Council agenda doubted

The leading proponent of a ballot measure on where to build Newport Beach’s City Hall has accused the City Council of violating the state’s open meetings law.

An attorney for architect Bill Ficker, who is backing a ballot measure that would put City Hall on an Avocado Avenue parcel reserved for a park, mailed the city a letter Friday alleging a recent council decision to fund some park projects violated the Brown Act.

The letter demands the council reconsider the decision and admit a violation of the law or face litigation.

Ficker questioned a July 24 council decision on how to spend $5 million in fees from a developer agreement. The council voted, 4-3, to devote the funds to park improvements, with the top priority being Newport Center Park, the as-yet-undeveloped parcel where Ficker suggests City Hall should be built. Any additional funds were to go next toward Back Bay View Park, then to Marinapark and Sunset Ridge Park.

The Ralph M. Brown Act requires meeting agendas to be posted at least 72 hours before the meeting and to contain “a brief, general description” of the items to be discussed.

How to divide up the park funds was not listed on the agenda, and Councilman Don Webb questioned the city attorney at the meeting on whether such a decision that night was appropriate.

City Atty. Robin Clauson could not be reached for comment Friday, but she told Webb at the July 24 meeting the developer fees were mentioned in the agreement the council was voting on. The agreement, published with the agenda, said the council has the discretion to decide how the spend the money, she said.

“I don’t know that it necessarily has to be a separate agenda item,” she said at the time.

Efforts to reach Ficker or his attorney, James Lacy, were unsuccessful Friday.

Councilman Ed Selich, who made the motion on how to divvy up the funds, said he checked with Clauson to make sure a decision on how to spend the money would be allowed.

“I asked her before the meeting if I was in the boundary of proper protocol,” Selich said. “She said I would be.”

Webb, who voted against Selich’s park spending priorities, said the council should have had more time to discuss what to do with the money.

He had no advance notice the issue was going to be discussed, he said — but he accepted Clauson’s opinion on whether it was within the bounds of the Brown Act.

“I accept the legal advice that we get, and that’s why I didn’t complain any more at the meeting, but it’s something that I feel definitely needs to be reconsidered in the future,” he said.