Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout00 - Written CommentsReceived After Agenda Printed May 14, 2024 Written Comments May 14, 2024, City Council Agenda Comments The following comments on items on the Newport Beach City Council agenda are submitted by: Jim Mosher (jimmosherno_yahoo.com ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach 92660 (949-548-6229) Item 1. Minutes for the April 9, 2024 City Council Meeting The passages shown in italics below are from the draft minutes with suggested corrections shown in sWkeeu underline format. The page numbers refer to Volume 66. Page 82, Item X, paragraph 3, last sentence: "He noted there has been little public input since February, decisionmakers have been intimately involved and are equity members of Newport Harbor Yacht Clubs and/or hold mooring permits, yacht clubs would be exempt from the fee increases, and 58% of mooring permittees live outside the City and will be paying more than those living in Gafifeffria it." [See video. The speaker did not identify who they would be paying more than, but the implication was Newport Beach residents. "California" makes no sense, since nearly all harbor renters, including those living outside the City, live in the state.] Page 83, Item 13, paragraph 2: "Senior Planner Lee utilized a presentation to review the project location, adjusted property lines, proposed project pump station and feFeesl force main vault, site development review, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review, and conditions of approval." Page 83, Item 13, paragraph 5: "Michael Gelfand, representing the ownership of the Bayside Village Marina f8YM and Back Bay Landing project, noted alternative locations, noted the proposed plan deeFeeses cuts their project in half due to easements, utilized a slide to highlight the truck traffic, and asked that Council exercise good planning." [The abbreviation "BVM," otherwise without explanation, is used in paragraph 3 from the end of the page. As to the second suggestion, see the video. "Cuts" (as in "divides") is the word used by the speaker. Substituting "decreases" for it makes sense neither substantively nor grammatically.] Page 87, paragraph 8: "Jessie Fleming noted a 120% increase in meefing fe the dinghy impound feetook issue with the impact of impounding dinghies, asked for everyone to work together, and for Council to reconsider the impound fee." [See video.] Page 87, paragraph 3 from end: "In response to Mayor Pro Tem Stapleton's question, Harbormaster Blank relayed that the lift abuser has fesefved .. honored all his reservations so far this calendar year." [The complete response was that this calendar year the person had made three reservations and honored them all.] Item 4. Resolution No. 2024-31: Amending City Council Policies A-1, A-2, D-1 and D-5, to Help the Public Discern Whether a Communication is an Official or Personal Communication This seems like it should be a discussion item, because policies presented in the Council's name should be the Council's creation and not simply whatever City staff thinks is best for it, May 14, 2024, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 2 of 4 and because the required changes are not entirely obvious and since it is unclear how the new responsibilities will be communicated to the officials and employees affected by them, including the many appointed board, commission and committee citizen volunteers.' I have not had time to fully read the Lindke v. Freed 601 U.S. (2024) Supreme Court opinion referenced in the staff report, but I notice the recommended disclaimer to identify personal communications, found on page 13 of the opinion and repeated twice on page 4-2 of the staff report, is to say "the views expressed are strictly my own." So, it is curious there is no explanation why our City Attorney's office recommends omitting the word "strictly' when amending the Council's policies (staff report pages 4-21, 4-33, 4-40 and 4-48). Regarding the proposed changes, looking at the redlines of Attachment B... Page 4-64, under "Use of City Stationery and Email": In the second sentence, the superfluous "and email' should be deleted. It is already encompassed in "correspondence." As to the third sentence, how far does the prohibition of use of City email for "personal matters" go. Can one not even use it to wish a colleague a speedy recovery from an illness? Page 4-64, under "Private Digital Communications": The second sentence should be reduced to "Such communications shall make it clear that the Council Member is not speaking on behalf of the City (i.e., "views expressed are my own')" [and, again, shouldn't that be "strictly my own?"). The proposed long preamble ("Digital communications by a Council Member through a Digital Communication Platform owned or controlled by the Council Member or a third -party that discusses City matters") simply restates, and possibly misstates, the kinds of "communications" defined in the preceding sentence. If no difference is intended, why is that being restated? Page 4-76, under "Expression of Official City Position or Policy" for Board, Commission and Committee members: Are individual members really supposed to submit their requests for official City positions directly to the City Council? Or should they ask their respective body (as a whole) to make the request? Also how does this apply to the Board of Library Trustees, which the City Charter empowers to make library policy. Aren't those official City policies? Page 4-76, under "Private Digital Communications": See comment on page 4-54, above. The second sentence, again, unwisely repeats a long phrase from the first with slightly different words where it is unlikely any difference in meaning was intended. Assuming no difference was intended, the phrase should be replaced by "Such communications." Page 4-77, under "Use of City Stationery and Email": See comment on page 5-54. In the second sentence, the two occurrences of "or email" should be deleted. Page 4-80, under "Purpose": This policy (D-1) will say it applies to "all City employees, consultants, staff, and members of boards, commissions, and committees." Does it not apply to City Council members? Or are they regarded as employees? ' I don't know what, if any, orientation board and commission appointees receive, but as one of the Council's 30 appointees