Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout00 - Written CommentsReceived After Agenda Printed March 11, 2025 Written Comments March 11, 2025, City Council Agenda Comments The following comments on items on the Newport Beach City Council agenda are submitted by: Jim Mosher ( jimmoshera-yahoo.com ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach 92660 (949-548-6229) Item 1. Minutes for the February 25, 2025 City Council Meeting The passages shown in italics below are from the draft minutes with suggested corrections shown in s ikeeu underline format. The page number refers to Volume 66. Page 271, Item VII, paragraph 2: "Regarding Item 11, Jim Mosher agreed with Ms. Scarbrough's previous comments regarding her and Mr. Klobe's GPAC appointments and thought the discussion regarding the Council Aviation Ad Hoc Committee Item 5 was less than enlightening." Page 274, Item 13, paragraph 3: "Public Works Director Webb expressed concerns relative to distortions and site sight line issues as the screen size increases." Page 274, Item 13, paragraph 5: "Councilmember Weigand supported a one-time change to the screen. In response to his question, Public Works Director Webb clarified that 0.8% of the 10% of the contingency allowance is correctly stated and most of the major project items are complete." [note: Even after deleting the second "of the," this could be read as "0.8% of 10%" _ 0.08%. It would be clearer to say "Director Webb clarified that the 0.8% of cost overrun compared to the 10% of the contingency allowance is correctly stated."] Page 274, Item 13, paragraph 10: "In response to Councilmember Weigand's question, Ms. Katie Krahe thanked Public Works Director Webb for his presentation, expressed concerns about the largest screen size, and thought the 11-foot by 19-foot screen is a good compromise and the Foundation would agree to pay for half the cost." Item SS5. Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Early Look It is very helpful that the slides for this presentation were posted with the agenda on March 6, giving time for review prior to the meeting. Regarding Slide 17 (the first of two labeled "WATER"), there seems to be a problem with the dollar amounts reported for the "Cathodic Protection Program." A $110,000 re -budget added to a new allocation of $2,000,000 would not yield a total of $224,000. Item Ill. PUBLIC COMMENTS I am all for public comments, but according to the agenda sequence specified on page 2 of the currently -adopted City Council Policy A-1, this item seems to have been intended primarily to provide the required opportunity for the public to comment on the closed session agenda items. However, with the closed session now appearing at the end of the agenda, it fails at that purpose since few people attending the meeting would guess from the announcement that this is opportunity to comment on the closed session topics, nor will they know there will be additional opportunities to comment on agenda items, or if commenting at this time will preclude them from commenting later. March 11, 2025, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 2 of 6 In fact, although titled differently, the text under this item is identical to that appearing under "IX. NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC" which makes it appear more of a notice than an invitation to comment. If that is its purpose, it would seem the notice should be given before Item "II. CURRENT BUSINESS" since the public must be allowed to comment on at least some of those items (for example, Item "SS5. Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Early Look"), yet will not have been told what the rules are prior to their opportunity. Item 4. 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 The description of the boundaries of the proposed Corona del Mar Safety Enhancement Zone were revised shortly before the introduction of this ordinance was introduced on February 25. While the more precise definition (similar to the Police Department Reporting District 44 illustrated in Figure 1 on page 4-2 of the staff report) proposed on page 4-9 of the ordinance is appreciated, it is puzzling that both mention the intended zone "shall include Pirate's Cove, Corona del Mar State Beach, and Little Corona Beach," but do not mention China Cove Beach, even though China Cove Beach is clearly within the area described by the text. Additionally, it is not clear the City has a clearly defined boundary to "Little Corona Beach," which, according to Figure 1 of the staff report, is in the neighboring Police Department Reporting District 45. It is a term that does not seem to appear anywhere else in the Municipal Code. All this said, I continue to think the increased days and areas of the proposed safety enhancement zones place an increased burden on City staff and citizens that is not justified by sufficient evidence of a need for the action. Item 5. Ordinance No. 2025-4: Amending the Newport Beach Municipal Code to Update Administrative Procedures Related to Good Cause Determinations and the Extension of Deadlines for Short -Term Lodging Permits Although not clearly explained in the staff report, I believe this ordinance is being proposed as an administrative alternative to persons making appeals to the City Council. Setting aside the merits of that choice,) have two problems with the proposed implementation. First, a significant operative part of the scheme is buried in a portion of the ordinance that will not be codified, as a result of which, most of the public reading the proposed code (pages 5-21 and 5-22) will not know it exists. Specifically, the proposed ordinance contains an (uncodified) Section 7 saying "The