Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout00 - Written CommentsReceived After Agenda Printed December 10, 2024 Written Comments December 10, 2024, City Council Agenda Comments The following comments on items on the Newport Beach City Council agenda are submitted by: Jim Mosher ( jimmosheranyahoo.com ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach 92660 (949-548-6229) Item IV. PUBLIC COMMENTS The sequence of the agenda seems improper to me, allowing prior Council members to make significant decisions after new members have been duly elected to succeed them as certified by the County Registrar. Per California Elections Code Section 10262 and Section 10263, the certification of the election is the responsibility of the election official, and its acceptance by the prior governing body is a mandatory duty, not something it has any discretion over. Section 400 (Elective Officers) of our City Charter states in relevant part that "The term of each City Council member shall commence on the date of the City Council meeting, following his or her election, at which the council receives the certification of election results from the City Clerk." In view of the certified election results having been announced by the Registrar on December 3, it seems improper to me for the outgoing council members to continue conducting any business other than accepting the Clerk's report of those results. Even though the business assigned to the "old" council on the current agenda is confined to a "consent calendar," it seems entirely possible to me that a newly -elected member may have a different view from the member they are replacing on one or more of those items, and if so, the nre member's vote should prevail. Although not applicable here, the present format would be particularly problematic if an unpopular incumbent had been voted out, and they were allowed to continue making decisions after their replacement had been certified. Similarly, although Item XIV on the present agenda offers an opportunity to reconsider prior votes, the new members seeing that item would not be eligible to reconsider anything approved on the consent calendar since the format does not allow them to vote on it. Item 1. Minutes for the November 12, 2024 and November 19, 2024 City Council Meetings The passages shown in italics below are from the draft minutes with suggested corrections shown in sh4keou underline format. The page numbers refer to Volume 66. Page 207, end of motion on Item 16: "...; and c) approve the City Arts Commission's recommendation for a three-year Sculpture Exhibition in Civic Center Park and detert" #fie with a $7,500 artist honorarium allocation per sculpture." [note: It seems important to document what the Council did, rather than what it was asked to do. In this case, the agenda announced that as part "c)" of Item 16, the Council would consider an action to "Approve the City Arts Commission's recommendation for a three- year Sculpture Exhibition in Civic Center Park and determine the artist honorarium allocation per sculpture." For the last part of that action, the staff report suggested a December 10, 2024, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 2 of 6 $7,500 honorarium, but gave the Council two lower cost options to consider. According to the video, before the vote, Library Services Director Hartson confirmed that $7,500 was the staff recommendation, and Councilmember Grant moved "the staff recommendation."] Page 207, Item 17, paragraph 3, sentence 2: "He further suggested appointing a City Council representative on the board and questioned how the proposed revisions are in response to the public's request for defraying costs associated with Short -Term Lodging (STL) by using the tax collected from them." Page 215, Item XVII, paragraph 2: "Jim Mosher announced that a General Plan Update workshop will take place on November 20, 2024, at 6:00 p.m. in the Civic Center Community Room to discuss the City's plan for coastal resilience and safety, and encouraged the community to attend." [note: The minutes correctly reflect my statement on November 19 that the GPU Workshop would be "tomorrow". However, embarrassingly, the workshop was scheduled for November 21, a day later than I announced. Fortunately, for those who may have heard the announcement, there was a "workshop" in the Community Room on November 20 at 6:00 p.m. However, attendees found the subject was different than I announced: namely, it was a Public Scoping Meeting for the EIR for the Snug Harbor Surf Park proposal (PA2024-0069) at the Newport Beach Golf Course. At that event, I correctly announced the November 21 GPU Workshop. But in the end, only one member of the general public showed up for it.]' Page 215, Item 21, paragraph 4: "Jim Mosher supported restoring the City seal to a prominent location and suggested placing it on the wall next to the Community Room facing the parking lot or eppesite Gf that location so it would be in on the outside wall of the Chamber facing the breezeway. He also recommended exploring alternative locations." Item 5. Resolution No. 2024-91: Amending the Term for Finance Committee Members to Provide that any Seat on the Finance Committee Held by a Councilmember or the Councilmember's Citizen Appointee is Automatically Vacated Once the Councilmember is No Longer a Member of the City Council This item is unusual in that no redline has been provided to show exactly what changes are being proposed. It is also unusual in that it does not propose to revise the "Authorization" paragraph (page 5-8) to add a sentence at the end memorializing the changes it makes. Moreover, this undoes changes recommended by the same Council member as Item 5 on the September 12, 2017, consent calendar. Supposedly good reasons were offered at that time for aligning the citizen members' terms with the fiscal year. The present