Display of Sculpture between the City of Newport Beach and Sarah A. Wilkinson ('Agreement'); and b) display of "Uprooted// "within the Civic Center area." [As written, the motion simply copies staffs direction to Council as it was stated on the agenda. The minutes should reflect the Council's actual action, or lack of action, on part (b) of that reccomendation. I believe Council Member Gardner's motion was something to the effect: "l move to accept the sculpture on a 1 year loan for placement at an as yet undetermined location somewhere in the Civic Center.] Paragraph 1 under Item 16: "Mayor Curry reported that the City Council had the opportunity to discuss the item during today =s a Study Session." [I could be wrong, but I don't think the Mayor meant "today's" (March 26) Study Session. If he did, there is nothing in the present minutes reflective of that discussion. At the same time, I don't know what Study Session he could have been referring to, for his arts initiative was first publicly announced in his February 8, 2013, Speak Up Newport Mayor's Dinner speech, and it was not on the February 12 or 26 Study Session agendas, nor was there a study session on March 12. I suspect the Mayor was thinking of Agenda Item 27 ( "Direction to Staff on Various Issues') at the February 12, 2013, Regular Meeting, at which staff was simply directed to come back with a proposal, in which case "during today's Study Session" should probably read "at an earlier meeting. "] Page 114: O Paragraph 3: "Additionally, he recommended directing staff to generate an RFQ for Council far approval, ..." Page 115: a Middle of paragraph 1: "... the GuFr. e.nt A^^^« P4an current access plan through 2015, ... "[I could be wrong, but I don't think this was a reference to a specific document whose name would be capitalized] Note: the printed copies of the draft minutes distributed by the City Clerk's Office on Friday, and the version posted as part of the on -line agenda packet are both missing the last page or two. The following comments are based on the on -line minutes accompanying the archived video for the March 26, 2013, meeting, which don't show page numbers. Under Item 19 ( "Mobilitie Telecommunications Permit ") Paragraph 4: "Associate Planner Nueno reported that the original landscape plan showed the existing fain Eucalyptus trees which are taller than the pine trees, but noted that the pine tFees �� grew over the heiot of the faux &iGWyptus tr-ee Comments on April 9, 2013 Council agenda items - Jim Mosher Page 4 of 12 there are other trees that could be considered." [There are no "existing faux Eucalyptus trees," and there was no reference to them.] Paragraph 7: "He referenced materials distributed to Council under separate cover, and reported that the proposed trees are not Water Blue Gum Eucalyptus and pine trees were added in the front at the request of staff." [The proposal involved adding two "Water Gum" eucalyptus trees, which were changed after the simulations had been generated to "Lemon Scented" (the species currently on site). Mr. Rogers was assuring Council the new screening trees would not be "Blue Gum" eucalyptus, the species involved in the fatal accident on Irvine Avenue -- although I believe the "mono -euc" cell tower is supposed to resemble a Blue Gum.] Paragraph 8/9: "Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Hill, seconded by Council Member Selich to ) eendUGt T leeam application Pc.,ie .; and b) adopt Resolution No. 2013 -30, as amended, approving Telecommunications Permit No. TP2010 -010 for a telecommunications facility located at 2401 Irvine Avenue (PA2010- 073)." [The review was conducted at the meeting. It was not part of the motion.] Item 3, Finance Committee Charter Update Although little attention is usually given to the exact directions given a committee, this proposed resolution seems like it still needs some work. The preamble copies verbatim the language from the earlier resolutions (2000 -103 and 2007- 21) establishing and modifying the duties of the Finance Committee. At least part of that language seems inappropriate for a new resolution whose only function is to add something to the duties of an existing committee. For example, the final clause, "WHEREAS, the City Council desires to appoint a committee to review all finance matters;" seems particularly out of place when the Committee already exists. Shouldn't the preamble recite instead that the Council previously established a Finance Committee, made some earlier changes to its duties and now wants to add still more? The style of presentation also differs from the more recent style, in which the Council normally passes a resolution saying it wants to modify the Committee as shown on an attachment, which is the proposed new page for the Clerk's Committees book, usually in a red -lined format. But the present resolution does not refer to the proposed new page shown on pages 3 and 4 of the staff report. And like much work prepared by City staff, the present proposal raises more substantive questions when examined in detail. In this case the current Clerk's Committees book page referred to above claims the last revision to it was made by Resolution 2007 -21, passed on April 10, 2007. Yet a quick check of the Laserfiche copy of that resolution as signed by Mayor Rosansky shows it proclaimed substantially different duties. In particular, although identical as to duties (a) -(e), following the duty (e) shown in the staff report copy, Resolution 2007 -21 had: Comments on April 9, 2013 Council agenda items - Jim Mosher