Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0 - Public Comments,'I_ rl "RECEIVED AEfER AGENDA iUne'11'; GD13 Cou. ncH Agenda Item Comments The following corrimerits on items on the Newport Beach City Council agenda are submitted by: Jim Mosher ( jimmoshz_ri,' v ;.hco.corn ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach 92660 (949- 548 -6229) ("_ ,, STUDY SESSION Item 2. July 4th Update The City Council budget for FY2013 -4 includes (in Division 0110 — Account 8265) an allocation of $35,000 for "fireworks" (up from $25,000 in FY2012 -3). Although the public does not know exactly what fireworks expenditures are anticipated by staff, assuming some of this will be used to support the July 4'" fireworks show at the Newport Dunes, I hope staff will remind the public that under the agreement required by City Council Poiicy_q 12, Newport Beach residents should be offered "free access to the event, with the exception of parking fees." CLOSED SESSION Item A on the Closed Session involves instruction to the City Manager regarding the acceptable price to lease City -owned property at 3300 Pacific View Drive to Harbor Day School. From the City's interactive mat, 3300 Pacific View Drive is a strip of land fronting Big Canyon Reservoir. In response to a question at Saturday's "Meet the Mayo_," Mayor Curry indicated the school was interested in using a portion of that land (which is across the street from the school) for a drop - off lane or extra parking. Although not legally required, it would seem to me it would not have been difficult to indicate this in a few words on the agenda so that the whole public would know what is under consideration. It would similarly not have seemed difficult to have indicated in a few words what the Arnie Pike, et al v City of Newport Beach litigation (Item B) is albqut (apparently a dispute over the adequacy of handicapped access on Balboa Island), or what issues need to resolved in the planned closed session conference with our City labor negotiators (Item C). REGULAR MEETINGS Item 1. Minutes for the MAY 28, 2013 Meetings 1. 1 was not able to detect any major blunders, only minor errors of grammar, which the Council may or may not be interested in correcting. a. For example, in paragraph 2 on the first page, Community Development Director Brandt said that NBMC Section 15.45.050 referenced "the part of the Zoning Code that discusses public noticing," not that NBMC Section 15.45.050 "is the part of the Zoning Code that discusses public noticing." b. Similarly, in the next paragraph, Mayor Curry asked "that two additional public members be added to the makeup of the Land Use Element Amendment Advisory Committee," not that "that two additional public members be included to the makeup June 11, 2013 Council agenda item comments - Jim Mosher Page 2 of 7 of the Land Use Element Amendment Advisory Committee," which sounds ungrammatical to me. 2. More substantively, there are many places where the minutes note that discussion took place without recording what points were made, or where remarks are described and attributed to an individual, but phrased in, such a way 'halt the content of the remarks is unclear. In view of this, I hope that at some point the Council will make a clear and firm commitment to the concept that for the use of future generations the audiovisual recordings of the meetings are an essential adjunct to the written minutes that needs to be permanently preserved with them. I don't know if meetings were recorded prior to 2005 (the oldest video recordings currently posted on the internet), but the City is much the poorer for not having complete, readily - accessible recordings of the meetings that took place over most of its history, and it would be unfortunate if the current recordings were lost through unclear or inadequate record retention policies. Item 3. Adoption of Ordinance Amending Periodic Review of Development Agreements In connection with the annual review of Development Agreements, the full Council may wish to know that 2003's AB 1347 inserted Section 65865(e) into the portion of the California Government Code dealing with Development Agreements, and that appears to have made fees collected as a requirement for approval subject to at least part of the "Mitigation Fee Act" (California Government Code Sections 66000 - 66008), which in turn imposes detailed restrictions and annual reporting requirements on the use of those fees. If that interpretation is correct, it is unclear the City has been correctly observing the new restrictions. At least the public has not been seeing the required annual reporting presented in a way that would be recognized as such. Item 4. Intention to Renews the Corona Del Mar Business Improvement District and Levy Assessments in FY 2013 -2014 1. In my view, this organization should be entirely self- funded through its member assessments. 