Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout00 - Written CommentsRECEIVED AFTER AGENDA PRINTED June 10, 2014 Written Comments June 10, 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)vahoo.com ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach 92660 (949- 548 -6229) Item 1. Minutes for the May 27, 2014 Study Session and Regular Meeting The page numbers below refer to Volume 61. The passages in italics are from the draft, with suggested changes shown in strikeetft underline format. It might be noted that the suggested changes are generally confined to the clearest errors of grammar or content. The content of many other passages is so opaquely expressed that without consulting the video recording it is impossible to make much sense of them. For example, on the first page, with respect to the Lower Castaways Draft Concept Plan, I see a list of topics that Harbor Commissioner Girling spoke about, but the minutes give me no sense of what he said about them, or what his recommended "next steps" may have been. Likewise, and this is also intended only as a typical example, although the minutes remind me Mayor Hill said something about Lower Castaways and revenue generation, I am unable to recall his position from the written statement that "Mayor Hill commented on the property being revenue - generating." 1. Page 567, paragraph 2: "Commissioner Girling reported that bicycles use is a separate area which is not being proposed to have any changes." 2. Page 568, paragraph 2, last sentence: "Council Member Henn agreed, but indicated it should also be in the context of Paying finding away to reflect the spending for the marina at Marina Park." 3. Page 569, paragraph 4: "In response to Council Member Henn 's and Mayor Pro Tern Selich's ingwires inquiries on the BID's item, ..." 4. Page 569, paragraph 5: "Bernie Svalstad, said the Corona del Mar (GDM CdM BID compromised with staff and is seeking Council approval of the recommendation as presented for the GDA CdM BID. In addition, as a representative of the GDA CdM Chamber of Commerce, he reeen�nends recommended a $2,500 increase for the Christmas Walk event." 5. Page 569, last paragraph: "Council Member Gardner requested consideration of adding funding of the design of the GDA 4 CdM Entryway Project at MacArthur." 6. Page 570, paragraph 2, sentence 2: "Public Works Director Webb discussed the location ..." 7. Page 570, paragraph 3: "Recreation Manager, [delete comma] Sean Levin responded to Council Member Daigle's inquiry on Special Events trash fees sponsorship. He indicated trash is for the Food and Wine Festival will be done through an outside vendor and is not a City charge; therefore, the event could get a sponsor." 8. Page 575, paragraph 5: "Mike Johnson expressed relief that Council has eliminated the Superior Avenue /Pacific Coast Highway site from consideration. He commended Council and believed that including a play field for sports leagues at the 16th Street Park site should be explored." 9. Page 576, paragraph 5 from end: "Council Member Petros wondered if the NBRA BID is receiving the same funding to support their programs as in the past." June 10, 2014, Council agenda item comments - Jim Mosher Page 2 of 6 Item 3. Adoption of Fiscal Year 2014 -15 Appropriations Limit The staff report for the comparable item from the Council's June 8, 2010, meeting (Item 5) contains a table showing how the tax level in the City has compared to the Gann limit since 1995. The upshot seems to be that the $20 -30M cushion between the two, that continues here, has been fairly stable over the years, suggesting that spending in Newport Beach has not increased more rapidly than anticipated by the Gann initiative (inflation + population growth). That sounds like a good thing. Item 4. Declaration of Surplus Fund Balance in Assessment District 103 The staff report seems very generic. It might have been helpful to remind the public what this particular assessment district was formed to do. Item 5. Changes to Council Policies: F -2 (Reserve Policy) and B -2 (Recreation Fees and Related Equipment Replacement Reserves) 1. The staff report is less than clear as to whether the statement "These are changes that can be made easily and amended with the adoption of the FY 2014 -15 Proposed Budget or by no later than June 30, 2014" means that approval of these changed policies would mean the budget proposed to be adopted in Agenda Item 15 would need further amendment before the new fiscal year starts to make it consistent with them — or that the proposed budget already anticipated these changes and would have to be amended if the new policies are not adopted. 2. It also is unclear to me if the proposed Council Policy F -2 is consistent with the City Charter Section 1113 Capital Improvement Fund policies. 3. From the discussion I heard at the Finance Committee meeting, it might have been helpful to use this item to inform the full Council (and public) what the City means when it announces it has "reserves" of a certain amount, and how the "Contingency Reserve" fits into that. 4. 