Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout00 - Written CommentsRECEIVED AFTER AGENDA PRINTED OCTOBER 9, 2018 CONSENT CALENDAR October 9, 2018, Council Consent Calendar Comments The following comments on items on the Newport Beach City Council agenda are submitted by: Jim Mosher ( jimmosher6d�yahoo.com ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach 92660 (949-548-6229) Item X. Presentation Although not strictly consent calendar items, the Council may wish to be aware of the recent San Diego Superior Court ruling, as reported in the October 4 Union -Tribune, that proclamations presented on behalf of a city council require a formal council vote made in public with an opportunity for public comment. Item 1. Minutes for the September 25, 2018 City Council Meeting The passages shown in italics below are from the draft minutes with suggested corrections indicated in s*r�ut underline format. The page numbers refer to Volume 63. Page 612, last paragraph 3: "Ryan Reza Farsa Farsai discussed issues he is having with the Belcourt Park Homeowners Association and provided handouts." [Ryan recently submitted a Public Records Act Request for a DVD of his comments to the Council. From that request it is evident his last name was misspelled, both here and in the September 11, 2018, minutes. Item 3. Ordinance No. 2018-17 Amending Titles 1 and 17 Related to the Harbor Department and Resolution No. 2018-74 Amending the Staffing Structure of Two Positions I agree with the comments I've seen from Laura Curran that the staff report for this item is unusually opaque and fails to clearly communicate the financial and operational implications of the recommended action. a. I agree with Laura that the agenda title should say the item seeks to reclassify the existing Harbor Resources Manager and Harbor Resources Technician positions (with the recommendations indicating the ordinance and resolution necessary to accomplish that). As it is, readers of the agenda have no idea what two positions are being "amended." b. Not knowing what "Y -Rating" means, I had even more trouble than Laura understanding the significance of Attachment D (mis-referenced as "Attachment B" on staff report page 3-2. i. Apparently the responsibilities of the former Harbor Resources Manager are being greatly diminished (as indicated by the extensive changes to Title 17), but despite the reclassification to "Administrative Manager" the salary is being maintained at its former level (significantly higher than that normally given to an Administrative Manager). October 9, 2018, City Council Consent Calendar Comments - Jim Mosher Page 2 of 6 The staff report implies new duties will be assigned to justify the exceptional salary, but the specific examples given all appear to be a sub -set of the person's current duties. ii. Does Newport Beach have administrative regulations allowing "Y - Rating"? If so, what are the rules surrounding it? (I see it in some of the other MOU's, but not in the Key and Management one) iii. Will the exceptional salary remain if a new person moves into the position? And is it true the existing person is not eligible for raises until the new classification catches up? As Laura points out, the staff report does not at all discuss if there is a salary change in going from a Harbor Resources Technician to a Permit Technician. Unlike the manager position, this seems to involve a slight increase in pay scale. 2. To Laura's comments, I would add that while the City congratulates itself on the creation of a Harbor Department (leading to the rethinking of the Harbor Resources positions within Public Works), this is not the first time Newport Beach has created a "Harbor" or "Marine" Department, and the present incarnation seems devoid of reflection on the institutional knowledge that might have been gained from those earlier versions and an understanding of why they were later abandoned. A review of the Council minutes reveals: a. As early as 1920 the City Council (at that time known as "Trustees") saw fit to appoint Joseph A. Beek as Harbor Master (May 3, 1920, page 2). b. Ordinance No. 1602 from 1975, moving to a "Marine Director" what had formerly been the duties of a Harbor Coordinator (and one time Administrative Assistant Harbor previously moved from "Public Works, Administrative & Engineering" to "City Manager, Administrative") seems rather similar to the present one. c. The division of labor, and tension with, the County and its former Harbor Department and Harbor Commission also does not seem new. 3. As I separately noted in connection with Item 7 on the present agenda, the Council is being asked to simultaneously introduce two ordinances which, in part, amend the same code with contradictory changes. 