Page 5 of 12 0 After approval by the City Council, identify, review and annually recommend to Council the most advantageous methods to fund the City Council's approved Facilities Financing Plan; g) Identify, review and annually recommend to Council the most advantageous methods to fund the City's long term compensation and benefit program liabilities; and h) Review and recommend to Council policies related to the setting of funding goals for major discretionary reserves, and review on -going progress related thereto. It would appear there was either a subsequent revision (perhaps because the full Council never publicly approved a Facilities Financing Plan ?), or someone changed the duties without authorization. Is it Council's intention that these earlier duties be restored or ignored? Finally, as to the three newly recommended duties, it would seem to me these concern matters the full Council would want to have an opportunity to participate and weigh in on after their review by the three - member Finance Committee. Item 4. Addition of Off Street Parking Meter Zones Staff continues to piecemeal the implementation of this plan (to which the City already seems firmly committed) to transfer operation of its two major beach parking tots from part time City employees to its private outside parking meter contractor. The overall proposal raises a number of interesting issues. When the first phase this project — the allocation of $440,000 for the purchase of the 23 digital multi -space pay stations and two license plate recognition enforcement vehicles to equip the City's Balboa Pier and Big Corona parking lots —was before the Council as Agenda Item 15 at the February 26, 2013, meeting, I objected that its adoption without a vote of the people seemed contrary to the City Attorney's clear promise to the electorate in his sample ballot analysis of the effect of Measure EE: "Specifically, a `yes" vote would. (1) prohibit the City from taking any action that would result in the installation of red light cameras or other automated traffic enforcement systems in the City of Newport Beach (except toll roads) without subsequent Charter Amendment approved by the voters of Newport Beach." Whatever the merits of the present proposal, Measure EE passed and I continue to feel most people would regard the issuance of parking tickets by means of a license plate recognition system to be an example of the kind of automated traffic enforcement (similar to automated fee payment/ticketing on toll roads) that they thought would now require voter approval. However that may, I don't think Council gave sufficient scrutiny to the original expenditure. For example, the February 26 staff report indicated that visitors to the Balboa Lot currently take a time - stamped ticket when they enter, and when they leave they present the ticket to an attendant who computes their bill based on the hourly rate and the $15 daily cap. It is not at all clear how the automated pay stations will replicate that experience. It sounds like beachgoers will now have to guess in advance how long they plan to stay, and if they guess wrong will have to either return to the meter to "feed" it, or, if they leave early, lose their overestimated advance Comments on April 9, 2013 Council agenda items - Jim Mosher Page 6 of 12 payment. The machines will also presumably not be able to offer change to those paying in cash (as a human attendant could), or to recognize members of special groups (such as seniors or veterans /servicemen) to whom the Council may wish to offer discounts. It also unclear how staff (or the contractor) intends to deal with situations in which the license plate recognition system misreads a license plate and issues a citation to an "innocent" vehicle owner. California Coastal Commission (CCC) staff raised many similar concerns in their analysis of the as yet unresolved recent unpermitted installation of automated parking pay stations at Crystal Cove State Park (Item 19c on their February 6, 2013). It is evident from that report that the present project will also require a Coastal Development Permit (CDP), and it seems very unlikely that process can be completed by Memorial Day, as City staff seems to anticipate. Assuming this scheme is allowed under the City Charter, and a CDP for it is issued by the CCC, it seems to me that buying enforcement vehicles to patrol the lots is not the best or cheapest way of monitoring who is in the lot and how long they have been there. Having fixed cameras at the entrance and exit, recording who enters and who leaves, and when, would not only provide far more precise information, including the current occupancy of the lot, but would also do so more safely and more effectively, and with fewer expensive human personnel. As to this second phase of the transfer of parking lot operation to an outside contractor — the adoption of a resolution apparently necessary to legalize the installation of machines to automatically accept payments formerly taken by human attendants — it raises additional questions, including, one assumes, Coastal Act concerns about charging at Big Corona for an experience that is currently free (namely, parking off season and before 10 a.m. most days). It also leaves me wondering what happened to the promise in the February 26 staff report (page 5) that said: "In addition, staff intends to return to Council with a recommendation to change the CDM parking lot fee from flat to hourly during the off - season. The automated infrastructure coupled with an hourly fee will provide