Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout00 - Written CommentsReceived After Agenda Printed 8 -12 -14 August 12, 2014, City Council Consent Calendar 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 July 22, 2014 Regular Meeting The page numbers below refer to Volume 62. The passages in italics are from the draft, with suggested changes shown in strikeeut underline format. 1. Page 6, paragraph 4 from end: "Should Council take action, it will be making certain findings as to the needs need to recirculate the CEQA document to fully analyze all of the impacts, 2. Page 7, paragraph 2 from end, next to last sentence: "He believed it is time to make adjustments that would reduce trips, placesIp ace development where it needs to be, and preteets rp otect many areas of the City." 3. Page 8, paragraph 3 from end: "... but agreed with Council Member Gardner's comments in terms of decimating an opportunity" for a definite proposal to into a concept proposal. She added that the ^veF rte,,, ° ° ^ti' :s overarching concern is traffic." 4. Page 9, long paragraph after "Hearing no further testimony,": "...that the General Plan already contains a number of goals and policies related to water conservation which are included in the 'ANatural Resources Element of the General Plan and..." [whatever may have been said, as far as I know there is no Water Resources Element] 5. Page 10, paragraph 2 after "Amended motion": "Council Member Petros suggested removing "Analyze" and reinse reinserting "Implement. "' 6. Page 13, paragraph 4 from end: "Council Member Gardner asked if it would be better and more understandable if the reduction of the 2,922 ADTs clearly indicated that it is from the current General Plan er not today's traffic." Item 3. Balboa Bay Resort - Balboa Bay Way Street Renaming I would think "Bay Club Way" would be much more memorable and useful as a wayfinding device, although someone apparently wishes to distinguish the Club from the Resort — a distinction even the operators may have difficulty with since both seem to be described on the internet as occupying the same 15 acres. My second choice would be "Balboa Bay Resort Way" or simply "Resort Way." My third choice would be "Resort Access" since, as the staff report indicates, the streetlight does not really mark a separate street. I find "Balboa Bay Way" confusing and of little value. What exactly is "Balboa Bay "? Whatever is selected, I would think the Club /Resort should pay the costs, since it is for their benefit, and not that of Newport Beach taxpayers in general. August 12, 2014, Council Consent Calendar comments - Jim Mosher Page 2 of 4 Item 7. Corona del Mar Water Transmission Main Pipeline Improvements - Notice of Completion and Acceptance of Contract No. 5491 (CAP11 -0019) Public works projects are typically reported to Council as having been completed in less than the allowed contract time, but that usually means only that the contractor completed the work before the agreed to completion date, which often involves many and lengthy approved extensions. This and Item 5 on the present agenda appear to be among the few projects where the work was completed substantially prior to the originally anticipated end date. Item 8. St. James Road Sewer Relocation and CDS Unit Installation - Award of Contract No. 4910 (CAP12 -0027) The staff report does not make clear the nexus between the sewer relocation and work involved in installing the trash deflector (which I assume is being installed in a storm drain, rather than in a sewer), or why the two projects were awarded as parts of a single contract. The top paragraph on the third page (labeled "41" in the printed agenda packet) does not make clear if one of the issues raised in the bid protest involved suspicions the contractor might not be planning to pay prevailing wages, and if the statement that the work will be "completed properly and in accordance with all requirements, laws and regulations including Prevailing Wage" means the prevailing wage requirements in this case require prevailing wages to be paid. Perhaps the proposed contract the Council is being asked to approve could have been provided or linked to. Finally, it appears the sewer relocation is being performed largely for the benefit of homeowners who have build structures, including homes, over known sewer easements; yet it is unclear if they are paying any of the extra costs their improvements have apparently necessitated. Also, as one who lives in a part of the City served by a different sewer provider, I am unclear if the City normally pays for construction of the "laterals' connecting homes and other private uses to the City's "mains." Item 9. Sunset View Park - Award of Contract No. 5443 (CAP14 -0027) The staff report does not mention that the plans for this mini -park were reviewed by the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission, which I think is good, since the plans for several larger parks seem to have proceeded without that scrutiny. It is also good to see staff has remembered to remind Hoag Hospital of their promise to pay a substantial part of the costs. August 12, 2014, Council Consent Calendar comments - Jim Mosher Page 3 of 4 Item 10. Eastbluff Drive /Ford Road Bike Lane Improvement - Award of Contract No. 5498 (CAP13 -0030) The staff report highlights the now - urgent completion schedule, but does not state which portions of the project are realistically expected to be completed when — or exactly when school starts. In explaining the delay, the report also rather confusingly refers to the project as "federally funded" even though the abstract says the grant money came from OCTA, which is not a federal agency. Items 11 -20: [have not reviewed these... Item 21. Newport Beach & Company 201412015 & 201512016 Marketing Plan and Budget and the Newport Beach Tourism Business Improvement District FY 15 Annual Report and Budget 1. Do we really believe (as it says in the Abstract to the staff report) that "Visit Newport Beach, Inc. (VNB)" is "a division of Newport Beach & Company' or understand what organization we are funding? I thought the two were separate and distinct non - profit corporations. 