Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout00 - Written CommentsApril 26, 2016, Council Consent Calendar Comments The following comments on items on the Newport Beach City Council agenda are submitted by: Jim Mosher ( jimmosher@yahoo.com ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach 92660 (949-548-6229) Item 1. Minutes for the March 22, 2016 Study Session and Regular Meeting The page numbers below refer to Volume 62 of the draft minutes. The passages in italics are from the draft with suggested changes shown in strikeout underline format. Page 604: Item IV, paragraph 2: “Mayor Dixon read and presented the proclamation to Board of Library Trustees Chair Member Robyn Grant, Board of Library Trustees Member Jill Johnson-Tucker, and Library Services Director Hetherton.” [Robyn and Jill have both formerly served as BLT Chair, but are not currently. Robyn is currently BLT Secretary. The announcement was that current Chair Jerry King was unable to attend.] Page 604: Item IV, paragraph 3 from end: “Ms. Newton discussed the purpose of the foundation, thanked the Council for proclaiming May as “Nation National Mental Health Awareness Month,” …” Page 604: last paragraph: “Council Member Duffield discussed the bridge to McFadden’s Wharf and displayed a photograph of the new Old Landing Monument recently reconstructed near the Bayshores approach to the Upper Newport Bay Bridge. He provided historical background on McFadden Square McFadden’s Wharf.” [Note: the draft version of this passage seems too garbled to salvage with fewer changes. It might be noted that the Municipal Operations Department may have been unaware Public Works had previously announced plans to move the same monument to the foot of the Castaways bluff as part of the development of the City’s future Lower Castaways Park. I do not know if the plan is now to move the monument yet again, or if it has been determined that the Bayshores location is actually closer to the historic Newport Landing. In either event, I believe the monument would enjoy greater appreciation at the park location than along PCH.] Page 605: Item VII, paragraph 1, sentence 1: “…, Jim Mosher clarified his prior comments on the copyright issue, presented modifications to other cities agencies’ retention schedules, …” Page 608: Item X, paragraph 1: “Doug Nye, President present Commander of American Legion Post 291, announced …” Page 608: Item X, paragraph 3: “Bruce Beardsley, Corona del Mar Resident Association, encouraged residents to attend the joint meeting of the Corona del Mar Business Improvement District and Corona del Mar residents Residents Association on April 20, 2016.” Received After Agenda Printed April 26, 2016 Consent Calendar - Written Comments April 26, 2016, Council Consent Calendar Comments - Jim Mosher Page 2 of 6 Page 608: Item X, paragraph 5: “Anthony Barraza, Dover Village resident, addressed the Council regarding the recent addition to the bike lane in front of the complex, eliminating parking spaces and increased increasing speed.” Page 609: paragraph 3 from end: “Dick Hoaglan Hoagland, Chairman of Bayside Improvement Committee which represents residents of the Bayside Village Homeowners Association, expressed concern …” Page 610: paragraph 3 from end, sentence 2: “He suggested forming a citizen citizens advisory committee that would provide a recommendation to the Council.” Item 5. Corona del Mar Concrete Pavement Reconstruction - Poppy Avenue and Ocean Boulevard Approval of Professional Services Agreement with Rick Engineering (17R12) The Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission, which under Section 709 of our City Charter is supposed to advise the Council on all matters pertaining to the City’s parkways and street trees, has repeatedly asked for an update on City staff’s plans for reconstructing the Poppy Avenue sidewalks and tree plantings. To the best of my recollection they have not received it. Their input to this contract seems essential, but at least at first blush I see no coordination with PB&R, or even presentations to them, in it. I do notice the contractor has difficulty spelling “Marguerite” (see page 5-9 of the staff report). Item 6. Agreement with the Laguna Beach County Water District The staff report cites Municipal Code Sections 14.04.150 and 14.04.160 for the authority, and restrictions on the authority, to enter into this contract, but does not detail what compliance with those code sections entails or how they interact with each other. Yet I notice the contract cites only Section 14.04.160, which deals with sale of excess water. It is not entirely clear to me that what is being described here is “excess” water. It seems more to be new water that could be produced by heavier use of the City’s existing infrastructure. If Section 14.04.150 were to come into play, it is not clear that LBCWD would qualify, for the staff report emphasizes