Finance Director is hereby authorized to retroactively extend deadlines as provided in Sections 2 through 5 of this ordinance upon a determination by the Finance Director that good cause has been shown to do so." March 11, 2025, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 3 of 6 Not only would this apply, contrary to what it says, to only Section 2, 3 and 5 (not 4), but I can think of no reason this should not be included in the codified text of those sections. To accomplish that, in the three sections where it is proposed to appear,' the following phrase could simply be modified to: "... the Finance Director determines that good cause has been shown for extending the deadline, which extension may be retroactiye.112 The code would then be clearer and there would be no need for the uncodified Section 7. My second problem is that while it may seem efficient to insert a definition of "good cause" that will apply to the entire municipal code, rather than just to short term lodging matters, I don't think it is wise. The reason it is not wise is that what "good cause" means depends on the context, and the conditions that constitute "good cause" for missing a short term lodging permit deadline may be quite different from what constitutes "good cause" in some other circumstance, such as terminating an employee or a permit "for good cause." A search for the phrase "good cause" indicates it appears 27 times in 19 different chapters of our Municipal Code, including, already in Subsection 5.95.030.F. Many of those appearances suggest the intent was for the phrase to have a very context -specific intent. Adding a general definition that purports to apply "Unless a more specific definition is provided or the context in which they are used clearly requires otherwise" seems only to add confusion and uncertainty. It would seem much better to add a STL-specific definition of "good cause" to Section 5.95.010 (Definitions) of the Short Term Lodging Permit chapter, which would clarify how the phrase is intended to work in the STL chapter, but not alter its (possibly quite different) intent in the others. As to the merits of this ordinance, believe the deadlines were enacted to emphasize that having a short term lodging permit is a privilege, not a right; and a limited privilege for which there is a long waiting list of possibly more responsible people seeking the privilege. While the proposed code specifies the circumstances under which the Director "may' excuse a missed STL permit deadline, it is not at all clear as to the circumstances under which he or she should choose not to do so. For example, there may be complaints that the applicant, although having "good cause" to miss the deadline, is also a bad operator for whom leniency should not be considered. And those circumstances might not surface without a more formal public hearing. That would argue for an appeal to the Council being a better solution in what seem to be the rare circumstances in which deadlines are missed. Regarding defined words in general in our Municipal Code, it should be noted that, at present, readers have no easy way to tell if they are encountering a word with a special definition within the code or one that is intended to be read with its common meaning. A solution to this is for the vendor codifying the ordinances to display the defined words in a special typeface (such as italics or underlined) and provide links to the definitions. ' To be sure, while this phrase appears in Section 3 (on page 5-13) and Section 5 (on page 5-14), in Section 2 (on page 5-12) it appears as "to extend the deadline" instead of "for extending the deadline." I can think of no reason for the different phrasing. 2 Subsection 5.95.030.F already gives the Director authority to extend certain STL deadlines, but does not say that authority is retroactive. Nothing in the present ordinance changes that. Was this intentional? March 11, 2025, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 4 of 6 Here is example, from the Snohomish County (WA) code, which is maintained by the same vendor as ours, but using a slightly different platform: 30-22.030 Number of uses per lot. C Z ❑ Uses shall be established upon legal ly created lots that conform to cu rre nt zo n i ng requirementsoron legal .......... nonconforming lots. A lot may have more than one use placed within its bounds, except that only one single family .......... ......................................... dwelling may be placed on a lot. This exception shall not apply to model homes as defined herein, to townhouse and ...................... ............................................ .............................. mixed townhouse developments proposed and approved under chapter 30.23A SCC, cottage housing developments ........................................................................................ proposed and approved under chapter 30.41G SCC, planned residential developments proposed and approved pursuant to chapter 30.42E SCC, projects proposed and approved pursuant to chapter 30.34A SCC, or to land zoned commercial or multiple family residential. Multifamily structures may be placed on lots at densities controlled by chapter ............... ........................... .......... 