2. 1 have never seen the value to residents of the City promoting itself as a tourist destination, or why it would need "destination marketing services." At least in my view, the place is blessed with enough natural virtues that it markets itself. And it bother me that Visit Newport Beach or Newport Beach & Company, or whatever they currently call themselves, markets an image or "brand" that 1, as a resident, have difficulty relating to anything I recognize as "Newport Beach." In particular, I rarely encounter smiling fashion models sipping wine on the beach — an activity I suspect is prohibited by the Municipal Code. 3. I'm not sure the description (on page 2 of the staff report) of the TBID as consisting of "eight hotels or resorts, each consisting of 100 hotel rooms or more" is accurate. In particular, I thought the Newport Dunes Waterfront Resort & Marina had no hotel rooms, but only a limited number of "cottages" and the remainder consists of camping /RV spaces. 4. I'm pretty sure the materials being submitted on behalf of the TBID have never been reviewed by its owners' association (whether that is the full Board of VNB, as the Management District Plan appears to designate, or a separate sub - committee thereof) at any open public meeting, nor authorized VNB staff to prepare and submit materials on its behalf (as the last paragraph of the Discussion seems to imply). The City's NovusAgenda system has a category for the TBID, but no records of any meetings even though Section 36614.5 of the California Streets and Highways Code prohibits the owners' association from hearing, discussing or deliberating TBID business outside of such meetings. August 12, 2014, Council Consent Calendar comments - Jim Mosher Page 4 of 4 5. Exhibit A (Performance Standards / Marketing Goals Report for FY 15 and FY 16) suggests VNB is planning to cut back drastically on the number of maps it produces (under "Collateral ") but otherwise is preparing for a media blitz over the next three years. One can only hope this doesn't result in a comparably large outpouring of clueless visitors to the city. 6. I'm not sure I understand the relevance of Exhibit B (Newport Beach & Company's 2014/2015 & 2015/2016 Marketing Plan) since I'm not aware of the City contracting with or supporting Newport Beach & Company other than with the NBTV contract (C- 5762) and the contract for marketing the Restaurant Association (C- 5758). Nonetheless, it would be interesting to know in more detail where the forecasted FY2015 revenue of $2,274,785 and $2,350,725 for FY2016 (page 10 of the Plan, numbered page 258 of the printed Council agenda packet) is expected to come from. The two existing NB &Co contracts with the City would not seem to account for that, and from page 42 (page 290 of the agenda packet) it appears the bulk of NB &Co's revenue is expected to come from a large portion of the Transient Occupancy Tax funds the City pays to VNB for other purposes being funneled into NB &Co as "fees." 7. Regarding Exhibit C (Visit Newport Beach FY 15 and FY 16 Budgets) it appears the last time the VNB budget was reviewed was as part of Agenda Item 17 at the Council's November 12, 2013 meeting. I continue to be intrigued by what used to called an Annual Dinner for the 24 directors, and is currently styled as an "Annual Marketing Outlook Dinner." Under "Income" on page 1 of Exhibit C (page 325 of the printed Council agenda packet), I see the revenue from it (line item 44200) is projected to increase from the previously announced $6,500 in the FY2014 budget to $25,000 for FY2015. It is also good to see the expense associated with it (line item 67104) has been dialed back from the $112,000 reported in earlier years to $50,000. However, a net cost of $25,000 to TOT payers still seems to me like a large cost for a dinner. b. One might hope the Council will inquire into the ever increasing line item 68001 for unitemized "NB & Co Fees" and also what the new $60,000 of "NB & Co Business Unit Sponsorships' is about (line item 68002). 8. Regarding Exhibit E (NBTBID FY 15 Budget): The TBID members are presumably glad to see they will only be hit with $12,000 of NB &Co fees in FY2015, compared to the $1,888,941 the City has to pay out of its TOT revenue for the services of VNB on a budget only modestly larger. b. On the other hand, the TBID members have to pay for a employee benefits and number of operating expenses the City doesn't, but the amounts for those are relatively small. c. They might, however, wonder about the new $155,000 of "Community Sponsorships" they will be paying for (line item 66234). What they will be sponsoring is not explained in the Annual Report (Exhibit D).