Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout00 - Written CommentsReceived After Agenda Printed February 23, 2021 February 23, 2021, City Council Agenda Comments The following comments on items on the Newport Beach City Council agenda are submitted by: Jim Mosher ( iimmosher(a�yahoo.com ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach 92660 (949-548-6229) Item IV.A. CLOSED SESSION -CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS Based on the agenda announcement, it appears the Council is being asked to decide on the appropriate price for the sale or lease of public right of way to a private party. Shouldn't the Council first publicly discuss whether it is in the public's interest to sell or lease the property at all? And shouldn't staff provide details of exactly what is being considered for sale or lease so the public can intelligently comment to the Council on the proposal? Including why a sale or lease is being considered instead of the normal revocable encroachment agreement publicly approved under Council Policy L-6? Item X111. MATTERS WHICH COUNCIL MEMBERS HAVE ASKED TO BE PLACED ON A FUTURE AGENDA: Consideration of a resolution modifying Council Policy A-1 to allow for discussion of items appearing on the City Council Agenda under the category "Matters Which Council Members Have Asked to be Placed on a Future Agenda" I agree the Council (and public) should be able to allowed to fully discuss whether a matter merits placement on a future agenda for a more thorough discussion and possible action. If this requires a revision to Policy A-1, I am all for that, but it don't think it should, since nothing in the existing Policy A-1 prohibits discussion of matters such as this (pronouncements to the contrary by former presiding officers notwithstanding). Indeed, the entire idea of listing these items for consideration on the agenda was to allow discussing them before asking staff to further pursue them. For those who don't remember, prior to 2013 the general practice in Newport Beach was for individual Council members to simply ask for a future item (either in writing or as a comment at a Council) and for staff to feel obligated, based on that single member's request, to work up a full report on the matter for presentation, discussion and possible action at a future meeting. As part of Item 19 at the May 14, 2013, meeting, City Manager Kiff, City Clerk Brown and City Attorney Harp recommended a policy change to reduce this burden on staff for items of limited interest. Modeled after an April 12, 2011, Item SS3, where direction had been sought on a number of items, the idea was to list the requests on the agenda and not have staff move forward with a matter unless its proponents could garner majority support for doing so. The initial policy change also required Council members to make the request for a listing of their topic at a Council meeting (as opposed to in writing to the Clerk, which had previously been allowed). But as the 2013 video shows (starting at 2:39:25), Council members approved the change only after they were assured it would allow a full Council discussion of whether staff should be asked to move forward with each issue, or not. February 23, 2021, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 2 of 4 However, examination of the proposal reveals an error in redlining: the agenda item requests were inadvertently left in a line with, at the end, saying (in contraction to the video and understanding of the Council members) "non -discussion item" (see page 23 of the staff report). This error was corrected by Item 7 at the June 9, 2015, meeting, which also restored the ability of Council members to request a listing in writing, but retained the requirement to not move forward unless a majority voted to direct staff to do so. Note that in this revision, the future agenda requests are separated from Council announcements, and while the latter is marked "non -discussion item" the former is not. By clarifying that discussion of the requests was not prohibited, this restored staff's promised interpretation of the policy change made in 2013. In 2017, as part of a massive revision of Council policies, the vote required to direct staff to move forward with an item was reduced from "majority" to "three" (see page 7 of August 8, 2017, Item 18), but the consideration of the listings was not marked as a "non -discussion item," and never has been since the 2015 correction. In short, the recent handling of "Matters Which Council Members Have Asked to be Placed on a Future Agenda" as a non -discussion item is a misunderstanding of existing Council Policy: the whole idea of printing the pending agenda item requests on the agenda prior to the meeting (as opposed to having them pop up without prior warning in a Council member's comment) was to allow discussion of them before directing staff to pursue (or not pursue) the matter. Without the listings, the Brown Act would severely limit discussion on an unannounced topic. With the listings, the public has been properly noticed and the Council is free to discuss as much, or as little, as it wants the question of whether staff should come back with a report on the requested topic. Item 1. Minutes for the January 26, 2021 City Council Regular Meeting The passages shown in italics below are from the draft minutes with suggested corrections shown in st�Ft underline format. The page numbers refer to Volume 64. Page 625, paragraph 1: "Council Member O'Neill requested that, in the future, the revenue outlook also include 2018 FY19 since COVID-19 was part of 2019 FY20." [The video at 24:40 is confusing, but I believe Council Member O'Neill was not talking about calendar years, but rather asked for "(FY)2018-19 because (FY)2019-20 included pandemic months. Saying "2019" in the minutes is quite confusing because there was no pandemic in Newport Beach at any time during calendar year 2019, nor during fiscal year 2019 (since fiscal years are normally referred to by their ending calendar year, not the starting one).] Page 628, last paragraph: "Hoiyin Ip provided examples of hydrogen fuel technology, stated that the CR&R representative at the last meeting indicated their Pe ris Perris facility produces Renewable Natural Gas (RNG) that can be used in CNG trucks, and discussed the benefits of RNG; ..." Page 633, paragraph 2: "Mayor Avery concurred with proceeding quickly, stated that the City needs to create housing and receive the community's buy -in, indicated that the City needs well- built projects and oversite oversight in