30.23 SCC. (Added by Amended Ord. 02-064, Dec. 9, 2002, Eff date Feb. 1, 200s; Amended by Amended Ord. 05-087, Dec. 21, 20%, Eff date Feb. 1, 20%; Amended by Amended Ord. 09-079, May 12, 2010, Eff date May 29, 2010; Amended by Ord. 17-062, Oct. 18, 2017, Eff date Dec. 17, 2017). Pointing the mouse at the words with dotted underlines pops up a copy of the section defining the term (while, as in our code, clicking on a word with a solid underline links to the referenced code section). Item 6. Resolution No. 2025-11: Waiving Section A. I. of City Council Policy B-13 to Allow for Alcoholic Beverages at Charity Polo Event Held at Peninsula Park, and Repeal of Resolution No. 2024-14 Since Newport Beach attempts to enforce an absence of alcohol on its beaches, I do not think it sets a good example to allow alcohol at an event in a beach -adjacent park. That appears to set a double standard. That said, if a majority of the Council wants to allow this, I don't see the need for a new resolution or to repeal the former one. The existing Resolution No. 2024-14 appears to grant an indefinite, blanket waiver for the "Charity Polo Event held at Peninsula Park." While it references the "Newport Beach Foundation" as the most recent and likely future operator, it does not seem limited to that. The proposed new Resolution No. 2025-11 names "Celebrity Foundation for Children" (tax filin s) as the expected operator, but, again, the existing resolution does not seem restrictive as to who the applicants or operators might be and is even less clear than the present one about the waiver being indefinite. If the intent is that the future validity of the waiver be contingent upon "the Event" being a charity event, then I think it should say so. And since the request is only for service of beer and wine, I think the resolution should include that limitation. Both of those conditions would improve upon what is proposed. March 11, 2025, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 5 of 6 Item 9. Approval of On -Call Maintenance and Repair Services Agreement for Roll -Up Doors and Gates with Excel Door & Gate Company, Inc. The staff report fails to mention that Excel Door & Gate Company previously held this contract, and that as Item 6 at its May 9, 2023 meeting, in anticipation of that contract ending, it selected South Coast Industrial Door, Inc. as the contractor for this service through May 1, 2028. The City Clerk's database of contracts show the one with South Coast Industrial Door, C-9286-1, as still active, and, indeed, to have been updated by the City Manager with new billing rates on August 30, 2024. Is the new contract with Excel Door & Gate intended to replace the one with South Coast Industrial Door? Or to be in addition to that? Item 10. Amendment No. One to Purchase and License Agreement with T2 Systems Canada, Inc. for Multi -Space Pay Stations It would seem reasonable to ask if, when the existing pay stations were originally purchased, there was an expectation they would only last for ten years? And if the new "more reliable" ones are expected to have any longer useful life? Item 12. Cultural Arts Grants Fiscal Year 2024-25 The Council may notice a similarity in the grants recommendations from year to year. For example, all six of the recipients approved as Item 12 at the February 27, 2025, meeting are on the list again this year, and for very similar amounts. This year is slightly unusual in that there are two new recommendations: Emerald Magic Events Inc and the Newport Theatre Arts Center. Of those, it might be noted that, independent of these grants, Emerald Magic Events has a March 22 event at OASIS very similar to what is described, with tickets ranging from $59 to $79 (with discounts for couples and children under 17). In that regard, it might be noted that the underlying City Council Policy 1-10 (page 12-5) does not appear to place any restrictions on how the grants will be used, and it is unclear if the Commission has done so. For example, how expensive attendance at the proposed events might be and whether the grants would be used to reduce ticket costs or for some other purpose. Indeed, it seems completely open-ended as to whether the grantees would even be presenting a program or offering some other kind of "service." Wouldn't some clearer guidance be useful? Item 13. Ordinance No. 2025-5: An Amendment Deleting Section 5 of Ordinance No. 2022-8 Removing Sunset Date of April 21, 2025 This item seems an example of the unwisdom of enacting uncodified provisions to our Municipal Code. As best I can tell, no one reading NBMC Section 15.02.095 would have any hint that lurking in adopted Ordinance No. 2022-8 there is an April 21, 2025, sunset provision affecting something in (sub) Section 105.3.4, especially since there is not even a footnote to that code March 11, 2025, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 6 of 6 mentioning the existence of Ordinance No. 2022-8. And according to the codifier's Ordinance List, Ordinance No. 2022-8 has already been "Repealed by 2022-26." Since Ordinance No. 2022-26 says it completed deleted and replaced Chapter 15.02, including (sub) Section 105.3.4, and in enacting the present provisions, itself appears to contain no sunset language, it would seem to me that a sunset clause in Ordinance No. 2022-8 is irrelevant, and nothing is about to expire. In that case, no action is necessary, unless the current (sub) Section 105.3.4 enacted by Ordinance No. 2022-26 is different from the one the Building Official sees in Ordinance No. 2022-8 and wants to continue following. As best I can tell, there is no difference, and no action is needed. Item XVII. CLOSED SESSION The Brown Act requires the public be given an opportunity to comment regarding the items listed under this heading on the agenda before the Council considers them. Since the former opportunity for this public comment has been moved from its position immediately preceding the closed session in the agenda template specified in City Council Policy A-1, it seems important for the Mayor to invite comment after the City Attorney has announced the closed session topics.