Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout00 - Written CommentsReceived After Agenda Printed May 25, 2021 Written Comments May 25, 2021, City Council Agenda Comments The following comments on items on the Newport Beach City Council agenda are submitted by: Jim Mosher ( iimmosher(@yahoo.com ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach 92660 (949-548-6229) Item 1. Minutes for the May 11, 2021 City Council Regular Meeting The passages shown in italics below are from the draft minutes with suggested corrections shown in st wkeo=:t underline format. The page numbers refer to Volume 65. Page 31, first straw vote (in bold): "With Mayor Pro Tem Muldoon and Council O'Neill and Dixon voting "yes,"and Council member Duffield temporarily absent, there was a 3-3 straw vote to study fees for water, sewer, and affordable housing with all potential development listed in Item 43 of Slide 15 of the staff presentation (Any specific development would the City Council like to include?)." [The video shows Council member Duffield absent during these straw votes and returning to his seat just after they were taken. So, his position for or against them is not known, and without reference to his temporary absence, who the second "3" may be in the "3-3" vote cannot be determined from the minutes. Also, although Council member O'Neill said "Item 4" prior to the vote, he was clearly referring to Item 3 of Slide 15 of the staff presentation, which was being displayed at the time of the votes. Without the additional reference to that slide, the reference to "Item 4" (or, "3" as corrected) is meaningless since there is no prior reference to anything with that designation, and readers would presumably take it as referring to Item 4 on the evening's consent calendar, which had no relation to impact fees.] Page 31, second straw vote (in bold): "With Mayor Avery and Council Members and Dixon voting "yes,"and Council member Duffield temporarily absent, there was a 4-2 straw vote to study all areas." [For those attempting to keep score, the first indecisive straw vote omitted "library" and "recreation" from the list of fee types shown under Item 2 of staff's Slide 15 (each estimated to cost $13,000 to study). This second vote seems to have overridden the first and included "library" and "recreation." Had Council member Duffield been present for the first vote, the result may have been different.] Page 37, paragraph 1: "Council Member Duffield indicated that the an applicant approached him and expressed the need for the proposed change, the market for office space is difficult, nearby uses include restaurants and gyms, the applicant questioned the zoning of the six parcels, staff did not have an answer, there is very little activity around the parcels now, the impact of the amendment on the church is inevitable, the property owners are desperate for viable uses, and hopefully the church can work out its issues with the property owners or reach agreements with other property owners." [According to the video, Council member Duffield did refer to "the applicant," but there is no applicant mentioned in the staff report or in the minutes, so use of the specific article "the" in the initial sentence is confusing at best.] May 25, 2021, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 2 of 5 Item 4. Ordinance No. 2021-11: Zoning Code Amendment to Allow Eating and Drinking Establishments and Health/Fitness Facilities Within the Mixed -Use Dover/Westcliff Zoning District (PA2020-316) The staff report contains additional discussion recommendations not provided at the first reading of this proposed ordinance. While this is a positive development and more in keeping than usual with the idea that an ordinance is published on first reading for the purpose of stimulating more extensive and reasoned discussion of its substance prior to its possible adoption on second reading, this item remains on the consent calendar. Among staff's new suggestion is the possible construction of a new crosswalk across 16th Street. Should the Council adopt the ordinance, it is not clear from the report if staff will take that as direction to actually construct the crosswalk, or only to study its feasibility. Either way, the direction seems hidden in a staff report without mention of it on the agenda or in the recommended actions. Item 5. Resolution No. 2021-42: Initiation of Zoning Code and LCP Amendments Related to Wireless Communication Facilities in the Public Right of Way (PA2021-103) This item is one dear to my heart, as my realization that the City government in Newport Beach needed closer watching than I had been giving it came when, on January 22, 2009, 1 found taped to my front door a notice from the T -Mobile wireless company asking me and my neighbors not to please no park on our blufftop street the following week because T -Mobile was, 48 hours later, going to begin construction of a wireless facility at the top of a City -owned streetlight in the Irvine Avenue public right of way that intrudes, at eye level, into my view of the Back Bay and beyond. That location had been approved by City staff with no public process and without following protocols then in place. Had there been a public process, staff may have become aware a site - locator for T -Mobile had previously obtained entitlement to use a site a short distance away (which would eliminate the need for this one) and that T -Mobile needed to obtain a coastal development permit before proceeding with construction. I was generally pleased when (in 2014) staff codified its procedures for wireless facility approvals in Chapter 20.49 of our Zoning Code and later (in 2016) in Chapter 21.49 of our Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan. I am concerned about the present proposal because staff does not explain what it wants to change about those provisions. Instead, without saying there are currently any inconsistencies, staff asks for blanket approval to make changes "consistent with updates to state and federal law." My fear is that at the behest of carriers who find the City's process burdensome, staff wishes to make the approval process less public, rather than more. If that is staff's intent, the Council should