2. From my reading of the California Streets and Kghway�l Code, the BID Board should be advisory to the Council, and the actual administration of the extra funding they provide for requested improvements should be through the normal City staff. 3. If the BID Board is given an administrative role, I believe its members should be sworn in as public officials, as other City Board and Commission members are, and made better aware of their public responsibilities through AB 1234 ethics and conflict of interest training. 4. Based on my observation of CdM BID Board meetings to date, it is doubtful they are prepared to assume the full administrative role proposed to be assigned to them by July 1 si 5. The $10,000 of taxpayer money proposed to be given to "Newport Beach & Company" to promote this single business district seems especially problematic to me, both from the standpoint of equity to the City's many other businesses and because I don't even know for sure what "Newport Beach & Company' is, or how it will operate. Our former contractual relationship was with a registered non - profit called "Visit Newport Beach." June 11, 2013 Council agenda item comments - Jim Mosher Page 3 of 7 Item 5. Intention to Renew the Newport Beach Restaurant Association Business Improvement District and Levy Assessments in FY 2013 -2014 In addition to the comments on Agenda Item 4, which apply equally here, I believe the correct name of this entity, which I would have thought would have been referenced somewhere in the resolution, is (per Ordinance 95 -55): "Newport Beach Restaurant Improvement District" -- begging the question, at least for some, of why the already excellent restaurants in some district of our City have a continuing need to be publicly improved. Item 6. Support for Increased Funding for Local Coastal Planning 1. It is refreshing to see the City Council taking a position supporting a California Coastal Commission (CCC) effort. 2. However, in Section 1.1 of the proposed resolution there is a reference to "the funding" as if everyone should know what funding is meant. I understand from the remainder of the resolution that the Council thinks more funding to the CCC (from Sacramento ?), if properly targeted, might help expedite the City's current Local Coastal Program process, and perhaps even qualify the City for a grant, but I am unable to decipher from the resolution what specific CCC funding request the Council is supporting. Item 7. Annual Measure M Fund Eligibility Requirements It might have been helpful to include a brief discussion of how the 19th Street Bridge and Newport Banning Ranch decisions impact the City's compliance with the MPAH. Item 12. Agreement for the Purchase of 'Tractor -Drawn Quint I have nothing against the Fire Department's request to replace a 19 year old "hook and ladder" fire truck and trailer, but I don't think the agenda announcement for this item does much of a job of informing the public about what this request is for, since few would recognize the term "tractor -drawn quint" as referring to that vehicle. a. The unabridged dictionary I consulted, although familiar with "quint" as referring to one child from a multiple birth of five, was unaware of its use in connection with firefighting apparatus. b. An internet search (including a search for photos of "quints" related to firefighting) suggests that even to the vast majority of firefighters, a "quint" is a somewhat longer than normal fire truck with an aerial extension ladder added on top, giving it five distinct functions (hence "quint ") — not something divided between a truck pulling a separate trailer holding the ladder. The request seems to be for a new "hook and ladder" type truck incorporating the five functions of a "quint," although it is not entirely clear which, if any, functions were lacking on the unit being replaced. Page 5 of the 339 page staff report shows a photo of a hook and ladder "quint," apparently owned by the City of Encinitas, compared to a Newport Beach tractor - trailer with aerial ladder (possibly the one being replaced ?), with an arrow pointing to what may be a pumping station incorporated into the Encinitas tractor; but I June 11, 2013 Council agenda item comments - Jim Mosher Page 4 of 7 was unable to find any explanation of the photos, or if the thing drawn by the tractor is by itself regarded as a "quint." It is good to see from the staff report that the vendor selected can supply the desired equipment at a cost lower than a vendor offering a lower -rated unit, but the cost of fire equipment in general — in this case $1,148,221.44 — seems rather high. a. On January 22 we bought three paramedic /ambulance units for $275,736 each, and on May 14, three pumper trucks for $580,789 each. b. This might be compared to the surprisingly small request in Agenda Item 17 (first page of Attachment A, under "Equipment Fund ") of just $75,000 to purchase three police motorcycles