HomeMy WebLinkAbout00 - Written CommentsReceived After Agenda Printed
August 9, 2016
Written Comments - Consent Calendar
August 9, 2016, Council Consent Calendar Comments
The following comments on items on the Newport Beach City Council agenda are submitted by:
Jim Mosher (iimmosherayahoo.com ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach 92660 (949-548-6229)
item 1. Minutes for the July 26, 2016 Regular Meeting
The page numbers below refer to Volume 63 of the draft minutes. The passages in italics are from the
draft with suggested changes shown in qtrikPn,,t underline format.
Page 65: just before Item XIII: "Mayor Dixon discussed the Community Development
Department discussion on Mars Mariners' Mile ideas."
Page fib: Item XVIII, paragraph 1: "Council Member Petros reported on the July 25
Aviation Committee meeting, highlighting topics such as the impending FAA Nextyefi
NextGen project for aligning departures at John Wayne Airport (JWA), . "
Page 68: Item XVIII, paragraph 2: "Council Member Selich stated the City's Local Coastal
Implementation Plan was scheduled for the Coastal Commission's August meeting, but
would probably be continued to September."
Page 71: first line: "City Attorney Harp recommended the matter comeback on August 9,
2016 to adopt the resolutions."
Comment: It might be noted that for many years the City Charter required that the titles
of resolutions be read before they were adopted. The above sentence, and the fact the
Council ignored the City Attorney's advice, marks a rather troublesome new precedent in
which the Council approves resolutions that not only don't yet have clear titles, but which
have not yet been committed to writing, so the Council and public can review what the
Mayor is being directed to sign.
Page 71: just before motion: "Community Development Director Brandt discussed Mr.
McGee's letter and accepted the two recommendations on pages 16-23 and 16-25."
Comment: Shouldn't "Mr. McGee's letter" be part of the public record archived to
Laserfiche? If so, I am unable to find it. Yet it clearly influenced the legislation and
apparently contains language that was added, at the last minute and verbally, to the
Council -adopted resolution. Also, the pages being referred to in the minutes are pages
in the amended Council Policy L-12 as it appears in the staff report, not page numbers in
the letter.
Item 3. Parking Restrictions - Corona del Mar Nigh School Area
At least after a quick reading, I find parts of this item confusing. For example, recommendation
(b) is for Council to adopt a resolution creating a no -parking zone, but from the last full
paragraph on page 3-3 of the report, staff has yet to meet with residents to discuss this.
August 9, 2016, Council Consent Calendar Comments - Jim Mosher Page 2 of 4
Item 4. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 2076-13 for Zoning Code
Amendment No. CA2016-003 for the Lido House Hotel Project
continue to believe it is absurd that meaningful CEQA and traffic conclusions can be reached
for a zoning approval that includes allowing the construction of municipal facilities with no limit of
any kind on their possible size.
Item 5. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 2016-74 Related to Change
in Subsidies, Library and Parking Fines, and Updated Language for
Installation Fee
I am unable to find any clear explanation of this ordinance either in the present staff report, or in
the one offered at the July 26, 2016, meeting, when it was introduced.
The ordinance itself provides no explanation of why it is either necessary or logical to add
language about parking penalties to NBMC Section 12.16.020 or anything about why a revision
to NBMC Subsection 14.12.010(B) is needed.
It is also unclear to me why the Council has taken upon itself to "review and ratify" fee
schedules adopted by the Board of Library Trustees, and if that is in any way regarded as
restricting the Trustee's Charter Section 708 authority in that field.
Regarding the main portion of the ordinance, the Exhibit A cost recovery schedule, the
preamble mentions it was reviewed by the Finance Committee, but does not disclose what their
conclusion may have been. Likewise, the minutes of the July 26th City Council meeting indicate
staff might make "typographical" corrections to what was introduced there. It would have been
helpful if the present report highlighted any changes that may have been made, however minor
they may have seemed to the persons making them.
I have not had time to carefully review the new Exhibit A (which I believe is extensively changed
from the existing one), but as pointed out orally at the July 26th meeting, I continue to be unable
to find anything in it creating a basis for the facility rental fees which the City charges, and which
vary with the type of group requesting the rental. I suspect that was inadvertently omitted, but I
do not know what other errors Exhibit A may contain.
Item 8. Proposed Assessment District No. 774 and 114b
From what I have observed, the controversy regarding these assessment districts has largely
pitted older, longtime residents, who are mostly happy with the existing alley poles and don't
want to incur new costs associated with them, against new residents who want them
undergrounded.