they have no rights to use the City’s infrastructure, nor does it seem to be proposed that the contract be submitted to voters for approval. And despite the assurances that it will have no effect on the City’s own supplies, one cannot help but wonder if increased pumping would not have a long-term detrimental effect. Finally, although helping a neighbor is laudable, it is not clear why staff feels the cost sharing is advantageous to Newport Beach. Even including the 4% administrative fee, the proposal seems to be to charge LBCWD exactly the extra costs the City will incur in providing the service. That sounds like a wash to me. I see no net financial benefit. April 26, 2016, Council Consent Calendar Comments - Jim Mosher Page 3 of 6 Item 7. Lease Agreement Between the City of Newport Beach and Trico Newport Properties, LP, Authorizing the City to Lease Space at 868-870 West 16th Street for Interim Recreation Classrooms This item would seem to call into question the wisdom of the 2014 decision to lease out a serviceable Westside Community Center before plans for a replacement had been finalized. Item 9. Update on Water Use and Conservation Efforts March 2016 1. It is good to hear the City’s water conservation goal has been relaxed to a more achievable level, but the numbers supporting the claimed 29% cutback in March are difficult to extract from the staff report since (like the previous one from the March 22, 2016, Council meeting) it reports only cumulative totals. And there are indications this reporting continues to have significant quality control problems. a. It is a little surprising to see in the chart of page 9-2 that the lowest cutback month of all (“Feb-16”) is followed by the highest cutback month (“Mar-16”). b. It is even more surprising when one notes that in every category other than “City Meter” reported in the chart on page 9-3, at the end of March the cumulative cutbacks are less than they were at the end of February. That does not seem logically possible if the March cutbacks were the best ever. c. More specifically, if one adds up the numbers at the bottom of the second chart in the March report, the cumulative consumption through February 2016 was 4,024,900 which is 0.77 of the 5,219,144 in the base year for a cumulative cutback of 23%. But the blue bar in the first chart shows “20%” for “Feb-16”. d. The comparable numbers from the current report are 4,492,129 which is 0.80 of the 5,617,101 in the base year for a cumulative cutback of 20%. But the blue bar in the first chart shows “21%” for “Mar-16” even though the second chart in the latest report indicates March was a worse conservation month than February. e. In fact, subtracting the cumulative totals reported under the second chart in the two reports, single family use (by far the largest single category) in March 2016 was 217,667 units compared to 161,717 in the base year. That would be a 34.6% increase in water use, not a 29% reduction. And for the City as a whole, they show a 17% increase in use this March compared to March of the base year. Something is seriously wrong with these numbers, or with the report, or both. 2. Finally, is the chart on page 9-3 mislabeled when it says the comparison period is “June 2013 – March 2013”? Should that be is “June 2013 – March 2014”? April 26, 2016, Council Consent Calendar Comments - Jim Mosher Page 4 of 6 Item 10. Orange County Transportation Authority Senior Mobility Service Plan Approval 1. Since the “(Date)” has not been inserted in Section 1.0 of the new Guidelines presented as Attachment B on page 10-5 of the staff report, it is difficult to tell if these are the actual Guidelines adopted by OCTA, or merely a draft that was being considered. 2. Item 8 on page 10-16 assures the Council that some portion of the 20% match will be supplied by Hoag Hospital and Friends of OASIS. One might hope that more detail on what those proportions may be, and how the rate structure of Item 5 was arrived at, will be provided when the five year extension is considered in June. Item 11. Appointments to the Aviation Committee 1. It is good to see applicants have been found for these long-vacant positions. 2. However, if more people applied than those mentioned in the staff report, it would seem good to recognize the interest they have shown by listing their names, as well. 3. With regard to the appointment of Lauren Kleiman as the District 6 representative, the staff report does not indicate if she lives in Newport Coast. That is significant because according to the rules of the committee (as last articulated in Council Resolution No. 2011-31), if either the District 6 or District 7 representative lives in Newport Coast, then there is no need to have a separate Newport Coast representative. 4. With regard to the same appointment, there is already a District 6 alternate with 13 years’ experience serving on the committee. Would it not be more logical to move the alternate up and appoint Lauren to the alternate position? 