HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-15-2021-BLT-PUBLIC COMMENTS
November 15, 2021, BLT Agenda Comments
These comments on Newport Beach Board of Library Trustees (BLT) agenda items are submitted by:
Jim Mosher (jimmosher@yahoo.com ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach 92660 (949-548-6229)
Item 2. Minutes of the October 18, 2021 Board of Library Trustees
Meeting
Suggested corrections: The passages shown in italics below are from the draft minutes with
suggested corrections indicated in strikeout underline format.
Page 1 (page 5 of agenda packet), Item II, Staff Present: Page 3 of the minutes indicates
Piers Brown was also present, so he should presumably be added here.
Page 1 (page 5 of agenda packet), Item V.A.1: The page numbers listed are agenda packet
page numbers, not the page numbers in the draft or final minutes. These comments will
make little sense to future readers to the minutes since the final minutes will likely not contain
the agenda packet page numbers.
To avoid confusion the agenda packet pages numbers should be replaced with the minutes
page numbers, which, in this case, are 4 less: 9 5, 10 6, and 14 10.
Page 3 (page 7 of agenda packet), next to last paragraph: “In response to Chair Watkins
inquiry, Branch Librarian Kachaturian explained it was his third year at Mariner’s Branch and
his 24th year with NBPL.” [add comma]
Page 5 (page 9 of agenda packet), top paragraph: “The idea was to target school-aged
children.” [insert hyphen]
Page 6 (page 10 of agenda packet), Item 8, paragraphs 2 and 3: “Vice Chair Kost inquired if
there was a cap on the amount Council would fund. Trustee Ray indicated that the Council
would not be pleased if the cost increased significantly and stated that if the project became
$20 million it would not fly.”
[The minutes of the September 28 City Council Study Session on the Library Lecture Hall
proposal conclude: “With Mayor Pro Tem Muldoon voting "no," there was a 6-1 straw vote
for authorization to negotiate a 50/50 split with a $6.5 million cap. With Mayor Pro Tem
Muldoon voting "no," there was a 6-1 straw vote to approve the concept and design at the
$6.5 million cap.”]
Page 7 (page 11 of agenda packet), paragraph 1: “The case statement is very strong, and
the Newport Beach Visitor’s Association is extremely supportive and advised that there are
State Economic Development Agency (EDA) funds available for tourism which must be used
for infrastructure. The Lecture Hall should meet those requirements so there will be a
partnership with the Newport Beach Visitor’s Association for an EDA Grant.” [There is no
“Newport Beach Visitor’s Association.” References to it should probably be corrected to:
“Newport Beach visitor’s association (Newport Beach & Company).”]
Page 7 (page 11 of agenda packet), paragraphs 3 and 4: “Mr. Kappel said he understood
that the funds the City planned to provide were part of the COVID relief funds. He asked if
Chair Watkins shared his understanding. Chair Watkins indicated he did not know that
November 15, 2021, Library Trustees agenda comments from Jim Mosher Page 2 of 4
information.” [The May 25 City Council minutes indicate that during a Study Session on the
proposed Capital Improvements Program Budget, “Council Member O'Neill preferred to set
aside Federal funding for the library lecture hall and Junior Lifeguard building if guidelines
allow use of the funds for those purposes.” I do not recall how that came out, but that is likely
what this is a reference to, and it will likely become more clear at the November 30 meeting.]
Page 7 (page 11 of agenda packet), paragraph 5: “Mr. Kappel explained that Council
Member O’Neill told him the funds would be used for the lifeguard Junior Lifeguards
building and the Library Lecture Hall.” [The Junior Lifeguards building is another pending
project advocated by and with support from a community organization.]
Page 7 (page 11 of agenda packet), end of paragraph 6: “This is a proforma pro forma
approval of the concept, CEQA, and the MOU.”
Item 3. Patron Comments
It is surprising to see only two comments for the entire month of October.
Does the opportunity to comment need to be better publicized?
Item 7. Review and Adoption of the Library Lecture Hall Policy (NBPL
15)
On handwritten page 29:
The Policy is not consistent about calling out terms and abbreviations at their first use. For
example the opening paragraph highlights “Library Lecture Hall (“LLH”)” and “City of Newport
Beach (“City”).” But later in the body equally obvious (or unobvious) shorthands, such as
“Department,” “Director,” “NBPL” and more, appear without any comparable initial
explanation.
Under “Applicability”: It is very confusing to say “This Policy shall not apply to First Priority
and Second Priority uses (as defined below) of the LLH as provided below …” when the
policy itself defines who is in those categories. It would seem much better to say later,
immediately before the parts that don’t apply. that “The following does not apply to ….”
