Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout00 - Written CommentsReceived After Agenda Printed February 25, 2025 Written Comments February 25, 2025, City Council Agenda Comments The following comments on items on the Newport Beach City Council agenda are submitted by: Jim Mosher ( jimmosheraayahoo.com ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach 92660 (949-548-6229) Item 1. Minutes for the February 1, 2025 Planning Session and February 11, 2025 City Council Meeting The passages shown in italics below are from the draft minutes with suggested corrections shown in sh4keeu underline format. The page number refers to Volume 66. Page 256: The minutes do not reveal the special location at which the special meeting was held. Shouldn't they? Page 258, last paragraph: "Tim pekes Stoaks inquired about the percentage of rubbish removal by the Costa Mesa Sanitation District, supported an increased use of equestrians by the Police Department, and expressed concern for the use of drones in the same area as an airport." Page 259, last paragraph: "Adam Levem Leverenz suggested including refuse educational information with the trash bills. He asked the City to review the cost associated with building an aquatic center at Lower Castaways and noted the site is considered as recreational and commercial by the General Plan with a maximum building size of 2, 000 square feet, but the proposed plan exceeds this by four times." Page 260, Item V, last paragraph: "In response to Councilmember Barto's question, Assistant City Manager Jurjis stated that the NewportMesa Unified School District's property has been identified as a housing opportunity site, the City will receive credit for it and has jurisdiction for its planning, conversations with the school district have occurred, and the City will work with the school district for project entitlements." Page 267, last paragraph: "In response to Councilmember Blom's questions, City Manager Leung stated that the salary range has been in effect since the last salary survey, the salary is in line with the former Police Chief's salary, Cost of Living Adjustments (COLA) are associated with the Police Management Association's agreements (PMA) and are not reflected in the base pay, and the range reflects only the base salary." [?] Item 9. First Amended and Restated Employment Agreement with the City of Newport Beach Police Chief The proposed minimum 3% annual base salary increase seems rather different from the bonus discussed at the last Council meeting, and the staff report does not explain what variations were considered, by whom, or why this particular one was selected. Moreover, when amendments to contracts are proposed, it is customary to provide a redline so the detailed changes can be seen and compared to the summary of their purported effects provided in the staff report. It is unclear why no redline has been provided here. It is unclear why so many words are needed (on agenda packet page 9-5) to describe a 3% increase capped by the upper limit of the salary range — and even then requiring an example of how those words mean the cap might cause the increase to be limited to 2% instead of 3%. February 25, 2025, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 2 of 3 Couldn't something like the more concise language in the next paragraph, imposing the same cap on the City Manager's authority to raise the base salary, have been used, eliminating the need for an example? More importantly, despite the many words, it is unclear how this 3% paragraph 1 adjustment is intended to interact with the 3% increase described in paragraph 3 on page 9-6. Would the 3% increase pursuant to paragraph 3 fulfill, in the year it occurs, the paragraph 1 promise of a 3% increase? Or is it in addition? Item 10. Services and Purchase Agreement with BRINC Drones, Inc. for the Police Department Drone Program This proposal is obviously extremely expensive compared to what, according to Item 4 of the present agenda (page 4-41) was the $1,449 cost of the NBPD's evaluation drone. Indeed, the price of the six new drones is not obvious from the five-year Agreement Costs schedule on page 10-4, since they seem to be delivered at the beginning of year 1, but paid for over the five years with their cost folded into some not clearly -stated annual maintenance cost. Assuming the drones are designed to last more than five years, is the annual cost expected to drop after year 5? The statement at the end of the Fiscal Impact paragraph (page 10-5) that "Funding for subsequent fiscal years will be addressed in the annual budget preparation process" is hardly informative on that point. Is it unreasonable to ask what it is expected to be? Additionally, isn't the implementation of this program supposed to be preceded by development of a drone policy? What is the status of that policy? Item 11. Confirmation of Appointments to the General Plan Update Steering Committee and the General Plan Advisory Committee As a former GPAC member, but commenting as an individual, I continue to find this process of terminating and then reappointing the GPUSC and GPAC pointlessly disruptive. According to the timeline shown when the full GPAC last met on November 6, 2024, the City's consultant team was expected to be completing its draft of its proposed new general plan in January, with GPAC review in February and March, which, I believe, was expected to complete our role. Instead, we were told our appointments would terminate on February 11 and we would have to be later reappointed to finish the job we had promised to do. I understand a single new application was received in response to the vacancy announcement, and four dispirited existing members showed no further interest in serving. In my view, this has done nothing but pointlessly delay the process by a month or more. Moreover, I now see that two of the former members who did express an interest in concluding their job, Charles Klobe and Nancy Scarbrough, are not being recommended for reappointment. I cannot guess the reason they were singled out, and think an explanation should be provided. Charles chaired the subcommittee reviewing the Recreation and Natural Resources Elements, while Nancy chaired the subcommittee reviewing the Safety Element. Both were fully engaged, February 25, 2025, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 3 of 3 came prepared to the meetings, had better attendance records than a number of the former members that are being recommended for reappointment, and ran efficient and thoughtful subcommittee meetings. Nancy, in particular, even ran for City Council in 2024 and 16,359 residents of our City expressed confidence in her judgment. While a greater number seem to have preferred a different viewpoint, if the Council wants a diversity of outlooks, as the GPAC was originally intended to have, as well as maintaining continuity on the subcommittees, I think one or both of these former members should be continued, in addition to the new appointees. Item 12. Ordinance No. 2025-3: Designating a Portion of Corona del Mar as a Safety Enhancement Zone and Expanding West Newport Safety Enhancement Zone to Include Memorial Day, Fourth of July, and Labor Day Holidays This seems like a bit of an overreaction to me. I thought the current limited program of enhanced enforcement had been thought to have worked, and the problem it addressed on the 4th of July in West Newport to have gotten better, not worse, so there would be no need to expand it to more areas or more days. How do the numbers of calls for service and arrests on the days cited in CdM compare to the numbers in the same area on other peak days of the year? And under this relaxed standard, wouldn't a much larger portion of the Peninsula qualify as an equally problematic area? Don't they attract holiday beachgoers and vacationers as well? Whatever the need, the "legal" description of the new "Corona del Mar Safety Enhancement Zone" proposed on page 12-9 (unlike that for the existing "West Newport Safety Enhancement Zone") does not seem complete: "the area bounded by the Pacific Ocean on the south, San Joaquin Hills Road on the north, MacArthur Blvd. on the west and Hazel Drive on the east, ..." How does one draw the line from MacArthur Blvd. to the Pacific Ocean? Or from Hazel Drive to San Joaquin Hills Road? The roads do not go through. Apparently a person wanting to know if they are in the CdM Enhancement Zone, or not, would need to know the boundaries of "Newport Beach Police Department Reporting District 44 of Area 4." But where does one find a map of that? Does a map need to be included in the ordinance? Additionally, the staff report is not clear as to what the consequences of being in a designated Safety Enhancement Zone are. As I read NBMC Section 1.04.010.B, the fines for any violation of any provision of the entire Municipal Code are tripled in the designated areas during the designated hours. Do the good residents and business owners of these areas really want to face the threat of fines for code violations unrelated to partying arbitrarily triplied on certain days of the year to mitigate a problem they may not even feel needs addressing? And do they really want their guests and patrons to see signs warning them they are entering a problem area?