October 24, 2023, City Council Agenda Comments
The following comments on items on the Newport Beach City Council agenda are submitted by:
Jim Mosher ( [email protected] ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach 92660 (949-548-6229) Item SS2. Newport Beach Municipal Code and City Council Policy Update
Background
This began as an “A-1” request by Mayor Pro T em O’Neill for a future agenda item, which was voted on under Item XIII at the July 26, 2022, meeting. The requested cited a passage in The Federalist Papers, No. 62, in which, in arguing for the adoption of the U.S. Constitution, James Madison (or possibly Alexander Hamilton) lamented the tendency of untrained and inexperienced legislators to enact laws “so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood” – for which he suggested the solution was the creation of a senate with longer-serving, more carefully-selected members.
While the request to form a committee to recommend reducing the length of the Municipal Code seems to have been well-intentioned, it may have failed to note that in The Federalist Papers, No. 62, our founding father also branded “all the repealing, explaining, and amending laws, which fill and disgrace our voluminous codes” as “so many monuments of deficient wisdom .” The boards and commissions invited to participate in the pruning were particularly puzzled with how deleting words was expected to increase clarity, and why the effort was confined to the “sole purpose” of “deleting or reducing language,” and not improving it. 1 Concerns
While I think codes need periodic review and updating, while I agree simplification is a worthy goal, and while I have no doubt about the committees good intentions, I have many concerns about this process of proposing mass revisions without any explanation to either the public or their Council colleagues as to why these particular changes are being recommended.
Appreciating the difficulty of rephrasing something without altering its original meaning, and without knowing why the original words were chosen, I am concerned that what may seem no change to one person may create a possible new reading for others or destroy some subtle interaction that was critical to the original drafting.
I am even more concerned that slipped in among the many innocuous revisions are some real substantive changes of policy that will be enacted without any real public, or even Council, scrutiny.
1 The wish to reduce the length of the Municipal Code is a bit ironic in view of recent additions to it, such as the 29-page Ordinance No. 2022-18, attempting to restate the entire voluminous state code of the moment on residential density bonuses, rather than simply referring to it.
Received After Agenda Printed
October 24, 2023
Written Comments
October 24, 2023, CityCouncil agendacomments- JimMosher Page2of 7 AndwhileI thinkwhat isbeingpresentedisalreadymuchtoomuchtoconsider at onetime, itseemsimplausibletomethat onlyasingleCouncil policy–amongthedozenslast reviewedin2017 2 –wouldbenefit from, or isinneedof, revision.
StyleMuchof therevisionseemstobedevotedtochangingreferencestostatecodesfromthingslike“CaliforniaGovernment Code” toanabbreviatedform, like, inthiscase, “Cal. Gov. Code.”Not onlydoesthisnot reducewords, onlycharacters, but for thosenot familiar withwhat isbeingabbreviated, it reducesthereadabilityof theMunicipal Codeandincreasesitsobscurity.Whywewouldbedoingthisisunclear tome, but it appearssomeoneistryingtoconformtheMunicipal CodetotheCaliforniaStyleManual, andmisreadingit.That manual, approvedbytheCaliforniaSupremeCourt, isusedbythecourt reporter servicetoprocesscourt opinionsfor publication, andisapparentlyrequiredtobeusedbylawyersinpreparingpleadingstoCaliforniacourts.SIncewritinglawsisadifferent art fromfilinglegal pleadingsandissuingrulingsonthem, muchmorerelevant tothepresent effort wouldhavebeenoneof themanylegislativedraftingmanuals. Californiadoesnot appear tohaveany, but therearemany, withlinkstosomelistedbytheNational Conferenceof StateLegislaturesontheir OnlineDraftingManualspage.Noneof themI canfindrecommendthekindof abbreviationtakingplacehere. Nor doestheCaliforniaStyleManual. Indeed, while§2:8promulgatestheofficial statecodeabbreviationsadoptedhere, §2:6says“Outsideparentheses, useunabbreviatedcodenamesandspellout "section" beforethecodesectionnumber.” Onlyrarelydoesacodereferenceappear inparenthesisinour Municipal Code, andonlythenwouldit beabbreviated. Notealso, that if wewerefollowingtheCaliforniaStyleManual, theword“section” wouldbeinlower case, notcapitalized, asit isinour code.Another aggravatingrecommendationisthemanyinstancesinwhichour codeisrecommendedtobedegradedbyrepeatingawritten-out number withthesamethingsasnumeralsinparenthesis. I don’t knowwherethiscamefrom, or anystylemanual that recommendsit. Itdiminishesreadability, asin“theproposal istobuildontwo(2) acrestwo(2) two(2)-unit two(2)-storybuildings,” andmakeswhat wouldalreadybedifficult toreadevenmorechallengingtodecipher.Theinfectioncouldbefoundasearlier as1992, intheballot measurethat addedtermlimitstoour previouslyunblemishedCityCharter (seethelast pageof ResolutionNo. 92-75). But itseemedtobeunder control. However, inabout 2013, theredundant numbersstartingsproutingupinnewordinances. Onewouldhavehopedthat sincethegoal of thepresent effort wastoreducelanguage, therecommendationwouldhavebeentodeletetheseredundancies, butinsteadit seemstobetryingtoaddthemwherever theydon’t alreadyexist. 2 Theresultsof thelast systematicreviewof theCouncil PolicyManual werepresentedasItem18onAugust 8, 2017. Amongtherecommendations, without explanation, wasdeletionof PolicyD-3, whichhadcalledfor annual review.