report offers no reasons for thinking that is no longer a good idea. December 10, 2024, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 3 of 6 The implication seems to be that the citizen members are intimately connected to and serve as proxies for the Council members nominating them. I do not believe that is true, both because no such relationship is spelled out in the resolution, and because if the citizen members were indeed proxies for specific Council members, the meetings would serve as the hub in a hub -and -spokes violation of the Brown Act, in effect, being shadow meetings of the full Council. The citizen members, although nominated by those not on the Committee, are in fact appointed by the full Council, as evidenced by the incident in 2015 where my own nomination to the Finance Committee by then -Council member Scott Peotter was rejected by the remaining Council members (see Item 12 from October 13, 2015, the minutes, and Item 14 from November 10, 2015). Moreover, neither the Finance Committee page nor the Clerk's roster associates the four citizen members with specific Council members: Appointed Reappointed Term Expires Mayor Pro Tern Joe Stapleton, Chair 01-10-23 01-09-24 indefinite Mayor Will O'Neill 01-10-17 01-09-24 indefinite Councilmernher Noah Blom 02-09-21 01-09-24 indefinite Allen Cashion 02-14-23 06-11-24 06-30-25 William Collopy 02-14-17 06-11-24 06-30-25 Keith Curry 02-14-23 0&11-24 06-30-25 Nancy Scarbrough 06-22-21 06-11-24 06-30-25 Additionally, if there were a direct one-to-one association between individual citizen members and individual Council members not on the Committee, it is broken not only by elections, but by the Mayor and Council's appointment of a possibly different set of three Council members to serve on it each January. Is it the idea that a citizen member's term is automatically cut short if either the Council member that nominated them leaves office or that Council member is appointed to the Committee? If so, why does it not say that? As it is, in the latter circumstance, if a close association does exist, then a Council member who is appointed to the Committee, but continues to have a citizen appointee, could effectively control two votes on the Committee. In short, this proposal does not seem well thought through. Not only is the cutting short of citizen member terms contrary to the reasons advanced in 2017, but it is unclear there has been any problem with the current system. Under it, the four citizen members have continued to serve till the end of the fiscal year on June 30, regardless of what happens to the person who nominated them. The four Council members not on the Committee at that time then nominate a new set of four citizens to serve for the coming fiscal year. Nothing is perfect, but that seems much simpler, and more predictable. Finally, if this were adopted as proposed, it would be normal to direct the City Clerk to advertise the vacancy or vacancies it creates, which is not a proposed part of the action. December 10, 2024, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 4 of 6 Item 6. Newport Coast Pickleball Courts (Project No. 22P13) - Notice of Completion for Contract No. 9018-2 The Abstract to the staff report says "The work is now complete and staff requests City Council acceptance and close out of the contract." Yet the body of the report (page 6-2) says "Although the pickleball courts have been completed and opened to the public, the contractor has been working on a short punch list of items that required addressing, including fence security, gate hardware and tensioning rods." The phrasing suggests that work is continuing as of the writing of the report. Which is correct? Has the work been completed, or not? If work under the contract continues, what is the significance of "closing" it? Item 7. Approval of Reimbursement Agreement with Cameo Community Association for East Coast Highway Beautification According to the proposed Agreement (paragraph G on page 7-4), the justification for the City paying for private improvements (rather than initiating a nuisance abatement action) is "to better protect the integrity of the Retaining Wall, and thus, better protect pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles along the Coast Hwy E Frontage as well as to assure the landscape on the Coast Hwy E Frontage is in keeping with the City's standards."' Are there pedestrians along this stretch of highway? If so, shouldn't there be a sidewalk for them? It also says the property has "a history of partial neglect," but that if the City pays to improve it, "The HOA will then be responsible in perpetuity for the ongoing care, irrigation and maintenance of this easement area over the 12 individual private properties." I am unable to find in the Agreement any such commitment for perpetual maintenance in return for the City's payment. Indeed, the "Term" section on page 7-6 says the Agreement ends upon payment by the City. Given the history of neglect, what reason does City staff have to expect it not to fall back into neglect in the future? Shouldn't a guarantee the HOA will maintain the area to the City's satisfaction be part of the Agreement? I am also unable to understand provision 2.3 on the same page, requiring the landscaping contractor to obtain an encroachment permit from the City. Does any portion of the area to be improved belong to the City? Additionally, according to the staff report, the landscaping on the retaining wall will remain the responsibility of the individual homeowners. Yet that seems a major part of what gives the area a neglected appearance. How will this solve that? What is the plan? ' "Assure" was likely meant to be "ensure." There also seems to be a misplaced modifier in paragraph E: "The property owners at 4709-4839 Cortland (the "Cortland Owners") are members of the HOA-(the , and own the Retaining