5. With regard to the appointment of South Orange County resident John Youngblood as the General Aviation Community Member, although John appears both qualified and eager to serve, the rules suggest his appointment is possible only if comparable expertise is “unavailable within the city.” It is not clear the Mayor has made that determination. 6. Regarding alternates, it might be noted that this is the only City committee I’m aware of with alternates, and their intended role is surprisingly unclear. As reflected in the Aviation Committee minutes, it is not uncommon for both the regular member and the alternate member from a district to show up and sit as members of the committee, which, if they both voted, would seem to give that district disproportionate representation. Fortunately (or perhaps sadly), I don’t recall there ever having to be a roll call vote, or for that matter a situation in which the committee was asked to make a decision of any consequence. 7. Finally, the Aviation Committee is one of the very few City committees on which the citizen appointments are for life (or more precisely, for the life of a committee that is expected to last forever). That seems to me to be a bad practice, and one that it is difficult to reconcile with the intent of Council Policy A-2 (referenced, but for other reasons, in the staff report), that “To afford the maximum opportunity for citizen service, April 26, 2016, Council Consent Calendar Comments - Jim Mosher Page 5 of 6 no person shall be eligible for appointment to any one (1) City Board, Commission, or Committee for more than two (2) consecutive four (4) year terms, …” But then the intent of the Policy A-2 directive is itself difficult to understand when the terms on a committee are something other than four years. 8. The Council could easily correct these problems by amending Resolution No. 2011-31 to create staggered four-year terms and clarify the role of the alternates. Item 12. Appointment by Mayor of Ad Hoc Appointments Committee to Review Applications and Make Recommendations to the Full Council for the Board and Commission Vacancies I continue to think that the Policy A-2 process with the Ad Hoc Appointments Committee is unfair and disrespectful to the applicants. I believe the names of all the applicants should be presented to the full Council (and public) on both occasions (June 14 and June 28), with recommendations of the Ad Hoc Appointments Committee presented as just that: recommendations. As to the substance of the report: 1. On page 12-2, I think the status of Kathy Hamilton on PB&R may be misrepresented. According to the Clerk’s most recent Maddy Act roster, Kathy was originally appointed on June 24, 2008, and reappointed on June 26, 2012. I believe that means she is termed out and not eligible for reappointment. 2. Also on page 12-2, the statement (in the long paragraph near the middle of the page) that “All new terms will be effective on July 1, 2016, with an expiration date of June 30, 2020, except for the unscheduled vacancy on the Board of Library Trustees (John Prichard's seat) which will expire on June 30, 2019, and will be eligible to reapply for their respective seats to serve for a full four-year term” is at best confusing and appears to contain a typo. a. According to the Clerk’s most recent Maddy Act roster, John was originally appointed to the BLT on June 25, 2013, and his term would normally end on June 30, 2017 (not 2019). I don’t think the Clerk is asking the Council to change that. If she is, I fail to understand why. b. I also suspect the final phrase was intended to apply only to the BLT appointment. Some of the other appointees on June 28th will be eligible to apply for an additional full four-year term; others will not. It depends on whether they are termed out. In fact, the appointee to fill the final year of John's term will presumably be eligible to apply for two further full four-year terms. 3. The proposed “Notice of Vacancies” (Attachment A) contains the same typo about one of the BLT terms expiring on “June 30, 2019.” I believe it should read “2017.” 4. The statement that “All seats will become vacant when the existing terms expire on June 30, 2016” (at end of bullet list) is also a bit misleading. Under Section 702 of our City April 26, 2016, Council Consent Calendar Comments - Jim Mosher Page 6 of 6 Charter, the current appointees are expected to serve “until their respective successors are appointed and qualified.” That situation actually occurred as recently as last year, when most of the appointments were not made until July 14th (Item 21), and that for the BLT until September 8th (Item 21). Note: the most recent Maddy Act roster lists the July 14, 2015, appointments as having been made on “06-30-15.” That could not be right since the Council didn’t even meet on that date.