Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout00 - Written CommentsReceived After Agenda Printed July 11, 2023 Written Comments July 11, 20233 City Council Agenda Comments The following comments on items on the Newport Beach City Council agenda are submitted by: Jim Mosher ( jimmosher(a�yahoo.com ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach 92660 (949-548-6229) Item 1. Minutes for the June 27, 2023 City Council Meeting The passages shown in italics below are from the draft minutes with suggested corrections shown in t�� keou underline format. The page number refers to Volume 65. Page 585, mid -page: "City Clerk Brown read the second ballot votes for the City Arts Commission as follows: John Blom — Avery, Grant, O'Neill, Weigand Walt Howald —Avery, Grant, Weigand Melissa Kandel — Kleiman, O'Neill, Stapleton Vanessa Moore — Kleiman, O'"� eiW, Stapleton" [This was a second "vote for two" round in which O'Neill chose to switch from Moore to Blom. He did not vote for three: see his ballot and the Clerk's summary] Page 589, motion (see video starting at 1:51:45): 1 don't know how the Clerk might wish to handle this, but the ordinance being offered for second reading on the present agenda is slightly different from the one in the June 27 agenda packet. So a correction is needed to indicate that after the motion described at the bottom of the page was made and seconded, a "friendly amendment" was offered by Mayor Pro Tern O'Neill to add "Lincoln [Elementary School]" and correct the spelling of Coastal "Peek" Park. The amendment was accepted.. A possible way to correct this would be to insert something like: "Council Member Kleiman made and Council Member Grant seconded a motion to adopt the staff recommendation. Mayor Pro Tem O'Neill su_g_gested an amendment to add Lincoln Elementary School and correct the spellin_g of Coastal Peak Park. Motion by Council Member Kleiman, seconded by Council Member Grant, to a) determine this action is exempt ...; b) waive full reading, direct the City Clerk to read by title only, and introduce amended Ordinance No. 2023-111 An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach, California, Amending Chapter 10.08 to Prohibit Interference with Public Access; Adding Chapter 10.14 Prohibiting Unpermitted Structures on Public Property; and Amending Section 11.04.070 to Prohibit Certain Conduct in Public Parks, Park Facilities and at Public Beaches as amended, and pass to second reading on July 11, 2023; and c) ..." Alternatively, the motion could be retained as drafted, with a statement placed after it, but before "The motion carried unanimously" on page 590, that an amendment was suggested and accepted. July 11, 2023, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 2 of 4 Item 3. Ordinance No. 2023-11: Prohibiting Interference with Public Access, Unpermitted Structures on Public Property and Certain Conduct on Public Property Our City Charter Section 412 requires that (with the exception of "The correction of typographical or clerical errors") the text of an ordinance is not to be altered between its first reading and possible adoption at a second reading. As noted above, at the first reading of Ordinance No. 2023-11 on June 27, in addition to the correction of a typo, the Council agreed to add "Lincoln Elementary" to the list of schools explicitly called out. In examining the text being presented on page 3-5 of the present agenda packet, I notice that in the same paragraph to which "Lincoln Elementary" was added, someone took it upon themselves to change "Corona del Mar High School" to "Corona del Mar Middle and High School", and "Newport Elementary School" to "Newport Preschool & Elementary School."' While these changes were likely made in good faith in response to Council member Weigand's request that staff double-check all Newport Beach institutions were listed, they were not part of the full Council's June 27 motion to introduce the ordinance. And while certainly minor changes, and of no effect when considered in context,2 adding a middle and a preschool does not appear to be what most people would think of as corrections of typographic or clerical errors. Moreover, since the staff report does not mention any changes were made on June 27, the public has to wonder if any other clean-up was performed between the first and second readings. As to the substance of the proposed ordinance, I assume those who prepared (and modified) it are aware of the federal Ninth Circuit's July 6 affirmation of Gloria Johnson, et al v. City of Grants Pass, its latest statement on anti -camping laws and their enforcement. This was an amended restatement of an opinion filed last September 28 by a three -judge panel, which the full court has now made its own by refusing to rehear it.' The ordinance as proposed appears to attempt to comport itself with the Ninth Circuit opinions by criminalizing only the voluntary obstruction of public passage, and not the involuntary need to sleep. But it can also be read as defining certain acts (such as "sitting" or "lying") as an obstruction if performed in certain types of public right of way. ' The two original references to "preschools" found in the list of "schools" appear to be misplaced, and to belong in the earlier list of "Day care center"s. Changing "Newport Elementary School" to "Newport Preschool & Elementary School" compounds the error. 