February 25, 2025, 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 1. Minutes for the February 1, 2025 Planning Session and February 11, 2025 City Council Meeting
The passages shown in italics below are from the draft minutes with suggested corrections shown in strikeout underline format. The page number refers to Volume 66.
held. Shouldn’t they?
removal by the Costa Mesa Sanitation District, supported an increased use of equestrians by the Police Department, and expressed concern for the use of drones in the same area as an airport.”
information with the trash bills. He asked the City to review the cost associated with building an aquatic center at Lower Castaways and noted the site is considered as recreational and commercial by the General Plan with a maximum building size of 2,000 square feet, but the proposed plan exceeds this by four times.”
City Manager Jurjis stated that the NewportMesa Unified School District’s property has been identified as a housing opportunity site, the City will receive credit for it and has jurisdiction for its planning, conversations with the school district have occurred, and the City will work with the school district for project entitlements.”
Leung stated that the salary range has been in effect since the last salary survey, the salary is in line with the former Police Chief’s salary, Cost of Living Adjustments (COLA) are associated with the Police Management Association’s agreements (PMA) and are not reflected in the base pay, and the range reflects only the base salary.” [?] Item 9. First Amended and Restated Employment Agreement with the City of Newport Beach Police Chief
The proposed minimum 3% annual base salary increase seems rather different from the bonus discussed at the last Council meeting, and the staff report does not explain what variations were considered, by whom, or why this particular one was selected.
Moreover, when amendments to contracts are proposed, it is customary to provide a redline so the detailed changes can be seen and compared to the summary of their purported effects provided in the staff report. It is unclear why no redline has been provided here.
It is unclear why so many words are needed (on agenda packet page 9-5) to describe a 3% increase capped by the upper limit of the salary range – and even then requiring an example of how those words mean the cap might cause the increase to be limited to 2% instead of 3%.
Received After Agenda Printed
February 25, 2025
Written Comments
February 25, 2025, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 2 of 3 Couldn’t something like the more concise language in the next paragraph, imposing the same cap
on
the
City
Manager’s
authority
to
raise
the
base
salary,
have
been
used,
eliminating
the
need
for
an
example?
More importantly, despite the many words, it is unclear how this 3% paragraph 1 adjustment is intended
to
interact
with
the
3%
increase
described
in
paragraph
3 on
page
9-6.
Would
the
3%
increase
pursuant
to
paragraph
3 fulfill,
in
the
year
it
occurs,
the
paragraph
1 promise
of
a
3%
increase?
Or
is
it
in
addition?
Item 10. Services and Purchase Agreement with BRINC Drones, Inc. for
the
Police
Department
Drone
Program
This proposal is obviously extremely expensive compared to what, according to Item 4 of the present
agenda
(page
4-41)
was
the
$1,449
cost
of
the
NBPD’s
evaluation
drone.
Indeed, the price of the six new drones is not obvious from the five-year Agreement Costs schedule
on
page
10-4,
since
they
seem
to
be
delivered
at
the
beginning
of
year
1,
but
paid
for
over
the
five
years
with
their
cost
folded
into
some
not
clearly-stated
annual
maintenance
cost.
Assuming the drones are designed to last more than five years, is the annual cost expected to drop
after
year
5?
The
statement
at
the
end
of
the
Fiscal
Impact
paragraph
(page
10-5)
that
“
Funding
for
subsequent
fiscal
years
will
be
addressed
in
the
annual
budget
preparation
process
”
is
hardly
informative
on
that
point.
Is
it
unreasonable
to
ask
what
it
is
expected
to
be?
Additionally, isn’t the implementation of this program supposed to be preceded by development of
a
drone
policy?
What
is
the
status
of
that
policy?
Item 11. Confirmation of Appointments to the General Plan Update Steering
Committee
and
the
General
Plan
Advisory
Committee
As a former GPAC member, but commenting as an individual, I continue to find this process of terminating
and
then
reappointing
the
GPUSC
and
GPAC
pointlessly
disruptive.
According to the timeline shown when the full GPAC last met on November 6, 2024, the City’s consultant team was expected to be completing its draft of its proposed new general plan in January,
with
GPAC
review
in
February
and
March,
which,
I
believe,
was
expected
to
complete
our
role.