October 24, 2023, CityCouncil agendacomments- JimMosher Page3of 7 Andit isn’t evendoingthat veryconsistently. For example, onpageSS2-8, four easilyunderstoodnumbersareturnedinto“two(2),” “three(3)” and“four (4”), yet onpageSS2-4thereseemsnocompulsiontoturn“onecopy” into“one(1) copy” –eventhough“one” istheonlyoneamongthesethat couldbeusedfor somethingother thananumber.Similarly, if reducinglanguageisanobjective, most legislativedraftingstylemanualscontainexamplesof flowerylegalesethat canbereducedtobriefer, simpleandmoreunderstandableEnglish. I believethecommitteewouldfindour Codeisrepletewiththem.For example, our Code’sAdvancedSearch- ViewAll Hitsoptionfor theexact phrase“shallmean” 3 finds849instances(someintheCityCharter), all of whichcouldlikelybereplacedbythesimpler, moredirect andlesspretentious“means.”Alsoexistingtypospersist andsomenewonesareintroduced. For example, inexistingNBMCSection12.56.030.B.5, “Toa” whichshouldbe“A” isleft uncorrected. AndonpageSS2-135, inthenewdefinitionof “Substantiallylocated,” “primary” shouldbe“primarily.” OnpageSS2-22,“Publicparkof publicfacility” appearsintendedtohaveread“Publicparkor publicfacility” SubstanceThereismuchtoomuchtoreviewwithanycare. Sothefollowingarerandomcomments:
1. I appreciatethecommittee’seffort toremovetheseverabilityclausesaddedtothecodebysomeordinances, but not byothers(see, for example, existingSection3.04.170notbeingshownasstrickenonpageSS2-54). However, I wonder if theyneedtobereplacedbyonegeneral, consolidatedstatement about severability.2. Oneof thelargest proposeddeletionsseemstobeof Chapters20.34and21.34. Sincethesedeal withconversionor demolitionof affordablehousing, but apparentlyonlyincoastal zone, I understandwhytheir languagewouldbelonginTitle21, rather thanTitle20. But I suspect itsproposeddeletionmayreflect amisreadingof thestatecode. At theOctober 19PlanningCommissionmeeting, theCommissionheardtheprovisionswereunnecessarybecausetheCityhaslessthanthe50acresof privatelyownedvacant landwithinthreemilesof thecoastal zone, asreferredtoinNBMCSecs. 20.34.030.Cand21.34.030.C. Perhapswhat haschangedsincethesewereenactedisthat BanningRanch(nowtheRandall Preserve) isnolonger privatelyowned. But CaliforniaGovernment CodeSec. 65590(b) doesnot appear tosaythat exemptsacityfromitsrequirements.Byitsplainlanguage, therequirement remainsif “thelocal governmentdeterminesthat replacement of all or anyportionof theconvertedor demolisheddwellingunitsisfeasible.”3. Manysectionsof thecoderefer tofeesset “byresolution.” Sincethepublichasnoideawherethereferencedresolutioncanbefound(assumingit evenexists) it wouldbebettertorefer tothe“Master FeeSchedule.” 3 Thecodifier’s“exact phrase” searchoptionseemstoworkfor mefor thisphrase. It doesnot seemtoworkfor other phrases, suchas“intheevent that,” whichcanbesimplifiedto“when.” October 24, 2023, CityCouncil agendacomments- JimMosher Page4of 7
4. IntheproposedrevisionstoCouncil PolicyL-1, thelist of “SharedBicycle/PedestrianFacilities” wouldseemlikeit wouldneedtobecoordinatedwithsomemaster list ofbike-allowedsidewalksmaintainedelsewhere. It mayalsonot becurrent, noareall thesegmentslistedrelevant tosidewalkdining. For example, muchof thesidewalkonthewest sideof JamboreefromCampustoMacArthur istoonarrowfor sharedbicycle/pedestrianusenor isit closeenoughtobuildingstobealikelysitefor dining.5. InthePB&Rrecommendations, asI notedtothem, somearefor entirelynewpolicies,not simplificationsof existingones. For example, pageSS2-594introducesanentirelynewrequirement for propertyownerstoinstall automatedirrigationsystemsfor parkwaytrees. SodoestherecommendedchangeonpageSS2-600. I wouldalsonotethepolicynumbersarenot identifiedintherevisedcopiesof theminthepresent agendapacket,whichishardlyaverytransparent wayof announcingpotential policychangestothepublic.