4. Item 7 on the present agenda goes to considerable lengths to impress upon the Council that state law requires copies of measures relating to boats to be submitted to the California Department of Boating and Waterways before adoption. a. Ordinance No. 2018-17 certainly appear to be a "measure relating to boats." b. Yet there is no indication that Ordinance No. 2018-17 has been submitted to D BAW . c. Will that happen before the second reading? 5. Regarding the specifics of Ordinance No. 2018-17, on staff report page 3-43, the definition of "Harbor Resource Manager" is deleted from Section 17.01.30(H) and then October 9, 2018, City Council Consent Calendar Comments - Jim Mosher Page 3 of 6 added in modified form after the definition of "Public Works Director) in Section 17.01.030(M). a. This is likely to cause unnecessary confusion in the future. For example, when readers encounter references to the Harbor Resource Manager in Title 21 (the Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan), which is not here proposed to be modified. b. Since a person encountering the term "Harbor Resource Manager" in a City document is unlikely to look for its definition under "P", it would see wise to keep the definition under "H" and simply add the new words there: "6. Harbor Resources Manager. Any provision within this Code or any uncodified ordinance or resolution referring to the Harbor Resources Manager shall mean the Public Works Director." c. Similar confusion already exists with other job descriptions that have gone out of fashion, the change being noted in some unobvious part of the code. d. In fact, the present purpose could probably have been accomplished more simply be retaining the term "Harbor Resource Manager" (where it is wanted) and simply defining it as the "Public Works Director," if that is what is desired. It might also be noted that although "Public Works Director" is defined in the existing Title 17, it does not seem to be used in it. ii. And if it were used, it is not really necessary to say it means the ""Public Works Director of the City of Newport Beach." As noted in my separate comments on Item 7 on the present agenda, that is already fully covered by the rules of interpretation in Section 17.01.20(E) e. The business about "or his or her designee" (used throughout Title 17) is not really necessary because since 2012's Measure EE, in what I personally thought was an unwise move, City Charter Section 1400(b) allows any function assigned to an employee to be performed by deputy. f. Likewise, the "or successor" phrase added frequently, but not universally, by proposed Ordinance No. 2018-17 could have been dispensed with by a single rule of interpretation stated at the start of Title 17 (or more generally at the start of the Municipal Code). 6. Ordinance No. 2018-17 proposes several changes to Title 17 that are not explained in the staff report, and which seem unrelated to the present action's stated purpose of reassigning duties of the former Harbor Resources Manager to the Harbor Master or to the Public Works Director (and, presumably, through him to the new Administrative Manager). For example: a. The line at the top of staff report page 3-53 deletes a reference to retention of water that "does not comply with the provisions of Sections 15.04.180 and 15.05.140." October 9, 2018, City Council Consent Calendar Comments - Jim Mosher Page 4 of 6 Those would be sections of the Building Code (whose content and numbering tends to change every 3 years with adoption of a new statewide Uniform Building Code). ii. Given the near obsession elsewhere with "or successor statute," rather than simply deleting the no -longer -valid code references, did anyone bother to discover what those sections referred to at the time they were inserted into Title 17 and identify their successor statutes? b. A proposed amendment to Section 17.25.030 on staff report page 3-55 inserts a two hour time limit that did not formerly exist. This was not reviewed by the Harbor Commission, nor is it clear how the public will be informed of this new rule c. Proposed amendments at the top of staff report page 3-58 shorten a 15 working day time limit to 15 calendar days. No reason for making that seemingly arbitrary change (to the detriment of the public) is provided. d. A proposed change to Subsection 17.50.030(C), near the top of staff report page 3-59, clarifies a noticing requirement — probably for the better, but again unrelated to the stated agenda item. e. Changes near the end of the long paragraph on staff report page 3-62 appear to impose substantial new burdens on the yacht clubs, that have not been reviewed by the Harbor Commission and have no relation to the City staffing changes. f. It is my understanding Title 17 will be undergoing a comprehensive review by the Harbor Commission. I would suggest that changes unrelated to the staffing change be added to that task, and their adoption be deferred until the comprehensive update of Title 17 is completed. 