on the City's General Plan Advisory Committee, I am quite sure no one has told me about the existence of Council Policy A-2, let alone that I should read it and be looking for revisions. May 14, 2024, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 3 of 4 Page 4-80, under "A.1. Designated Spokespersons": Who designates the "designated departmental representatives"? Shouldn't that be defined somewhere, such as with "Every Department Director shall [or "may' ?] designate a media representative for their department'? Also, why are the City Manager and City Attorney listed, but not the City Clerk, who, as election officer and in other roles, may receive inquiries from the press? Pages 4-84 and 4-86: The proposed Policy D-1 ends with a notation about an "[Attachment Exhibit A]" which is likely the form reproduced on page 4-86. However, the body of the policy does not reference any exhibits or attachments. Was this supposed to be cited under "2. Format" on page 4-81 ? Page 4-87: In paragraph 1 under "Purpose," is the deletion of "websites, ..., wikis, blogs, and mobile content' from the scope of this policy intentional? I am not sure what "mobile content" refers to, but personal websites and blogs would be means of digital communication that would not seem to be "social media platforms." It seems strange to limiting the scope to Digital Communication Platforms, as defined, and email. Page 4-87: In paragraph 2 under "Purpose," is it really the intention to delete "officials" and make this policy applicable only to employees and consultants? Rather than restating regulations in Policies A-1 and A-2, wouldn't it be more efficient to simply make those persons subject to this as a general digital communications policy? Page 4-87: In paragraph 3 under "Purpose," shouldn't the first sentence say "Digital Communication Platforms and email," like the second? Also if the intent is to cover "Digital Communication Platforms and email," should that be the definition of "Digital Communications" so a separate definition of "Platforms" isn't necessary? Page 4-87: In the first paragraph of "A. Content" under "City Websites," why is "general" to be deleted from "the local community and the general public." Isn't the "local community" part of the "public"? How about: ""the local community and the public at large"? Item 9. License Agreement with Aqua Superpower (USA), Inc. for Installation and Operation of an Electric Watercraft Charging Station at Marina Park Located at 1600 West Balboa Boulevard I could be dreaming, but I thought there was report from the Harbormaster at a recent Harbor Commission meeting about this being tied to the anticipated acquisition of an electrically -powered patrol vessel and the need to have a means of charging it overnight, and some connection between the vendors, but I see nothing about that in the present recommendation. Beyond that, I do not see how the Council can make the findings suggested in Recommendation "c)." Why would conducting an open bid process result in excess vacancy and deprive the public of a beneficial service? On the contrary, wouldn't it potentially provide that service at a lower cost? May 14, 2024, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 4 of 4 Item 11. Balboa Branch Library / Fire Station No. 1 Concept Review and Approval - Project No. 23F12 The lack of effective public input regarding the library design is very troubling to me, particularly compared to my memories of the extensive outreach and revision of designs that accompanied the similar exercise conducted for development of the combination library and fire station in Corona del Mar (or for that matter, the more recent Lecture Hall, for which a special committee was created and reviewed architects and designs for more than a year). We learn now, for the first time, on page 11-2, that the goals and design of this facility have been guided by "a three Councilmember working group (consisting of Mayor Pro Tern Stapleton, Councilmember Blom and Councilmember Weigand)." How many of these Council "working groups" has the Public Works department created, and under what authority? I am pretty sure the public was unaware of this one's activities. Even the City Clerk, in her list of Boards, Commissions and Committees (including Council Ad Hoc committees), seems unaware of its existence. As to public involvement, the plans were publicly reviewed and available for comment at exactly one meeting of the Board of Library Trustees. At that meeting on January 16 (as may not be entirely evident from the minutes), no one, including the Trustees, had seen the plans until they were unveiled at the meeting itself. Expecting reasoned comments within minutes of first seeing a thing hardly seems an effective way to solicit input. The Board was told they had two floor plans to choose between, but as best I can tell, there is a single floor plan being offered by the architect, simply mirror -reversed and rotated to create "Option 2" out of "Option 1." Who suggested it, or why, is unknown to me. The public has also seen no renderings of what the interior would look like. This compares to the CdM Branch, where, if I remember correctly, after much back and forth with the architect, especially as to how the childrens storytime area and adult reading porch would be Iayed out, the Board settled on somethng like "Floor Plan D." As reflected in the minutes of the only other public discussion of the plans, that at the March 5, 2024, PB&R meeting, one of the main themes picked up on by the commissioners was the indadequacy of the public outreach. Instead of recommending a "preferred Concept Plan Option and Building Elevation Option" as they had been asked to do, they decided to recommend the City "Continue to refine the Branch Library and Fire Station Site Concept Plans, Building Elevations and accompanying recreational components and layout." Now, despite repeated public suggestions that interior library space was more valuable than exterior space, and that the initially proposed Public Works storage area could be used for that, and the absence of any option yet recommended by PB&R, the Council has before it a third option, never seen or reviewed by the Board of Library Trustees, in which the storage space is used primarily to expand the Fire Station and its parking lot. This does not seem like a good process.