1 believe it is also difficult for the public to reconcile the fund titles it sees in these policies with those listed, for example, in the budget adoption resolution of Agenda Item 15, in part because some are regarded as reserves within the "General" Fund and others are regarded as funds of their own. Item 6. Resolution Authorizing the Temporary Closure of Selected Streets and Parking Lots for the July 4th Holiday Period I am unable to find anything in the staff report explaining how the requested option to close Back Bay Drive is related to events in West Newport. Closing Back Bay Drive on the 4th of July night, if that is part of the plan, would seem especially puzzling since after the City co- sponsored fireworks show at the Dunes it serves a very useful exit route for vehicles leaving the area. June 10, 2014, Council agenda item comments - Jim Mosher Page 3 of 6 It also seems to me that the Coastal Commission would be surprised to learn the City plans to not allow parking at the PCH and Superior lot and at the old City Hall Site. I would suspect summer holidays are when they most expect a maximum of visitor parking to be available. Item 7. Storm Drain Trash and Debris Interceptor Project I assume it is no problem, but the staff report does not make clear how recommended action "e" ( "Amend the Measure M2 seven year CIP') relates to the separate Agenda Item 12 ( "Adopt the Measure M Seven -Year CIP'). They seem to partially duplicate one another. More importantly, does the large variation in bids, and the fact that the only bid below the Engineer's Estimate was withdrawn, indicate there was a problem with the bid process? And does the grant funding make payment of prevailing wages important, as one of the complaints seems to allege? If so, was that condition made clear in the bidding? Item 12. Annual Measure M Fund Eligibility Requirements As Item 6 at its May 13, 2014, the Council supported a $500,000 Measure M grant application for removal of turf from City street parkways, a proposal that may or may not be supported by a majority of the public. At the time it was said that applying for the grant did not commit the City to accepting the money. The present item appears to commit the City to a similarly -named $500,000 Measure M project ( "Turf Replacement and Irrigation Retrofits - Tier T'-- CAP15- 0039), but it appears to be for a different area ( "medians on Jamboree Road between University Drive and Bristol Street "). Is this a previously- approved project? Or will the City be committing to it for the first time with this action and the adoption of the Fiscal Year 2014 -5 budget in Item 15? Regarding the Measure M program in general, I do not think the City has been as aggressive as it could have been, or perhaps could still be, in seeking Measure M funds for acquisition of the Banning Ranch property as permanent open space. Item 13. Board and Commission Vacancies - Confirmation of Nominees I find it curious that of the Board and Commission applicants using the new form requesting disclosure of possible financial conflicts, only one — a Planning Commission applicant — seems to recognize the fact that they might have to recuse themselves from a Board and Commission decision. I would think that financial conflicts would arise as often on the Boards and Commissions as they do on the City Council. I have been particularly puzzled, for example, how Harbor Commissioners with a habor -front home or investment in a harbor - related business can make harbor - related decisions on behalf of all residents of the City. June 10, 2014, Council agenda item comments - Jim Mosher Page 4 of 6 XVII. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON - AGENDA ITEMS As the draft minutes of the May 27, 2014, regular meeting indicate, there was a promise made at that meeting to bring back Item 11 ( "Dinghy Rack Rental Rate ") at this meeting. I have been unable to find it on the agenda. Item 14. Echo Beach Project Appeal (PA2014 -005) The staff report does not seem to include the written comments I submitted to the Planning Commission when this item was heard by them on April 3 (their Item 3). As I understand it, the new owners are proposing a project that differs from that previously approved in several respects, including: (1) major changes in architecture, (2) duplex units replaced by detached dwelling units, and (3) changes to site layout and circulation. I tend to agree with City staff and its planning consultant that since this consists of the same total number of dwelling units on the same number of acres at the same location, there is not likely to be much change in the results of the CEQA analysis. However, from a City planning perspective, I have concerns as to whether we are following Section 20.54.070 ( "Changes to an Approved Project ") of our revised Zoning Code as adopted in 2010. Section 20.54.070 offers just two possibilities: either (1) the changes from the approved plans are so minor they could not possibly have affected the original approval, in which case the Community Development Director is authorized to approve the changes without a public process; or (2) the changed project is referred back to the original review authority as a new application. I assume the architectural style and the duplex design were considered in the original approval, and generated conditions of approval. Since the deviations from what was promised are quite large, it seems obvious to me the changes do not meet the criteria specified in Subsection 20.54.070.13 for "Minor Changes Approved by the Director Without a Public Hearing." As a result, whether the new project is better or worse than before, the clear language of Subsection 20.54.070.0 dictates that the original review authority needs to treat the new proposal as if it were a new application — not simply perform a "substantial conformance' review (a term and process not defined in the code). In view of that, the present case points up two uncertainties in this section of the 2010 Zoning Code that could be clarified in a future revision: When an application has been appealed, is the "original review authority' referred to in this section intended to be the body that first reviewed the application? Or is it the one that last heard the application and granted the approval? 