Wall." December 10, 2024, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 5 of 6 Item 8. East Coast Highway Beautification — Shore Cliffs Landscaping As with Item 7, staff seems to be implying either the HOA or the homeowners will pay for continued maintenance of their private property after the City pays to improve it. But again, there does not seem to be an agreement to that effect, or in this case, even a landscaping plan. Shouldn't those documents exist before the Council votes to proceed? Item 9. Purchase of 2025 North Star 234-5 Command Vehicle It would have seemed helpful to provide images of both the command vehicle the City currently has and what the Council is being asked to authorize replacing it with. Item 10. Affordable Housing Loan Agreement to American Family Housing for the Travelodge North Homekey Project at 1400 Bristol Street, Costa Mesa With a 175-page proposed Agreement, there is more than I care to review. With regard to the "local preference criteria" for the 12 rooms for people with Newport Beach connections, which I find on page 10-177, it looks like these are intended to be read with an "or" rather than "and" (that is, meeting only one is required). Should that be explicit? Also, the intended interpretation of some is unclear. For example, is "36 months' tenancy in the City of Newport Beach" intended to mean at least 36 months immediately prior to the application, or a cumulative total over a lifetime? Similarly, the introductory sentence refers to "live, work, school, and/or family" criteria, but while criteria are provided for "live," "work" and "school," none is provided for "family" connections to Newport Beach. Is that an oversight? Also, what are the consequences of a tenant losing their "local preference criteria." For example, what if at the time of lease the tenant's sole connection to Newport Beach is having a job in the city and they later choose to work elsewhere? Do they forfeit their lease? If not, how does their continued tenancy affect Newport's quota? I also notice the budget amendment on page 10-185 seems to show a net expenditure of $3,000,000, but the prior budget amendment shown on page 10-194 shows an expenditure of $2,000,000. Is the $2,000,000 included in the $3,000,000 or is it a separate expense? Item 11. Amendment No. Four to the Professional Services Agreement with Psomas for Environmental Services Related to the Newport Village Mixed -Use Project (PA2022-0166) According to the state's CEQA Clearinghouse records for this project SCH 2O23100323, a Notice of Preparation was posted and a Scoping Meeting for the EIR held on October 25, 2023. Since then, have any changes been made to the project description that might require the scoping to be redone? December 10, 2024, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 6 of 6 Item XII. MATTERS WHICH COUNCILMEMBERS HAVE ASKED TO BE PLACED ON A FUTURE AGENDA (NON -DISCUSSION ITEM) The first request is to designate portions of Corona del Mar as a Safety Enhancement Zone in which increased fines would apply during the Fourth of July weekend. The process for designating Safety Enhancement Zones is detailed in NBMC Section 1.04.060.A. As best I can tell, only a single such zone has been created, by Ordinance No. 2003-5, in West Newport when there was a serious partying and crowd control problem. That problem has been largely mitigated through such measures as the Loud and Unruly Gatherings Ordinance (NBMC Chapter 10.66), which applies citywide. Is there evidence that portions of Corona del Mar are now experience crowd control problems similar to West Newport in the early 2000's? The second request is to create a committee which will, presumably in private and without communication with the other Council members or the public, review and recommend changes to the City Council Policy Manual. While the Council policies seem overdue for review, there are good and bad ways to approach this. The last time this was done, as a result of a similar "A-1 Item" to appoint an ad hoc committee on July 10, 2017,2 was on August 8, 2017, when, as Item 18, the Council received a 338-page staff report. It proposed changes to or deletion of something like 60 of the 128 policies, with the Council members not on the committee having just five days to review the changes (along with all the other matters on the agenda). Among the policies eliminated was former Policy D-3 calling for annual review of the manual. This was not a good process, both because it did not give most of the Council members time to review the changes proposed, and it left most of the policies unreviewed since then. One might hope the Council would adopt a better approach this time Item 20. Resolution No. 2024-93: Setting City Council Regular Meeting Dates for Calendar Year 2025 When a similar item was presented last year, as Item 10 from December 13, 2023, the Council was given a choice of dates in November. Why is the Council being given a single choice this year? The proposal is for a pair of meetings a week apart, on October 28 and November 4. 1 would think sticking to the normal choices of the second and third Tuedays, dictating November 12 (because of Veterans Day on November 11) and November 25 would be a better choice, giving a more even pacing of meetings. Incidentally, the current version of Council Policy A-1 sets the hour of the Council meetings but seems to be silent as to how the dates of the regular meetings are set. It would seem good to restore the prior reference to Tuesdays as the meeting days. The Council should also be aware that while having a single meeting in August and December is allowed by City Charter Section 407, it is not required. I would suggest asking the Clerk to set two meetings in those months. 2 When or how that previous ad hoc committee was actually appointed and what it was charged with does not seem to be well documented.