7. Regarding Resolution No. 2018-74 (staff report Attachment C) and the reclassification of the Harbor Resources Manager to an Administrative Manager position within the Public Works Department's Engineering Services Division: a. I thought the City had an administrative structure in which our staff was divided into departments with "directors" and within those departments we had "divisions" overseen by "managers" — such as the Manager of the former Harbor Resources Division. Smaller units within the divisions were overseen by people with other titles, like "superintendent" or "deputy." Indeed, the Key and Management Compensation Plan of Resolution No. 2016-13, referred to in the present resolution, lists the duties of both "Harbor Resources Managers" and "Administrative Managers" as "division management." b. If there is no longer a Harbor Resources Division, are we now proposing to have "managers" with no division of their own to manage, in this case working under the Engineering Services Division's manager? c. Will this be unique? Or is it an organizational structure we already have? d. The resolution does not mention the salary for the new Administrative Manager position will be "Y -Rated." Does it need to? October 9, 2018, City Council Consent Calendar Comments - Jim Mosher Page 5 of 6 e. The last page of the draft resolution (staff report page 3-75) gives the date of adoption as September 11, 2018. That seems incorrect. 8. Regarding salaries in general, Caltrans Director Laurie Berman gave the NB Chamber's Wake Up! Newport talk last week. According to her Caltrans bio, Ms. Berman oversees an agency with an $8 billion budget and 20,000 employees (Wikipedia lists a $16B budget with 18,415 permanent staff for 2016). By those standards, the totality of Newport Beach city government is no more than 1/20th the size of Caltrans. Ms. Berman reportedly started at a salary of $190,333, which was greater than her predecessor, who received "total pay" was $177,305.40 with a total cost to taxpayers (with benefits) of $247,804.90. Yet Transparent California shows that in 2017 every one our Newport Beach city department directors (not to mention a great many safety personnel) was paid more than the director of the vastly larger Caltrans — often substantially more. Item 4. Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance No. 2018-16, Amending Title 21, Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan As I attempted to explain orally, but very inarticulately, at the Council's September 25 first reading, this ordinance is the City's acceptance of changes to the LCP-IP as approved by the California Coastal Commission as Item 22a at their July 11, 2018, meeting in Scott's Valley. The Council has only two choices: to accept the language approved by the CCC, or to reject it There is no flexibility at this point to make any additional changes. Of the changes requested by the City and approved by the CCC, the most substantive one is that allowing staff to waive the public hearing requirement when considering Coastal Development Permit applications for projects it deems "minor." The waiver decision can be overridden, at no charge, by anyone aware of it. Although people can sign up to be notified of all waiver decisions, the problem is they may not be aware of their right to do so. At the July 11 meeting, Steve Ray of the Banning Ranch Conservancy suggested the City, at least annually, make some effort to let the public know they can sign up for notices of waived hearing decisions. City Planning Manager Patrick Alford indicated the City would make its best effort, and the Commissioners indicated they would trust him to do that (see video at above link). Occasional notice of the City's notification services in the water bill or in the newspaper were two possibilities suggested. More significantly, the proposed modifications to NBMC Section 21.64.035(C)(2) proposed by Ordinance No. 2018-16 (at the bottom of staff report page 4-11 and top of 4-12) do not match the language approved by the CCC at their July 11 meeting, as shown in CCC staff's Addendum dated July 9, 2018. 1 apologize for not catching this at the September 25 reading, but if the Council expects these changes to be certified by the CCC it will need to re -introduce Ordinance No. 2018-16 for a new first reading with language matching the CCC's July 11 memo (to which a small additional change was made at the City's request in the video). October 9, 2018, City Council Consent Calendar Comments - Jim Mosher Page 6 of 6 Item 6. Stand Up Paddleboard Safety Flyer The first bullet point on page 6-2 of the staff report contains the word "not" two times, making the intended meaning of the sentence impossible for me to discern. I am guessing the first "not" was not intended. The flyer, however, looks nice.