increased revenue opportunity. " The offering of an hourly rate would seem essential to gaining approval of a CDP, yet there is nothing in the draft resolution about hourly rates at the Big Corona lot. Is this an oversight? Or has that plan been scrapped? In addition, the rates charged for buses, although they are only echoing the present rules (which were probably never approved by the CCC), seem large and peculiar to me. Does the passenger number mentioned in the resolution refer to the capacity of the empty bus, or to the actual number of occupants? If it is the actual number of occupants, it seems strange that going from 24 to 25 occupants would double the charge assessed to each of those 25 occupants. In a rational world, that would discourage a bus with 24 occupants from adding another passenger. And the $4.00 per person the 25 would then need to pay seems high to me. If we have a beach parking problem, and even if we are just trying to encourage tourism, shouldn't we be encouraging people to arrive efficiently by mass transportation, rather than discouraging it? As to the staff report and draft resolution, the new prediction on pagel that "There is no fiscal impact related to this item" is, one would hope, erroneous. The February 26 staff report promised (bottom on page 6) that the entire reason for this proposal was that transfer of parking Comments on April 9, 2013 Council agenda items - Jim Mosher Page 7 of 12 lot operations to the private contractor (even after correcting for the large capital expenditures required of taxpayers) would result in "a revenue uplift" estimated at around $500,000 per year. I would also note that the draft Resolution refers to an "Exhibit "A.. and an "Exhibit `B "'. One assumes these are the two pages following the resolution, but they are not labeled as such. And in reviewing the California Vehicle Code and Newport Beach Municipal Code (NBMC) sections cited in the staff report, I was left wondering how the present action comports with the Mayor's desire to clean up the NMBC? As the draft resolution indicates, the Balboa Pier Lot and the Big Corona lot will evidently be the City's Parking Meter Zones 29 & 30, but while nine of the previously defined zones are spelled out in NBMC section 12.44.020, numbers 10 -28 were apparently also created by resolution, which means, like these, they will not be reflected in the NBMC, leaving no coherent picture of what zones we have and what rules apply to them. Finally, as to the 6 a.m. to 10 p.m. parking enforcement hours at Big Corona, which correspond to the City's long- standing nighttime beach curfew articulated in NBMC section 11.08.030, it is interesting to note that the February 6, 2013, CCC staff analysis referred to above finds such curfews to be of questionable legality in the absence of clearly documented public safety problems, and in particular to violate not only the Coastal Act but also the California Constitution if they restrict access to, and use of, the beach tidelands at any hour. Item 5. Shorecliff Road Catch Basin Modification, Reef Point Eiofiltration System, Los Trancos Creek Maintenance The report says these projects will be paid for using two "Newport Coast ASBS Protection Program" accounts. Where does the money in these accounts come from? The second two projects appear to be located in Crystal Cove State Park. Does State Parks contribute to the funding? I would also be curious to know if the "infiltration gallery' proposed for the Reef Point parking lot is similar to the one at the Mariners Branch Library which floods the lot on days of even moderate rain? Item 6. Professional Services Agreement with Kimley -Morn for East Coast Highway Traffic Signal Rehabilitation Project Design I am unable to follow the rationale on page 3 of the staff report for why the most qualified respondent was not selected, although perhaps it is explained in the cited "Administrative Policy AP -001," which I don't think the public has ready access to. Does that policy compel selection of the "next qualified' respondent? It has also never been clear to me why in selecting professional services consultants, the qualified bidder offering the lowest price for the requested service is not selected. Did Hartzog & Grabill withdraw, or were they rejected because they were overpriced? In the proposed agreement (Attachment B), if staff has not already entered into this agreement prior to Council approval, it looks like under the heading, the contract starting date of "March" Comments on April 9, 2013 Council agenda items - Jim Mosher Page 8 of 12 should be replaced with "April." Also, under 4. Compensation to Consultant," this is written as a "not to exceed" arrangement with hourly rates, but the Scope of Services (page 22 of 28) in Attachment B identifies the $124,800 as a fixed rate, lump sum payment. Which is correct? Item 7. Agreement with Sailing Fascination to Berth at Below Market Rate This seems a commendable program, however if approved by Council, the Slip Rental Agreement provided as Attachment CC 1 will not implement the stated objective of allowing berthing at $1 per year. Instead, recital 6(a) on handwritten page 11 says: "Vessel Owner agrees to pay the Slip Fee of One Hundred Dollars and 00/100 ($100.00) per month ..." One might also note that Exhibit 3 to the proposed agreement (handwritten page 25), requires Sailing Fascination to provide extensive financial documentation to the City once each year (items 8 and 9), but I have to wonder why it is being requested, for I can find nothing in the