be concerned those changes might create more repeat -speakers like me. May 25, 2021, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 3 of 5 Item 6. Resolution No. 2021-43: Initiation of Zoning Code and LCP Amendments Related to Accessory Dwelling Units (PA2O21-113) As with Item 5, Newport Beach seems to be moving backwards on the transparency of Council actions. In the present case, some explanation of the nature of the changes staff wants to make is provided. However, the explanation is relegated entirely to the staff report. The proposed resolution, itself, is entirely silent on what kind of changes are being initiating or why. It simply says the Council has the authority to initiate changes and is doing so. Since the staff report says the present resolution is needed to implement the new City Council Policy K-4 adopted as Item 4 on the March 9, 2021, consent calendar, it is curious this was not included in the Council Resolution No. 2021-19 that was adopted as part of the same action, and claimed to be initiating the General Plan, LCP, Zoning Code and LCP Implementation Plan changes needed to implement Policy K-4. Was it an oversight that relaxation of restrictions on ADU construction was not explicitly included in the previous resolution? Item 7. Resolution No. 2021-44: Approval of Revised City Council Travel Policy F-8 In my view, this proposal needs more work before its adoption should be considered. The basic requirements in California Government Code Section 53232 et seq. for local agencies to have a travel policy were instituted as part of the AB 1234 ethics reform of 2005 with a minor change to Sec. 53232.2 by SB 1196 in 2006. The City's "Travel Policy Statement" has been amended four times since then, but has seemed in completely in alignment with the state code. As to the specific changes shown in the redlining on agenda packet page 7-10: 1. Although it has appeared in the policy since 1992, 1 would delete the word "special' from "special boards, commissions and committees." I have no idea how "special" BCC's differ from "normal" ones, or why the policy would be intended to apply only to the "special" variety. 2. Likewise, the reference to "appointed officials" is legacy language from 1992 that I believe should be deleted. I have no idea what "appointed officials" it was originally intended to refer to since the term can mean any number of things. Whatever it means, does not appear in Gov. Code Sec. 53232 et seq., their travel claims are not restricted by it unless they are a member of a legislative body. More generally: 1. 1 don't know why the word "Statement" appears in the policy title ("CITY TRAVEL POLICY STATEMENT"). It would seem just as effective without it. 2. Under "Purpose," for the reasons stated above, I would shorten the opening sentence to read: "To set forth the policy for ^ffic-ial City travel for reimbursement of expenses incurred by City employees, City Council members, , and members May 25, 2021, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 4 of 5 of spec-iai boards, commissions, and committees, and employee while traveling overnight on official City business." 3. Since that sentence refers to "traveling overnight," it is not clear if the Council has a policy for travel that does not involve overnight stays. 4. Under "Travel Policy," the description in Paragraph A of allowed activities is pre -2005 legacy language that seems impermissibly vague for purposes of AB 1234, specifically Subdivision 53232(b). In particular, the inclusion of the phrase "and other official functions/ purposes" seems to open the door to anything not listed. And the inclusion of the word "approved" leaves open the question of who does the approving, with the application of the following paragraphs ("B" and "C") to Council and BCC members being unclear. Must Council and BCC members seek private approval by a Department? If so, which one in addition to the Finance Director? 5. At the same time, the policy does not clearly indicate if reimbursement is limited to travel, meals and lodging. For example, are other conference expenses reimbursable, or would the public expect them to be paid out of a Council member's monthly stipend? 6. Although, Subdivision 53232.3(a) requires Council and BCC members to use city - provided forms, it is not clear whether the "Procedure" for them is intended to be the same or different from that for employees. In particular, who signs their "Travel Authorization Form"? 7. The purpose of the paragraph being revised on agenda packet page 7-10 seems to be to remind legislative body members that while employees can be awarded a per diem, the Council and BCC members can only be reimbursed for actual and necessary expenses for which they have receipts. a. This raises the question of whether employees claiming something other than a per diem don't also have to provide receipts? 8. The policy does not remind legislative body members of their other obligations under Gov. Code Sec. 53232 et seq. Namely: a. That to be reimbursed they must make, pursuant to Subdivision 53232.3(d), a public report at the next meeting of their body (I have never heard a Newport Beach Council or BCC member say they are making a report to qualify for reimbursement of expenses). b. It does not specify the time frame within which, pursuant to Subdivision 53232.3(c), the expense reports must be submitted. c. It does not specify that group rates must be used, when available, under Subdivisions 53232.2(d) and (e). d. Or that for other expenses, since the policy does not specify reasonable rates of reimbursement, Newport Beach appears, intentionally or not, to default under Subdivision 53232.2(c) to IRS Publication 463 rates. Finally, it would be good to see the City Manager's administrative policies called for in and implementing this Council Policy F-8 as called for in Paragraph D on agenda packet page 7-9. Visibility of the administrative policies under which the City operates seems essential for the May 25, 2021, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 5 of 5 public to understand if it's operating in accordance with its rules, or not. Yet, to the best of my knowledge, the current administrative policies are not publicly posted.