2. Is there intended to be a mechanism — as the Planning Division seems to believe there already is -- for the `original review authority," short of conducting a full new review, to make findings confirming the existence of only "minor changes' as specified in Subsection 20.54.070.6? June 10, 2014, Council agenda item comments - Jim Mosher Page 5 of 6 It might seem obvious from the wording that the "original review authority' would be the one that would process a new application, but if the original application was denied by them, it would seem like it would be the one who granted the approval that would decide if they would approve the changed project. Item 15. Fiscal Year 2014 -15 Budget Adoption 1. 1 believe a promise was made at the May 27 Study Session to bring back an item for public review detailing how the harbor permit fees were spent. Although the City website has a page that was apparently started to disseminate such information, I believe something more current than that was planned. 2. Regarding the proposed salary range adjustments: a. I find it strange that the Police Chief costs the City more ($300,739 total salary and benefits for FY2014 -15) than the City Manager ($283,963). Generally one would expect subordinates to make less than their managers. b. The much ballyhooed idea that employees are now paying the full amount of their "employee contribution" to CalPERS, and more, loses a bit of its shine if, as seems to be the case with the Police Chief, the basic pay rate has been adjusted upwards so that the increased contribution causes no decrease in take -home pay. If the take -home pay has been adjusted to offset the increased contribution, it would seem to me the taxpayers are still effectively funding the "employee" contribution. c. Regarding the other salary range adjustments, the public may be curious what happened to the Fox Lawson study of City pay scales, last heard of as Item 17 at the August 13, 2013 meeting, and whether its results may trigger major adjustments to the budget being submitted for approval. 3. Regarding the staffing changes: a. I am a bit confused by the statement at one of the study sessions that the Crime Suppression Unit is being completed this year by adding the final officer to it — yet no changes in police staffing are indicated in the Staffing Changes tables on page 4 of the present staff report. Is the new Crime Suppression officer a transfer of someone currently assigned to some other duty? b. However that may be, I feel the reduction in staffing levels is something of a fiction, since we have so many professional services agreements with outside people performing staff services that no one seems to know how many people we actually have working for the City at any moment. This phantom staff seems to be growing rather than shrinking. 4. Of the proposed budget items that do not appear in the Budget Checklist because they were part of staff's original proposal to Council in April, but which to me seemed to appeared "out of the blue" with inadequate public review, is the $400,000 in the Capital Improvement Program to design and construct entryway arches at Balboa Island and Balboa Village. I am not sure who wants these, and why, and how they will benefit the June 10, 2014, Council agenda item comments - Jim Mosher Page 6 of 6 City as a whole. I am also not convinced the City should be spending $290,000 to take over Big Canyon Country Club's responsibility for landscaping its property along MacArthur (top of page 2 of Attachment B). 5. A nitpicking point, but in the third line of the proposed Resolution 2014 -52 title (first page of Attachment A to the current staff report) the words "THEBUDGET" are run together. I assume it was meant to read "THE BUDGET" (with a space). I am also not sure what "less internal charges" means in Section 1 (near bottom of page 2). 6. Another possibly nitpicking point, in Attachment B, under Police, staff appears to be allotting an additional $78,000 to cover sales tax on the purchase of four vehicles whose total price is only $154,000. 1 assume the increase in expected sales tax payments is needed for something more than the four vehicle purchases listed, but I can't guess what. References to the numbers of the budget line items in need of amendment might help, although I would guess that at the level of detail visible to the public, these expenses are lumped into larger "accounts" so that exactly what the dollars are being reserved for cannot be determined. In fact, I can't guess what Police account in the Budget Detail the $78,000 (or the $154,000) is being added to. Item 16. Granting of Non - Exclusive Solid Waste Franchise to Tierra Verde Industries See earlier (May 27) comment on this item. Although a certain amount of competition is good, a great proliferation of solid waste haulers doing similar work in the same areas of the City may be inconsistent with the Sustainable Communities Strategy of minimizing vehicle miles driven. Item 17. Recycled Water Rate Establishment The statement in the last paragraph under Discussion — Background that "in the last nineteen years the potable water rates have increased significantly mostly due to increased import water costs from Northern California and Colorado River. Recycled water rates have tracked these rate increases." is confusing. If the rates have tracked each other, one would think 80% would remain a goad standard. But the next page suggests the commodity rate for recycled water has fallen from 80% to 28% of the potable water rate. My understanding of the bottom line from the Finance Committee meeting was that the recyclec water customers have been overcharged for several years, but that the overcharge has roughly compensated the City for the costs it incurred to provide the infrastructure for delivering the recycled water, and it would be appropriate to return the rate to the actual cost of the water at this time. It might be good to see an accounting of what the infrastructure costs were, and how the overcharge matched them.