and a Crime Scene Investigation van. c. If I understand the reports correctly, we could purchase 45 police motorcycles and 15 vans for the cost of a single firefighting "quint," suggesting a possible disparity in the value per dollar obtainable in those markets. Item 93. Planning Commission Agenda for June 6, 2093 The "Action Report" assures the Council and the public that the Planning Commission found the proposed list of Capital Improvement Program projects for FY2013 -4 consistent with the General Plan. What is not mentioned is that California Government Code Section 65401, pursuant to which that hearing was ostensibly held, appears to require a review for consistency not just for projects in the City's budget, but for coordinated list of all public works projects proposed to be conducted within the City limits by all public agencies in the coming year. Although we have heard bits and pieces of some planned activities (for example the Orange County Sanitation District sewer project), it would appear the public in Newport Beach has not yet seen such a coordinated list, let alone been assured by their fellow citizens that it is consistent with the General Plan. Item 94. Board and Commission Scheduled Vacancies - Confirmation of (Nominees. In reviewing the vide_ of a recent meeting of the Laguna Beach City Council, I was surprised by two things: 1. The Council members sit around a horseshoe shaped dais, allowing them to see one another. 2. Before making appointments to boards and commissions, they invite the applicants /nominees to come to the Council meeting to make a statement and to be publicly interviewed. Both of these seem to me like they would be useful innovations for Newport Beach, and I'm not sure that having four times the population makes them impractical. Putting a face to a name seems particularly important since I have attended the meetings of most of the bodies to which appointments are being contemplated, and aside from the incumbents, and despite the earnest expressions of interest in serving, I recall very few of the nominees ever attending or participating in those meetings June 11, 2013 Council agenda item comments - Jim Mosher Page 5 of 7 Item 15. Mobilitie Telecommunications Permit for Obelisk Located at 20661 Newport Coast Drive 1. This request to construct a cell phone transmitter site affects an area of the City that I have never visited, and hence I have no strong opinion about it. 2. Nonetheless, based on the photos, it is not an area in which I would normally expect to find a 55 -foot tall (one -tenth scale) replica of the Washington Monument along the road, which leads me to question whether this is truly a "stealth" facility (that is, one that might be mistaken for a normal architectural feature). 3. Although Mobilitie "has secured Verizon Wireless as an anchor tenant" for its proposed new tower (handwritten page 25), 1 find it disturbing that City staff appears to have done nothing to verify, independently or otherwise, that the theoretical coverage deficiency illustrated by Exhibit 6.03 translates into an actual Verizon service problem requiring construction of a new tower (as is necessary to make Finding 3.A.2 in the proposed resolution of approval). a. Verizon's online Coveraoe Locator does not disclose to potential subscribers any deficiency of service at this location. b. In view of that, one might have expected, at a minimum, a request for some actual drive test data illustrating the existence and extent of the problem. 4. Since Mobilitie is solely in the business of building and leasing space on towers, it is also unclear if some more modest solution (a smaller roadside booster or amplifier) might be an adequate alternative for solving Verizon's problem, assuming they have one. 5. The dismissal, on handwritten page 29, of the possibility of collocating Verizon antennas on the existing facility at 20664 Newport Coast Drive, similarly seems to be driven more by Mobilitie's desire to build and lease new towers, than by what would be minimally sufficient to close Verizon's coverage gap. 6. One might also question if the lack of ability to negotiate for a facility at Sage Hill School might reflect either: a. A difference in the lease costs Mobilitie would have to pay at the two locations. b. The possibility of a more modest solution on the Sage Hill School property, adequate for Verizon's needs, but not requiring Mobilitie to construct a tower. 7. With regard to costs and revenue, the staff report does not make clear if the landlord at the proposed tower location would be receiving lease revenue, but from the project plans in Attachment CC 6 the landlord would appear to be Orange County, Item 16. Adoption of Fiscal Year 2013 -14 Appropriations Limit I found the explanation of the "Gann limit" less than clear. 