Instead,
we
were
told
our
appointments
would
terminate
on
February
11 and
we
would
have
to
be
later
reappointed
to
finish
the
job
we
had
promised
to
do.
I understand a single new application was received in response to the vacancy announcement, and
four
dispirited
existing
members
showed
no
further
interest
in
serving.
In my view, this has done nothing but pointlessly delay the process by a month or more. Moreover, I now see that two of the former members who did express an interest in concluding their
job,
Charles
Klobe
and
Nancy
Scarbrough,
are
not
being
recommended
for
reappointment.
I cannot guess the reason they were singled out, and think an explanation should be provided. Charles chaired the subcommittee reviewing the Recreation and Natural Resources Elements, while
Nancy
chaired
the
subcommittee
reviewing
the
Safety
Element.
Both
were
fully
engaged,
February 25, 2025, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 3 of 3 came prepared to the meetings, had better attendance records than a number of the former members
that
are
being
recommended
for
reappointment,
and
ran
efficient
and
thoughtful
subcommittee
meetings.
Nancy, in particular, even ran for City Council in 2024 and 16,359 residents of our City expressed confidence in her judgment. While a greater number seem to have preferred a different
viewpoint,
if
the
Council
wants
a
diversity
of
outlooks,
as
the
GPAC
was
originally
intended
to
have,
as
well
as
maintaining
continuity
on
the
subcommittees,
I
think
one
or
both
of
these
former
members
should
be
continued,
in
addition
to
the
new
appointees.
Item 12. Ordinance No. 2025-3: Designating a Portion of Corona del Mar
as
a
Safety
Enhancement
Zone
and
Expanding
West
Newport
Safety
Enhancement
Zone
to
Include
Memorial
Day,
Fourth
of
July,
and
Labor
Day
Holidays
This seems like a bit of an overreaction to me. I thought the current limited program of enhanced
enforcement
had
been
thought
to
have
worked,
and
the
problem
it
addressed
on
the
4th
of
July
in
West
Newport
to
have
gotten
better,
not
worse,
so
there
would
be
no
need
to
expand
it
to
more
areas
or
more
days.
How do the numbers of calls for service and arrests on the days cited in CdM compare to the numbers
in
the
same
area
on
other
peak
days
of
the
year?
And
under
this
relaxed
standard,
wouldn’t
a
much
larger
portion
of
the
Peninsula
qualify
as
an
equally
problematic
area?
Don’t
they
attract
holiday
beachgoers
and
vacationers
as
well?
Whatever the need, the “legal” description of the new “Corona del Mar Safety Enhancement Zone”
proposed
on
page
12-9
(unlike
that
for
the
existing
“West
Newport
Safety
Enhancement
Zone”)
does
not
seem
complete:
“ the area bounded by the Pacific Ocean on the south, San Joaquin Hills Road on the north,
MacArthur
Blvd.
on
the
west
and
Hazel
Drive
on
the
east
,
…”
How does one draw the line from MacArthur Blvd. to the Pacific Ocean? Or from Hazel Drive to San
Joaquin
Hills
Road?
The
roads
do
not
go
through.
Apparently
a
person
wanting
to
know
if
they
are
in
the
CdM
Enhancement
Zone,
or
not,
would
need
to
know
the
boundaries
of
“
Newport
Beach
Police
Department
Reporting
District
44 of
Area
4 .”
But
where
does
one
find
a
map
of
that?
Does
a
map
need
to
be
included
in
the
ordinance?
Additionally, the staff report is not clear as to what the consequences of being in a designated Safety Enhancement Zone are. As I read NBMC Section 1.04.010.B, the fines for any violation of any provision of the entire Municipal Code are tripled in the designated areas during the designated
hours.
Do
the
good
residents
and
business
owners
of
these
areas
really
want
to
face
the
threat
of
fines
for
code
violations
unrelated
to
partying
arbitrarily
triplied
on
certain
days
of
the
year
to
mitigate
a
problem
they
may
not
even
feel
needs
addressing?
And
do
they
really
want
their
guests
and
patrons
to
see
signs
warning
them
they
are
entering
a
problem
area?