agreement indicating what the requested information would affect or be used for. Finally, it is unclear to me why this proposal seems to be coming exclusively from the Community Development Department, without obvious participation by the Harbor Resources and Revenue Divisions. Item 8. On -Call Repair Services /-agreements for Underground Utility Installation and Repair Services A significant failing of the staff report is that 'Attachment C: On -call repair services agreement with Steve Bubalo Construction Co., Inc." is actually a second copy of the contract with GCI, so neither the public nor the Council has seen the proposed contract with Mr. Bubalo. Moreover, the collective amount of these contracts, $600,000 over two years, seems rather large for incidental repairs, and might be seen by some as a means to evade the competitive bidding process that would normally award such cumulatively significant expenditures on public projects to the lowest responsible bidder. It would seem the present work will be awarded mostly on the basis of familiarity of city staff with the contractor, rather than on cost. The contracts are also a silent on the matter of prevailing wages, yet these are not contracts for minor restroom repairs, lawn mowing or brush clearance — the kinds of jobs cited in previous discussions on that subject.. One would think we would want only very well qualified persons working on a 48 inch water main or a pressurized sewer line. Item 9. On -Call Repair Services Agreement for Sidewalk Grinding The staff report does not make clear why this matter is before the Council. If staff had followed Council Policy F -14, which (Section IV.E.1) limits on -call contracts to two years, the total potential dollar amount of $80,000 would have been well below the City Manager's $120,000 signing limit, and the money is said to be already budgeted. Comments on April 9, 2013 Council agenda items - Jim Mosher Page 9 of 12 Why is a five year contract, exceeding the City Manager's signing authority, desired? And does the Council have to formally waive Policy F -14 to allow even itself to award an on -call contract for more than two years? As to the proposed contract, Exhibit B ( "Schedule of Billing Rates ") leaves unclear how much taxpayers will charged for situations in which the grind length exceeds five linear feet (many sidewalks are wider than that) or 1.25" in depth (the staff report, page 2, says grinds can go to 1.5" or perhaps more ?). Item 11. Planning Commission Agenda for April 3, 2093 Although not clear from the staff report, under Item No. 2 ( "Newport North Center Monument Signs "), The Irvine Company (TIC) was once again authorized to proceed with development inconsistent with the regulations adopted by Council ("PC text ") for one of their "Planned" Communities, in this case adding additional signs to their small shopping center at the northwest corner of MacArthur and Bison. Since TIC claimed the approved PC text was unworkable, and since the Zoning Code gives the Council the authority to amend the PC text as often as necessary, it is my view that TIC should have come to Council with a proposed amendment specifying a sign plan they could work within, rather than asking the Planning Commission for "modifications" to the existing PC text, something which the Planning Commission has no clear authority to grant under the Zoning Code. To me, having a 'plan' that can be routinely and easily ignored means one has no plan at all. Item 92. Newport Peninsula July 4th Parade and Festival Request for Temporary Banners Extending over the Public Right-of-Way The staff report refers repeatedly to a "Newport Peninsula July 4th Parade and Festival Committee' which the Recreation and Senior Services Department proposes to support and materially aid, including, apparently, designing, buying, installing and storing banners for them. I think the 4th of July is for Families program is a fine municipal effort, but it would be good to know who this group is and how they were selected. I am unable to find any explanation. Does this group bear any relation to the "July 4th West Newport Safety Planning Committee' listed on the Clerk's Roster of Council- appointed committees? Or is it something completely different? Since the latter is a Brown Act committee and I have seen no public notices of meetings of the "Newport Peninsula July 4th Parade and Festival Committee," I have to assume it is something different; but since page 2 says (paragraph 3) "The Committee feels ...," I also have to assume it does meet. Page 2 also refers, without further explanation, to a "contractor." I assume that is a person or company taxpayers will hire to install and remove (and possibly store ?) the banners, most likely DLimaging or Dekra -Lite, judging from the attachments. Comments on April 9, 2013 Council agenda items - Jim Mosher Page 10 of 12 Finally, I would note that the banner design shown on Attachment E (and approved by the Committee ?) appears to display the motto "4th of July Families." I thought the official title of the event was "4th of July is for Families, " which makes more sense to me. Item 13. RNP Departures for John Wayne Airport In paragraph 2 under "Discussion' on page 2, 1 understand why Santa Ana Heights and the Anniversary Tract, given their close proximity to the end of the runway would always be close to any take -off pattern. I am unable to understand why Balboa Island and Balboa Village would also always be under any possible flight path, as the paragraph seems to imply. I also find rather high