Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout00 - Public CommentsRecieved After Agenda Printed April 8, 2014 Public Comments April 8, 2014, City Council Agenda Item Comments The following comments on items on the Newport Beach City Council agenda are submitted by: Jim Mosher ( iimmosher(a)yahoo.com ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach 92660 (949- 548 -6229) Item SS2. Arts Master Plan It will be interesting to hear staff's ideas Although that session, and earlier ones, are not part of the no- longer - searchable Council video archive currently accessible to the public, a search of the archived written City Council minutes for prior references to a Newport Beach "Arts Master Plan" suggests that City Manager Dave Kiff made some comments about, and recommended allocating $100k towards, an "Arts and Culture Master Plan" at a May 28, 2013, Study Session. The existence of such a plan also seems to have been tangentially mentioned on January 14, 2014, in connection with an offer (since withdrawn) from the Tourism BID to provide $150,000 to support the arts, and the present plan may also be related to the Council's hastily adopted Policy 1 -13 ( "Public Arts and Cultural Facilities Fund," adopted March 26, 2013), although that policy does not specifically reference a plan, let alone a "master" one. It seems possible an RFP was issued last year to contract with a consultant to develop a plan, but the public does not have ready access to RFP's once contracts have been awarded, and it bothers me that after a reasonably diligent search I am unable to find any contract with Rick Stein or Arts Orange County in the database of contracts maintained by the City Clerk, even though I am pretty sure the same organization is working separately under contract on the Civic Center Sculpture Exhibit, nor for that matter can I find any recent contracts with the words "arts" or "sculpture" in them, or even any contracts at all issued by the Library Services Department, since the Agreement with Sarah Wilkinson regarding "Uprooted II." I think the Council should also know that the City Arts Commission, which is the body empowered in the City Charter to "act in an advisory capacity to the City Council in all matters pertaining to artistic, aesthetic and cultural aspects of the City," has never, to the best of my knowledge, formally discussed a comprehensive Arts Master Plan for the City, or Policy 1 -13, although it may have committees meeting non - publicly to formulate recommendations regarding pieces of the former. The Council's guidance to them will undoubtedly prove helpful in synthesizing the recommendations they ultimately bring back to you. Item SS3. Early Look at the Capital Improvement Plan It is good to see the PowerPoint slides posted for review prior to the meeting. It would also seem good if the proposed allocations of assets had been reviewed by the Council's Finance Committee. Among the allocations listed, the $6M on slide 3 for "CdM Fire Station & Library Replacement" is slightly surprising to me since it implies construction is imminent, yet public discussion of the future of those facilities is less far along than the "West Newport Community Center," which is shown at the "Concept Development" phase. April 8, 2014, Council agenda item comments - Jim Mosher Page 2 of 6 I am also puzzled by the origin of the request for the "Balboa Island Entry Arch" depicted on the third slide from the end. Item XV.A.1 Minutes for the March 25, 2014 Regular Meeting The page numbers below refer to Volume 61. The passages in italics are from the staff report, with suggested changes shown in strikeout underline format. 1. Page 506, Section 111, line 1: "Jim Mosher stated that, at yesterday's Finance Committee meeting, there was discussion about the City's discretionary reserves; ..." 2. Page 506, Section VIII: "City Attorney Harp reported that the City Council voted unanimously to petition the U.S. Supreme Court to review the decision of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, in the case of Pacific Shores et al vs. Newport Beach, dealing with the City's ability to regulate group homes for alcohol and drug rehabilitation." [note: The section at the end, in bold, does not appear in the recording, and it would seem particularly improvident to gratuitously attribute to the City Attorney a comment singling out "group homes for alcohol and drug rehabilitation." To the extent I understand it, the issue at bar is whether the City's past words have demonstrated an improper intent to regulate those particular kinds of group homes differently from others, and the City's defense is that whatever its words it treats all homes the same. Should the Appeals Court decision stand, as seems likely, the present words would only provide more evidence of improperly biased intent.] 3. Page 507, Item XI, last paragraph: "In response to Jim Mosher's question about the placement of containers and use of bags, City staff stated that bags will still be allowed to be placed curbside for collection and that placement of containers should be in the street and not on top of the curb." [note: I subsequently learned from Dean Ruffridge, the CR &R Vice President in charge of the transition, that their pickup mechanism works equally well for carts placed on the curb top, and that placement is actually preferred in hilly areas where carts can get loose and roll down the street, especially in storms.] 