Item1. Minutesfor theOctober 10, 2023CityCouncil MeetingThepassagesshowninitalicsbelowarefromthedraft minuteswithsuggestedcorrectionsshowninstrikeout underlineformat. Thepagenumbersrefer toVolume65.Page637, paragraph1: “CityAttorneyHarpagreedthat thereisanover concentrationofState-licensedfacilitiesinthisneighborhoodanddiscussedthe1621IndusStreet mentalhealthlicenseapplicationtotheState, Statelawsprohibitinglocal regulation, thetwoletterssent last weektotheStateinoppositiontoallowingadditional facilities, theCity’sworksince2006withlitigation, therequest for Statelegislatorstoreturnlocal control andregulation, andtheCity’scontinuedefforts.” Page643, Item14, paragraph2, sentence1: “InresponsetoCouncilmember Grant’squestion, AssociatePlanner Perezrelayedthat theupdateisinlineinlinewithhowtheNewport Beachzoningcodehasblendedparkingratesfor shoppingcenterswithoutdoordiningandthePlanningCommissionPlannedCommunitytext will beconsistent withthezoningcode.” Item5. ResolutionNo. 2023-61: OpposingAssemblyConstitutionalAmendment 13(VotingThresholds)If theresolutionwaspreparedwithawordprocessor, it issurprisingit didnot catchthegrammatical error inthefirst line: “WHEREAS, sincetheadoptionof theCaliforniaConstitutionin1849, therehashavenever beendifferent thresholdsfor theapproval of constitutionalamendmentsbasedonthecontent of theamendment.” 4 It wouldhaveseemedhelpful toincludeacopyof ACA-13, theproposal theCouncil isbeingaskedtooppose, andwhichmanyother Californiacitiesareonrecordsupporting. The 4 It appearsArticleX, Section1of our 1849Constitutionrequired, for itsamendment, agreement byamajorityof thestate’squalifiedelectors. ArticleXVIII, Section4currentlyrequiresagreement byonlyamajorityof thoseelectorsvotingontheamendment.
October 24, 2023, CityCouncil agendacomments- JimMosher Page5of 7 resolutiongivesthepossiblemisimpressionthat ACA-13isatax-relatedmeasureweakeningProposition13.WhileACA-13mayhavebeencreatedtopartiallyinvalidateatax-relatedinitiativeit maybecompetingagainst ona2024ballot (seethebill analysis), it alsoappearstobeaneffort tocorrect ananomalyintheconstitutionthat allowsasimplemajorityof voterstoenact measuresthat requireamuchlarger portionof voterstomakechangestothemor donewthings, whethertax-relatedor not. Fixingthat patentlyundemocraticloopholeseemslikeagoodthingtome, butI agreethefixshouldapplyequallytomeasuresplacedontheballot byinitiativeor bytheLegislature–somethingACA-13, for reasonsunknowntome, doesnot seemtodo.
Item6. FY2023-24TrafficSignal RehabilitationProject - AwardofContract No. 9416-1(24T01)TheLocationMap, providedasAttachment Aonpage6-4, showsonlythelocationof threetrafficsignalstobereplaced. It failstoillustratethefull scopeof thecontract beingsought.If limitedtothethreesignals, theamount, over $400,000per signal, seemshigh. But it doesinvolvemoreworkthanthat, andtheother bidsarehigher still.It might havebeenhelpful toindicatewhytheyareall over theEngineer’sEstimate.
Item7. Newport Coast Pickleball Courts(Project No. 22P13) - Awardof Contract No. 9018-2Theoffer byRoadSafeTrafficSystems, Inc. tocompletethisworkfor $5,750seemslikeasteal,consideringtheother bidsrangedfrom$1millionto$3million. ToobadtheCityisunabletotakeRoadSafeupontheoffer.