Indeed, this seems already covered on handwritten page 31, under “Standard Conditions of
Use Applicable to Third Priority and Fourth Priority Users,” which opens by saying “These
standard conditions of use shall be and are applicable to Third Priority and Fourth Priority
users only; with the exception of standard conditions B, D, and F, the standard conditions are
not applicable to First Priority and Second Priority users.” This more specific explanation not
only makes the blurb on page 29 redundant, but contradicts it. If page 31 is to be believed,
the Policy does apply to First Priority and Second Priority uses.
Under “Purpose C”: The City’s preferred spelling seems to be “ensure” rather than “insure”
used here.
November 15, 2021, Library Trustees agenda comments from Jim Mosher Page 3 of 4
On handwritten page 30:
Under “A. FIRST PRIORITY”: Why is the NBPLF given priority over the NBPL itself? Should
there perhaps be three sub-categories, instead of two, with “Library-conducted events” above
NBPLF and “Library sponsored (or co-sponsored) events” below NBPLF?
Under “B. SECOND PRIORITY”: Should the stated groups be in this category only when the
program they offer is freely available to the public (not a pay or members-only event)?
Under “C. THIRD PRIORITY”: I would suggest revising “Schools, colleges, hospitals, or other
similar groups not qualifying under the previous definitions of non-profit.” As written, it
would seem to disqualify a school, college or hospital that is a 501(c) but is not a
recreational, social, or civic organizations. I doubt that is the intent.
Under “D. FOURTH PRIORITY”: “Municipal agencies” seem to have been previously
placed in C.1. Is this trying to say they have fourth priority if they want to use the LLH for
something other than “educational or informational programs”? If so, it could be more
clearly stated.
Are there any categories of applications that would be automatically rejected? If so, it
would seem helpful to state that. For example, for-profit events hosted by for-profit
entities?
On handwritten page 31:
The section title “Standard Conditions of Use Applicable to Third Priority and Fourth Priority
Users” should be shortened to “Standard Conditions of Use” because part of what follows
under it are Standard Conditions of Use that apply to more than Third and Fourth Priority
Users.
That said, the effort to carve out an exception for the Foundation seems both awkward and
unnecessary. Why should the Director not be allowed discretion to impose a standard or
special condition on a Foundation event. For example, its exemption from standard condition
A would seem to say the BLT sanctions the Director approving use of alcohol by the
Foundation in the LLH without permission of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board. Why
would the BLT want to jeopardize the standing of a Library facility in that way?
On handwritten page 32:
Standard Condition J would seem to be a “must” rather than an “may.”
Under “Fees, Deposits and Cancellation Procedures” the reference to resolutions of the BLT
is intriguing. I think the BLT should take action by written resolution, but I cannot recall it ever
having one so before.
On handwritten pages 32 and 33:
Since the documents described are not likely to be readily available to readers of the policy,
it would be useful to provide a link to the complete Declaration of Special Land Use
Restrictions. Without that, readers are unlikely to know who the “Declarant” is or what the
content of the Sections 2.1(a) and 2.2(a) that it references might be.
November 15, 2021, Library Trustees agenda comments from Jim Mosher Page 4 of 4
In particular, the language implies Sections 2.1(a) contains a list of acceptable uses for the
LLH that applicants are bound to comply with, but what those might be remains unexplained
in the Policy.
Especially inscrutable to Policy readers is the inclusion of the SLUR provision regarding the
number of parking spaces that must be kept available for public use “on the Land.” How does
this affect applicants? Are they obligated to count the spaces prior to their event? And are
the ones used by their attendees (or organizers and speakers) taken out of public use?
Item 9. Balboa Branch Replacement Update
In the absence of a staff report, it is difficult to understand the significance of the agenda
attachments for this item, but they have the appearance of a “receive and file” matter.
Given that, and having missed the last several BLT meetings because the City scheduled its
Aviation Committee meetings at the same hour, I am becoming concerned the BLT may have
delegated oversight of the Balboa Branch Replacement to a two-Trustee committee that makes
independent decisions and simply reports back to the full BLT on its notable actions – and even
then does not require public approval by the full BLT of those actions.
If this is true, all meetings and deliberations of the committee should be taking place at publicly-
noticed sessions to which the public is invited – something I have not seen happen.
While it is true this would be described as an “ad hoc” (that is, limited purpose and limited
duration) committee, this would not be the kind of ad hoc committee exempted from Brown Act
meeting requirements. To qualify for the exemption, an ad hoc committee’s role must consist
solely of bringing back a recommendation about a topic for consideration by the full board.
In brief, it does not seem appropriate, to me, for a non-publicly meeting subcommittee of the
BLT, however well meaning, to be directing staff to do a needs assessment or “approving” a
survey and simply reporting back at a public meeting that they have done so. Only the full BLT
should be directing library staff, and it should be doing that publicly with an opportunity for public
input.