2 As noted by Council member Weigand and Mayor Pro Tern O'Neill, no additions of schools were technically necessary because the list to which they were added begins "including, but not limited to." 3 The original opinion included an "emphatic" dissent by one of three judges. The July 6 publication includes additional statements by Ninth Circuit appeal judges defending positions on both sides of the issue. July 11, 2023, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 3 of 4 As I said on June 27, among those defined areas of heightened scrutiny, one that seems especially difficult to explain is the prohibition against using public right-of-way within 500 feet of a cancer treatment center in a Mixed -Use Horizontal zoning district. While I appreciate the City is trying to draw a circle around the Transit Center on Avocado, I do not understand, and find no explanation of why it is resorting to this circumlocution. Why can't the City be more honest about its objective? And if it needs a circumlocution, why not some more specific one, such as "within 500 feet of a designated City dog park" ?4 1 see no reason why a cancer treatment center in a Mixed -Use Horizontal zoning district should need any greater protection of access than one in any other zoning district, or than any other kind of medical treatment facility And, relatedly, why doesn't the ordinance call out bus and transit stops in general as needing as much protection of access as a public restroom or a business entrance? Considering the City is proposing to ramp up its enforcement of a health and safety issue, I also think some members of the public may find curious the CEQA assertion that giving City authorities greater latitude to remove tents "will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment." I would hope the City hopes to effect a positive physical change to the environment. Why that would not trigger CEQA is not that no change is foreseen, but rather that CEQA requires analysis only of expected negative changes. Finally, I take issue with the frequently -repeated statement that although the City wishes to be compassionate, "There is no compassion in leaving people on the street." I believe that is true in most cases where people have made bad choices. But I also believe it is possible there are people who want nothing more in the world than to be left alone. For those, an intervention, however well-meaning, or even life-saving, may not be compassion in their eyes. Item 13. Ordinance No. 2023-12: Amendment to the Newport Village Planned Community Development Plan to Allow Recreational Uses Within Area 1 (PA2023-0071) As I pointed out in my cryptic written comment to the Planning Commission reproduced on page 13-59 of the present report, it seems curious City staff feels it necessary to amend the Newport Village PC-27 text to allow the development of recreational facilities at the Transit Center, when it never felt it necessary to amend the same PC text to allow the construction of a massive City Hall and parking structure in an area designated as "open space." Also, as I attempted to point out orally to the Planning Commission, the "Findings in Support of Code Amendment" on page 13-17, indicate that per the Recreation Element of the General 4 1 believe there is only one City dog park. I have no idea how many doctor's offices in the City's several Mixed Use Horizontal districts offer cancer treatment. July 11, 2023, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 4 of 4 Plan, the "fastest growing recreational demand in Newport Beach is the need for additional sports fields, especially lighted facilities available for after -work sports leagues" I further noted the proposed PC text amendment, now on pages 13-13 and 13-21, confines lighting to that required for security. That requirement seems necessary for neighborhood compatibility — for I recall some residents across MacArthur objecting to the not only the lighting of the "sail" on the City Council Chamber, but even the electronic display in its lobby. But it does not seem compatible with a promise to provide lighted sports fields. Finally, there seems to be some mystery about what the City would propose to construct if it gave itself the authority to do so through this code amendment. Neither this staff report nor the one to the Planning Commission gives any indication. However, Slide 4 of the PowerPoint presentation prepared for the April 25, 2023, City Council session and which the Council was asked to initiate the amendment to the PC text provided a detailed concept. Curiously, staff's concept plan was not shown to the Planning Commission, and so I don't know if it will be shown to the Council. It shows five pickleball courts and a shaded seating area, removing about half the existing parking area. I continue to have trouble seeing how reducing the amount of parking, and severely impacting what little would be left, at the city's only transit center would advance the City's hope of relieving traffic congestion by encouraging alternative modes of transportations Item 14. Ad Hoc Residential Crime and Burglary Advisory Committee Recommendations As best I can remember, I am the only member of the public to have attended any of the publicly -noticed meetings of the Ad Hoc Committee. As to their "urgent" recommendation to establish a Newport Beach Real Time Crime Center, I notice from the announcements at the June 27 Council meeting that three Council members have now visited the RTCC in Beverly Hills. While I appreciate how impressive that might appear, I would note the many cautions about establishing an RTCC in the Department of Justice's document provided as Attachment B. Costs need to be weighed against benefits, including the limited hours some configurations might actually be useful, as well as public perceptions. There is, as Attachment B emphasizes, no one -size -fits -all recommendation: what works in Beverly Hills may be less suitable in, or effective for, Newport Beach. On reflection, it seems to me monitoring in -progress residential burglaries (the example cited in the committee's report) might prove one of the applications for which an RTCC in Newport Beach would provide the least benefit, due to a lack of suitable City -accessible real-time surveillance in the areas where they occur. 5 At the Tennis Club at the opposite corner of Newport Center, the introduction of pickleball has dramatically increased parking demand.