1. In line 6 of the Staff Report's Abstract, I suspect "applicable tax proceeds are estimated at $128.7 million" may have been intended to read "applicable tax expenditures [or appropriations] are estimated at $128.7 million "? 2. That stated proposed expenditure amount ( "appropriation ") is difficult to reconcile with page 32 of the proposed FY14 Performance Plan, which gives total projected expenditures of $278.9M, including $162.3M of General Fund expenditures. $278.9M is June 11, 2013 Council agenda item comments - Jim Mosher Page 6 of 7 also the "total approved appropriation' cited on the last line of the first page of the Budget Adoption Resolution (Agenda Item 17). Item 17. Fiscal Year 2013 -14 Budget Adoption 1. I was surprised to see City staffing is intended to be reduced by 30 Full Time Equivalent positions (page 3 of the staff report). I thought we can be repeatedly told it was going to be 20 minus 4 new police positions for a net reduction of 16. 2. Having just researched the Fire Department expenditure request (Agenda Item 12), 1 find slightly ominous the reference, also on page 3 of the staff report, of planned substantial expenditures on an "Enterprise Resource Planning" (ERP) system. According to Jess rgports, the American LaFrance company, which was once one of the premier American manufacturers of fire engines, blamed a recent bankruptcy on the faulty implementation of a new ERP from IBM. 3. Regarding the proposed Resolution: a. I assume to be correct, but did not attempt to verify, the statement that copies of the proposed budget were available for public inspection in the City Clerk's Office. This would have to be in hard -copy now, since the City Clerk no longer has a terminal at which the public can view computer- stored documents. b. I was able to verify the concept enunciated in City Council Policy F -3, allowing the City Manager "to approve requests for budget increases not to exceed $10,000 in any Budget Activity or Capital Project," but I'm not sure the policy is consistent with the City Charter, and I was unable to find any explanation of what a "Budget Activity" is. If there are enough of them, that could amount to a great deal of expenditure not publicly approved by the City Council. Item 18. Civic Center and Park Project Close Out Accounting 1. This appears to me to be mostly after -the -fact adjustment to existing contracts, so I have my usual concern regarding consistency with Article 11, Section 10 of the California Constitution. 2. To achieve compliance, I assume those contracts required advance written authorization before costs and services could be added to what had been publicly approved. I think it would be good for the public to be able to see those prior written authorizations. 3. 1 am even more concerned that many of the changes, and design decisions, appear to have been made and /or approved by the Council's three - member "Ad Hoc Building Committee." It is a continuing mystery to me how that group can meet or confer non - publicly to make decisions on behalf of the full City Council without violating the Brown Act, which exempts only non - standing, non - quorum advisory committees. June 11, 2013 Council agenda item comments - Jim Mosher Page 7 of 7 Item 19. Amended Employment Agreement for City Manager 1. I find it commendable that the City Manager has committed to not requesting a raise, although the staff report (top of page 2) suggests this may only be until an executive compensation study is completed later this year. 2. 1 am profoundly concerned that the present recommendation for a new contract is coming from a "Council Working Group." I am not aware of the public having been previously notified that such a group had been appointed, or existed, and if it was not appointed, how it came to be authorized to direct staff to prepare the new contract, presumably on behalf of the full Council. Although self- formed, privately functioning groups of less than a quorum of the Council are not precluded by the Brown Act, governance by such means seems very poor public policy and, among other things, precludes the possibility of their advice to the full Council being informed by general public input. 3. 1 am doubtful that "evergreen" renewal clauses, such as the one being proposed, are common, as the staff report suggests on page 2. On the contrary, I believe our recent lifetime employment agreements with key employees were highly unusual, and this is only a partial correction of that anomaly. 4. Is it possibly a slip of the pen that the staff report is signed "approved" (on page 1) by the City Manager himself? Whether a raise is requested, or not, I would have hoped that any kind of participation in the processing of a contract in which one is so clearly financially interested would be precluded by either state law or the City Charter. 5. Finally, on page 14 of the Restated Agreement (page 33 of the staff report), I believe that under Leilani Brown it should say "City Clerk," rather than "Deputy City Clerk."