4. Top of page 508: "... and the Land Use Element Amendment (LUEA) Advisory Committee (U will meet on April 1, 2014 at 2:30 p.m. in the Friends Room of the Central Library. Mayor Pro Tem Selich discussed the items on both the meeting agendas, adding that the EIR for the LUEAAG meetin is online and available for public review." [note: the location of the LUEAAC meeting was stated as indicated, and it was clear the El being referred to assessed the impacts of the LUE amendment. There was no suggestion it assessed the impacts of the meeting] 5. Page 508, last paragraph: "Jim Mosher commented on Supplemental Item19, believing that the City should spend its money towards improving internet coverage of City events rather than on a channel that staff has reported has near zero viewers due to the high diversity of other choices available." 6. Page 511, Item XVI1, paragraph 5: "Patrick Hein Hynes • concierge at the Balboa Bay Resort, commented on ..." [unless there is a speaker card to the contrary, "Hynes" is the spelling used in the Daily Pilot 7. Page 513, middle of paragraph 1: "He also state stated that he believes..." April 8, 2014, Council agenda item comments - Jim Mosher Page 3 of 6 8. Page 513, last paragraph: "Council Member Petros took issue with Mr. Ross's comments regarding the his March 25, 2014 letter which implied that Council received it prior to the meeting and neted that the Applicant had not submitted the their letter in time for him to review it. He clarified that the materials from Mr. Ross were provided today and Council Members have not had time to review them." [note: the phrase "and noted" makes it appear Council Member Petros was making a comment of his own. The recording indicates he was continuing to paraphrase, and take issue with, Mr. Ross's comments.] 9. Page 514, paragraph 2 from end: "In response to Council Member Petros' question regarding how the City determined if there was an environmental effect associated ith with parking and traffic, ..." 10. Page 514, last paragraph: "Council Member Petros emphasized that the City has not subverted used the subversion et rules used to regulate and protect the environment, but rather has applied the proper rules in arriving at its determination." 11. Page 517, paragraph 1: "He commented negatively on a recent experience regarding replacement of a burnt out street light..." Item 5. Adoption of a Resolution for the Reporting of Employer Paid Member Contributions for the California Public Employees' Retirement System At its February 3, 2014, meeting the Board of Library Trustees saw a Hand Out giving a foretaste of a new budget disclosure system in which the reported "Member Contributions" (line item 7439) and "Employer Contributions" (line item 7440) to CaIPERS are offset by a large negative "Misc Retir Contrib" (line item 7445). Hopefully the Council will understand this (there was an explanatory document at the March 3 meeting, but it no longer seems to be available on the City servers) better than the Trustees did, but the genesis of the present system in which taxpayers pay part of the employees' obligation and the employees pay part of the taxpayers' obligation, and who, as a result, is paying exactly what, is as clear as mud to me. If the employees' intent is to pay their full obligation and then some, and from the staff report I have the impression it is, it is unclear to me why anyone would continue to ask the taxpayers to pay 2.42% of salary towards the Member Contribution (which the members have expressed their desire to fully cover), apparently necessitating the convoluted reporting this resolution addresses. It is also unclear if the City's 2.42% is included when the report cites a total employee contribution of 12.35 %, or not. I am guessing not, but I'm not sure. Item 6. West Coast Highway Landscape Improvement Project It is interesting to see the need for a Coastal Development Permit explicitly called out in Attachments A and B. I can't recall if the Balboa Boulevard phase of the westside beautification had one, or not. April 8, 2014, Council agenda item comments - Jim Mosher Page 4 of 6 I find the attribution of the "approved concept" to a five - member Citizen Advisory Panel (CAP), slightly misleading (page 2 of the staff report). My recollection is the CAP largely reviewed plans prepared by an outside consultant, and any event passed their recommendation on to the three member Neighborhood Revitalization Committee which had selected them, who in turn made a recommendation to the full Council. I do not recall if any changes were made, but at each stage the reviewing body had full authority to make changes, and they need to share the credit or the blame. To me, the staff report suggests the City is obligated to spend hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars on whatever five unelected members of the public saw fit; which I think distorts the process. Item 7. Lifeguard Headquarters Rehabilitation It is good to see the need for an extra allocation of funds is being publicly reviewed, and hopefully before the commitment to do the work is made, rather than after. Item 8. Amendment to Central Parking System Agreement From the staff report, it appears we have just passed the two year anniversary of our agreement with Central Parking System, and before approving this item I would think the Council would want a more thorough review of how that agreement is working than