the price of $75,000 paid to Naverus to say they could develop a plan if they were paid still more. Since they have reportedly developed such procedures for every airport that has requested one, I suspect they knew the answer would be "yes" before being paid. As to whether the public wants to urge the Council to take the proposed action, or not, the staff report fails to make clear if the Naverus proposal would restore the fanning of flight paths (probably not ?), and perhaps more importantly, to illustrate what Naverus' recommended RAWLZ departure path(s ?) might look like. Apparently that would be up to "the community," but the Mayor's letter suggests a commitment that all flights will pass over "the current STREL waypoinf? The staff report also does not make clear what was said at earlier Aviation Committee meetings and alluded to in the attachments, namely that the proposal would not only be "RNP" but also "AR" (authorization required), meaning that not all planes or crews would be qualified to fly it. Incidentally, the proposed letter written by Naverus makes the Mayor sound like quite an aviation expert, capable of talking to FAA flight planners in their own jargon. I suspect few in the public will be able to completely follow him. As a side note, the on -line (PDF) version of this report is in an image (as opposed to text - recognized) format, meaning it will probably not be found in computer searches if the agenda packet is added to the City's Laserfiche archive. Item 14, CaIPERS Rate Adjustment Election and Fixed Declining Amortization Period I have some difficulty reconciling the numbers quoted in the staff report with one another and with the numbers listed in the attachment. For example, page 2 says the annual contribution will increase approximately $765,000 further in year one (FY 2013 -14), but would be $82,000 lower on average for each of the next 19 years," yet on page 3 (just above "Environmental Review') a "first year of additional cost of $817,404" is quoted and the attachment shows a higher, not lower, annual contribution through year 25. Comments on April 9, 2013 Council agenda items - Jim Mosher Page 11 of 12 There was also some confusion at the February 28 Finance Committee meeting as to whether the contribution amounts shown in the columns labeled "Current Policy/' and "Fresh Start' represented the amounts paid by the City (that is, by taxpayers) or the City plus the employees. That confusion remains, but I assume it is the latter, making it slightly less clear what the savings to taxpayers might be. Also the little footnote to the attachment saying "Interest Expense Avoided (B - A)" is a bit misleading. I believe it means you should take the number shown in column B as the net increase in assets through a particular year and subtract from that the cumulative total of the extra payments made as shown in column A up through the same year of interest. But only one such cumulative total is shown: the 72,236,324 through year 30 shown in bold at the bottom of column A, which when subtracted from the Year 30 number in column B gives the 113,503,520 of interest expense avoided. I also remain confused as to whether the 21 and 26 year figures represent rolling payback periods of some kind, since the table extends beyond those. But whatever the details, I take it the essence of the report is that we have a debt with CaIPERS, and the more rapidly we pay off the debt, the less the interest expense will be. That begs the question of how the proposed payback periods of 21 and 26 years were selected and whether even bigger savings wouldn't be realized with shorter periods? Finally, I think it would have been interesting to show how the magnitude of the unfunded liability changes in the listed years. I don't believe the unfunded liability shown — only that more assets in the CalPERS bank mean less unfunded liability. Item 95. Revisions to Previously Adopted Resolutions for General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan Amendments Except for being applied to a different set of addresses, this appears identical to the matter brought forward as Agenda Item No. 14 at the Council's March 12, 2013, meeting. One wonders how many more of these there are. I thought there was a limit to how many times the General Plan could be amended each year... Comments on April 9, 2013 Council agenda items - Jim Mosher Page 12 of 12 Item 16. Marina Park Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment It is curious that there seems to be some doubt as to what language the Coastal Commission approved, and that it may not be what Newport Beach City staff understood it to be at the time of the meeting. I have similar difficulty trying to follow many of the motions passed by the Newport Beach City Council. Roberts' Rules of Order are supposed to solve that by requiring the Chair of the meeting to clearly restate the motion just before the vote. In my experience that rarely happens, but I thought the Chair usually did so at Coastal Commission meetings. Item 17. Annual Review of the Pacific View Memorial Park Development Agreement Pacific View evidently finds the Development Agreement advantageous to their future plans or they would not have agreed to extend it out, according to the staff report, nearly 40 years from its start. One might wonder what, if anything, it entitles them to do that they would not otherwise be allowed to do. Would all, or only part, of their entitlements disappear if there were no Development Agreement? Perhaps next year's staff report will explain that.