order to create communities that reflect Newport Beach, February 23, 2021, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 3 of 4 Page 634, paragraph 1: "^n unidentified c^eel ev Gary Cruz believed staff and the Planning Commission will find an amendment for short-term lodging on Newport Island that the California Coastal Commission will entertain, .." [My recollection is that Mr. Cruz went to the microphone in the Community Room immediately after Dorothy Kraus reported she hadn't heard the last two speakers' names. But apparently the mike was not connected to the Council chambers at that time since his correction is not audible in the video.] Item 4. Resolution No. 2021-10: Eliminating the Inter City Liaison Committee and Repealing City Council Resolution No. 89-132 The staff report notwithstanding, it's not entirely clear how this committee was formed, who all its members were, or if Newport Beach has the power to unilaterally disband it, or only to withdraw from membership. Resolution No. 89-132 claims to "establish" the committee, but one has to assume the other member cities adopted similar "establishing" resolutions of their own. Resolution No. 9404, in 1978, earlier refined the duties of the pre -cursor Inter -City Relations Committee, again without clearly explaining how the body came into existence. Resolution No. 7691, from 1972, implies the committee's initial creation was informal and the Council was, at that time, trying to clarify its reasons participating. Initial references in the Council minutes (see June 16, 1969) suggest each city had independent committees that met together as needed, the issue at that time being negotiating city boundaries. All that said, such formalized inter -city communication seems valuable and it is not obvious from the staff report what currently replaces it. Item 5. Resolution No. 2021-11: Waiving the Term Limits Established by Resolution No. 2012-115, Amending the Water Quality/Coastal Tidelands Committee Membership to Stagger the Terms, and Confirming Appointments The Council may wish to reconsider this item, which I think could be handled better. The staff report, relying perhaps on the City's current Water Quality/Coastal Tidelands Committee web page, erroneously implies this committee was created in late 2012 by Council Resolution No. 2012-115, so that the initial citizen appointees are coming, just now, to the end of a second four-year term. While that may be technically true, the committee is, in fact, the direct descendant of the Harbor Quality Committee, created on July 14, 1986, by Council Resolution No. 86-59, which was originally conceived as something with one-year terms, but evolved through revisions in Resolution Nos. 99-45, 2002-9 and 2003-63 into one with no set terms. The 2012 revisions were intended, in part, to correct that (the Clerk having at one time expressed the theory that new appointments could be suggested each year by the then -sitting City Council member from each district — see Item 22 from January 28, 2003). February 23, 2021, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 4 of 4 Of the current applicants, incumbent Tom Houston modestly omits his previous tenure on the committee in the "Prior or Current Civic Experience" section of his application (see agenda packet page 5-11, but does, in the "special qualifications" box at the bottom of the page mentions "Serving on the committee since its inception." He was, indeed, one of the initial appointees on August 11, 1986 (see Minutes, Volume 40, page 347) and has served continuously, ever since, having completed more than 34 years on the same committee. So, contrary to how it may appear from the staff report, in considering Mr. Houston for reappointment, the Council is being asked to waive more than the two-term/eight-year limit from gape 4 of Policy A-2. Similarly, in considering the reappointment of incumbent Richard McNeil, the Council should be aware that however well qualified, and although unburdened by the term limit issue, his attendance at committee meetings has been far less than stellar, which would normally disqualify him for reconsideration if there were more applicants. But as is common with WQ/CT, there is a dearth of applicants. I think this has less to do with a lack of interest in serving, as with a lack of aggressive advertisement of the vacancies. Although advertised for one Saturday in the Daily Pilot and obscurely posted on the City website, the main people who know there are vacancies are the incumbents. Hence all who were interested were reappointed four years ago, when after a 12 -day recruitment only six applications were received for seven vacancies (see Item 20 from February 14, 2017). 1 believe this lack of applications from non -incumbents is a result, in part, of these appointments being on a different cycle from the main board and commission vacancies, which have a longer and more prominent advertising period, as specified in Policy A-2. While I agree with the recommendation to stagger future terms I would suggest the Council take these remedial actions to generate more applications and avoid having to waive Council Policy: Rather than filling the positions based on the current meager set of mostly -incumbent applications currently available, instruct the Clerk to re -advertise the vacancies, more aggressively and for a longer period, including an explanation that all positions, but one, are "open" (that is, have no incumbent eligible for reappointment). 2. Since this committee has been regarded as a City asset for so long, and seems likely to continue so, consider giving it more prestige by rebranding it as a standing "board" or "commission." 3. Alternatively, at a minimum, put it on the same recruitment cycle as the City's boards and commissions. I would further note that the present committee name is a bit misleading as the average person would assume WQ/CT oversees the City's "water quality" in general (that is, including drinking and irrigation water) plus something about tidelands, when its purview is, in fact, limited to matters affecting the quality of water in the tidelands, including the harbor. I would suggest either broadening its scope to include matters involving water in general or adjusting the name to correctly reflect its scope ("Tidelands Water Quality Committee"?). And since the City's once -active Environmental Quality Affairs Committee now seems defunct in practice (not having met for years), the Council might want to consider increasing WQ/CT's scope to give it a still broader environmental agenda.