Item11. School ResourceOfficer ProgramAgreement● I amunabletofindanexplanationof whytheAgreement isbeingproposedfor soshortaterm(lessthanoneyear), but theTermclause(Section1) at thebottomof page11-3waslikelyintendedtoreadeither:○ “Thetermof thisAgreement shall commenceontheEffectiveDateandshallexpireonJune30, 2024unlessextendedpursuant bywrittenagreement of thepartiesor terminatedasspecifiedinSection7. ” or○ “Thetermof thisAgreement shall commenceontheEffectiveDateandshallexpireonJune30, 2024, unlessextendedpursuant bytowrittenagreement ofthepartiesor terminatedasspecifiedinSection7. ”● It isunclear howoftenor bywhomtheAgreement couldbeextended(it seemsbeyondtheCityManager’sspendingauthority)● Page2of theAgreement ismissing(it wouldbeexpectedbetweenagendapacketpages11-3and11-4).● InSection2.3.5, therequirement for “alegitimateeducational interest” tojustifyanofficer’srequest toexaminerecordsseemsstrangetome. Unlesstheofficer ispursuing October 24, 2023, CityCouncil agendacomments- JimMosher Page6of 7 amaster’sdegree, or someother educational pursuit, shouldn’t it just be““alegitimateinterest”?● Theopeningsentenceof Section4.2seemsawkwardlywritten, andappearstocommittoprovidingofficersonlyfour daysaweek, whichcontradictsthelast sentencepromising“at least one” will bepresent everydayschool isinsession(whichonewouldassumeisfivedaysaweek).● Similarly, thestaff report suggestsit isunderstoodtheAgreement relatestoDistrictschoolsinNewport Beachandthat therewouldbeanofficer at eachof thetwohighschoolsinthecity(andavailablefor their associatedmiddleschools), but thepagesoftheAgreement that havebeenprovidedintheagendapacket saynothingI canseeabout whereor howtheofficerswouldbedeployed, andthelast sentenceof Section4.2impliesthat onsomeschool daystheremaybeasingleofficer servingtheentireNewport Beachportionof theDistrict.● IstheCityofferingitsofficersfor useat schoolsoutsidetheCity? Item12. PlanningCommissionAgendafor theOctober 19, 2023MeetingAsof thiswritingonOctober 23, I don’t seean“actionreport” postedfor Council reviewastowhat happenedat theOctober 19PlanningCommissionmeeting.AsItem2, thefour Commissionerspresent heard, andcontinueditsDecember 7meeting, theappeal of acontroversial staff approval of amodificationtoanexistingusepermit from1973thataffectswhat arenowtwoseparately-ownedpiecesof property. Amongother irregularities, therequest appearstohavebeenconsideredwiththeconsent of onlyoneof theaffectedowners,andtohavebeeninconsistent withsomeof thekeyassumptionsandconditionsallowingtheoriginal approval. That wouldnormallydisqualifyit for astaff approval, andrequireadifferentprocess.AsItem3, theCommissionsaw, andrecommendedtotheCouncil, staff’sresponsetoapossibly-misunderstoodCouncil A-1request toexploreexpandingvisitor-servingopportunitieson20-unit andlarger residential sitesintwomixedusedistrictsonthePeninsula. Staff guessedit wasbeingaskedtoallowownersof 20or moreunitsinadistrict tohaveshort-termlodgingpermits, althoughtherequest mayhavebeentoallowlarger facilitiestooperateastimeshares,or toallowonlylarger facilitiestohaveSTL’swithinthem, or somethingelseentirely. ThisunderscoresaproblemwiththeCouncil givingdirection, without explanationor discussion,throughA-1items. Inanyevent, theCommissionrecommendedtheCouncil consider makingallresidential unitsinthetwodistrictseligiblefor STLpermits.AsItem4, at theendof alongmeeting, theexhaustedCommissionrecommendedtotheCouncil, without muchthought or discussion, aportionof what theCouncil isseeingasItemSS2onthepresent agenda.
October 24, 2023, CityCouncil agendacomments- JimMosher Page7of 7 Item14. Annual Reviewof Visit Newport BeachAuditedFinancialStatementsandExpenditureReportFor theagendaitemtitle, I hadhopedtheCouncil might beseeingmoreof theExpenditureReport, regardingwhichsomememberspreviouslysought additional information.
I seethisisonlytheaudit of thereport, assertingit isaccurate, but addingnofurther detail.
DoestheCouncil ever receiveanyindependent assessmentsfromitsmembersontheVNB/NB&CoBoard(asbest I cantell theyarethesame) of howandhoweffectivelytheCity’smoneyisbeingspent?