can be gleaned from the present staff report. In particular, it would be good to know if revenues have increased and expenses declined, as was anticipated. The report also seems to anticipate that the Council will accept the requested Coastal Development Permit for adding automated pay stations at Big Corona State Beach, which, depending on the conditions attached to it, is not a foregone conclusion. Item 9. Temporary Employment Agreement It is good to see the Community Development Department is aware of Council Policy F -20 on contracting with former City employees, something the City Attorney's Office may not have been aware of when contracting with a former Deputy City Attorney. It might also be noted that the plain language of the policy requires Council approval of contracts not only with former City employees, but also with entities employing one, whether the former City employee is directly connected with the contract, or not. I have never known if before letting contracts the City actually asks if the company involved employs any former City employees. It is also interesting to note that according to the staff report, a very competent and experienced planner is available at roughly half what we pay contract planners. Should that make us wonder why we pay contract planners so much? Item 10. Professional Services Agreement with George H. Eiser, III I know nothing at all about Mr. Eiser, but it bothers me that the City Council is being asked to hire him as a hearing officer, yet there is nothing in the materials provided giving any concrete example of his having served in that capacity before. April 8, 2014, Council agenda item comments - Jim Mosher Page 5 of 6 Page 2 of the Meyers Nave proposal says "George has experience serving as a hearing officer in evidentiary hearings in a number of personnel and land use matters," but no example is given. Indeed, as best I can tell, his resume lists only work as a City Attorney, and the narrative leading up to the preceding bullet point says only that he has been "involved [as City Attorney ?] in multiple hearings comparable to those that will arise under the Newport Beach Municipal Code." Everyone has to start somewhere, but for the price we will be paying, I would think we would want someone with demonstrated experience conducting, rather than merely being involved in, hearings. Possibly Mr. Eiser has that experience, but it should be stated in a way the public can verify. It also bothers me that I can find nothing in NBMC Section 20.60.040 specifying the rotating system of at least three planning issues hearing officers appointed for three year terms, alluded to in the staff report; nor can I find the RFP for additional hearing officers, which is said to still be "open." Item 11. Approval of Side Letter with Newport Beach Police Management Association The significance of items like this is difficult for the public to follow because the main discussion, and presumably the answers to any concerns the Council members may have had about them, take place in closed session, with little or nothing more remaining to be said when they are seen on the Consent Calendar. Item 12. Planning Commission Agenda for April 3, 2014 I found Item No. 3 ( "Echo Beach ") interesting because the Zoning Code Section cited as the basis of the hearing, NBMC 20.54.070, appears to provide only two options when an applicant seeks permission to build something other than a project that had been previously approved. One option is for a determination by the Community Development Director, without public hearing, that the changes are consistent with what was originally approved. The other is for a review by the "original review authority' based on a new application. In the present case, the former version of the project ( "Seashore Village ") had been approved by the City Council on June 20, 2008. Yet without benefit of a new application, the Planning Commission was asked to make the Director's determination that the changes from "Seashore Village" to "Echo Beach" (primarily replacement of duplexes with detached units and a drastic change in architectural style) would not have changed the Council's decision. I found this process difficult to reconcile with the Municipal Code. April 8, 2014, Council agenda item comments - Jim Mosher Page 6 of 6 Item 13. Installation of Corona del Mar Bicycle Racks by the Corona del Mar Business Improvement District (BID) Although under "Funding Requirements" the staff report says "There is no direct City expense for this project," it should be noted that there is a substantial City General Fund contribution to the BID's annual operating budget (see page 6 of 2013 Annual Report). As a result, City taxpayers can be thought of as contributing towards all the BID's expenses. The current fraction is roughly one third. Item 14. Victor P. Caliva Trust Donation This item highlights the convoluted and somewhat uncertain relationship between the City government and the Friends of OASIS in hosting the existing senior center, including who pays for and who is responsible for what, last memorialized in Contract C -3772. With a new community center with a strong senior component being considered for the City's westside, it will be interesting to see if a similarly confusing relationship evolves, involving the same "outside" group, or some other one; and how future donors will express their support for those activities on the westside.