From the staff report, I have difficulty ascertaining the current status of the balloting, which is
apparently based on a definite cost estimate presented to those voting. It appears the ballots
are going to be counted on September 27th, but did the voting stark after the May 24, 2016, City
Council meeting (at which the petition was certified)? Or will it stark after the present meeting?
August 9, 2016, Council Consent Calendar Comments - Jim Mosher Page 3 of 4
Or is Council possibly being asked to delay the initiation of the balloting until after a more
definitive cost can be determined at City expense?
Regardless of the answers to those questions, I am not sure the City Council understands its
role in this. I believe the Mayor said the balloting would resolve the controversy because
"majority rules." I do not believe that is correct in this case, because this involves a situation in
which one group of property owners is seeking to force another group to do something, possibly
against their will. It is my understanding our system of government is supposed to protect the
rights and liberties of minorities. As such, if the majority does not have a compelling and
compassionate reason for forcing the minority to do what the majority wants, I think the Council
has the right, if not the duty, to side with the minority, whatever the outcome of the vote may be.
Hence, to me the balloting is determinative only in the sense that the Council cannot legally
create the district without majority support. But even if a majority supports undergrounding, that
is only one of many factors the Council has to consider.
Based on what the Council has already heard, including the great divisiveness among
neighbors it has created, I think there is evidence undergrounding in this area is not, on
balance, in the public interest, and hence not a thing worth any further expenditure of public
funds.
Should the Council wish to continue with it, I think the suggestion that those supporting the
undergrounding should bear the full costs for the whole district was the wisest suggestion I
heard. In other words, those who don't want to be a part of it, and vote "no," would pay nothing,
but would receive the "benefits" of undergrounding paid by those who vote "yes. Depending on
how close the vote is to 501:50, that would at most roughly double the burden on those who wish
to bear their neighbors' cost.
Item 14. Support for HR 3643 and HR 4745 Relating to the Interim
Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel from San Onofre Nuclear Generating
Station (SONGS)
have not followed the controversy surrounding the fate of the nuclear waste from SONGS, and
therefore do not have an informed opinion about this.
But I find it a strange that the request for Newport Beach to sign comes from the Mayor Pro Tem
of Laguna Beach, who is someone I know nothing about, and who is from a City almost as
distant from SONGS as us.
I also don't know, and am unable to tell from the staff report, if there is controversy surrounding
the bills the City is being asked to endorse, if there are alternatives to them, or if their passage
might preclude other, possibly better, options.
Finally, the "Concerned Coastal Communities Coalition" (on whose stationery the letter is
written) appears to be an organization with an address ("1401 Dove Street, Suite 330, Newport
Beach, California 92660"), but I know nothing about them, what their goals or objectives are, or
if Newport Beach, by signing the letter, is impliedly becoming part of that organization, whatever
it is.
August 9, 2016, Council Consent Calendar Comments - Jim Mosher Page 4 of 4
Item 15. Newport Beach & Company's 201712018 and 201812019
Destination Marketing Plan and Biennial Budget and the Newport
Beach Tourism Business Improvement District's Fiscal Year
201612017 Annual Report and Budget
My primary concerns about Newport Beach & Company is that destination marketing of this City
provides little or no net benefit to the bulk of its permanent residents, and even if I am wrong
about that, the City has created a questionable sole -source, non-competitive relationship with a
single private marketing company.
My principal problem with the NBTBID is that I fail to see why a city government should be
involved in the sales efforts of private businesses, and even if there is a reason, why one
particular group of businesses would be singled out for that service
Legally, I continue to think Visit Newport Beach, as administrator of the NBTBID, violates the
Brown Act by not holding noticed, open -to -the -public meetings of its governing board; and ever
if such a requirement did not exist, that the City is negligent in not placing such a requirement in
its contract, especially since the expenditure of large sums of public money are involved. I also
think the voluntary membership in the NBTBID by hotels that opt in violates the way benefit
districts are supposed to be structured under the state law.
I have not had time to thoughtfully review the budgets being presented to the Council, but my
quick impression is that without further explanation they are sufficiently vague that the Council
doesn't really know what it is being asked to approve. I notice the "Annual Marketing Outlook
Dinner," which was formerly a major expense, appears to have been eliminated, but I don't
know what, if anything, has replaced it. And I have searched in vain for $150,000 "rebate" the
City Arts Commission understood would be coming from VNB.
$54,996 for "membership dues" seems like a lot. $115,340 for "consulting fees" and $175,000
for "promotions" could be almost anything. And the justification for $2,225,407 in "NB&Co fees"
remains unexplained