Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-21-2025-BLT-PUBLIC COMMENTS April 21, 2025, BLT Agenda Item Comments These comments on Newport Beach Board of Library Trustees agenda items are submitted by: Jim Item No. 1. Minutes of the March 17, 2025 Board of Library Trustees Meeting Page 3 (page 6 of agenda packet), last paragraph and first paragraph on following page state: “Assistant City Engineer Sandefur presented cost information for the project, noting it has not changed since the replacement was last presented to the City Council. He reported the matter of tree removal is currently awaiting a hearing by the California Coastal Commission. He added an on-site water line will be relocated under the street. He stated the next step is permitting the temporary Fire Station followed by the bidding process for the permanent construction. In response to Secretary Dorothy Larson’s inquiry, Assistant City Engineer Sandefur stated the facility was last before the City Council in or around June 2024.” Comment: These paragraphs regarding plans to reconstruct the Balboa Branch Library likely reflect what was said at the March BLT meeting. However, contrary to what the second paragraph says, the matter was, in fact, last heard by the Council at its September 24, 2024, meeting, where, as Item 16, it heard an appeal of the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission’s approval of removal of the remaining eucalyptus tree and approved a Coastal Development Permit for the construction. Additionally, it would be the CDP, rather than the tree decision that would be appealable to the CCC, and normally the CCC would have held by now what is called a “substantial issue” hearing to determine if the appeal had enough potential merit to justify further consideration.1 The fact that such a hearing has not taken place would suggest either the appellant has dropped the appeal or the City has waived its right to a speedy hearing. The BLT should seek clarification because the construction cannot proceed without a CDP, and although the tree removal decision is not technically what was appealed, the design presented in the CDP assumes it will happen, and its impact on the tree could conceivably cause the CCC to deny the CDP without a redesign. It seems unusual to be proceeding with plans for construction in the coastal zone before a CDP has been definitely approved. Item No. 5. Library Materials Selection The NBPL catalog, when searched with a blank term, returns 202,895 “results,” which I believe refers to titles rather than copies, and includes 7,658 at the Sherman Library. I share what seems to be a concern of the present report that Collection HQ declares an item “Dead” (not circulating in 1 year) before it falls in the “Collection Check” category (not circulating in 4 years). The terms seem reversed, and even 4 years would seem to me a relatively short time to declare an item “dead.” 1 The appeal, which nullifies the local CDP approval until the CCC makes a decision about it, must be filed within a narrow window following the City’s notice to the CCC of the local action, and the Coastal Act and associated regulations require the CCC to make its determination about the appeal within 49 days of its receipt unless that requirement is waived by the permittee (see CCC Appeal Information). April 21, 2025, BLT agenda item comments - Jim Mosher Page 2 of 3 Although not mentioned in the staff report, I am also concerned about the statistic on “Outdated Stock” provided by Collection HQ in their “Peer Comparison - Performance” table shown on page 20 of the agenda packet. It suggests any item published five or more years ago should be regarded as “Outdated,” which, to me, seems very strange, as I would assume many things not published in the last five years remain relevant. Indeed, I would assume a vast majority of the world’s greatest, most valuable and most enduring works were created more years ago than five. As a result, I am pleased to see NBPL staff seems to be questioning some of Collection HQ’s recommendations and not taking them as inviolable mandates that must be followed. That said, the report does mention as an accomplishment that the number of items in “collection check” was reduced from 6.29% in January to 2.92% in March, a difference of 3.37%. Does this mean 6,838 of the 202,895 titles were removed in two months? Was that a special effort? Or is it the normal rate to make way for new items? And why the zeal to be so far below Collection HQ’s recommendation of less than 10% in their “collection check” category? Item No. 6. Media Lab Update It seems worth noting that an article about the Foundation’s campaign to raise $4,000 for improved podcasting equipment in NBPL’s Sound Lab was featured on the front page of the April 3, 2025, print edition of the Daily Pilot. Item No. 7. Library Activities Regarding Kit Coffee, the new concessionaire in the second-floor entryway to the Central Library, at its March 25, 2025, meeting, where the contract was approved as Item 9 on the consent calendar, the Council received public comment as to: (1) the high prices and lack of child-friendly offerings on the sample menu, and (2) the lack of transparency about alternative bids that could have been considered. Also, the recent Activities Reports are missing anything from a Circulation and Technical Processing Coordinator. Has that position been filled? If not, how is that function being managed? April 21, 2025, BLT agenda item comments - Jim Mosher Page 3 of 3 Item No. VIII. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS I don’t know if the Trustees are aware of the recent controversy in Fullerton regarding display of non-governmental materials in city facilities. As covered in Voice of OC, the Los Angeles Times, the Orange County Register and others (including the Daily Titan) as Item 14 on their April 1, 2025, agenda, the Fullerton City Council approved a policy2 banning the display or distribution of non-governmental materials at all city-owned facilities other than their library (see video starting at 3:36:25). Two things about this are especially interesting to me: 1. The new policy in Fullerton seems the opposite of that in Newport Beach, where, at least until recently, non-governmental publications are frequently seen available (apparently under no particular policy) for pickup in the City Hall lobbies, yet such distribution at the libraries is prohibited by policy NBPL 8. 2. The Fullerton Public Library, like NBPL, is managed by an administrative (as opposed to advisory) Board of Library Trustees. It is unclear who empowered their city council to enact policy about what can be displayed, and how, at their library. It is also interesting that the Fullerton BLT meetings are, according to their agendas, live streamed and broadcast, with members of the public having an opportunity to participate remotely via Zoom. Finally, since much of the lengthy debate in Fullerton was about city governments’ obligations to honor freedom of the press, this might raise a question for NBPL as to how the newspapers it displays are selected and how it would respond if one not currently chosen for display asked for equal prominence? 2 This staff recommendation was amended during the meeting to include a newsrack under the “community corkboard” at their library.