Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout00 - Written CommentsReceived After Agenda Printed February 26, 2019 Written Comments February 26, 2019, City Council Consent Calendar Comments The following comments on items on the Newport Beach City Council agenda are submitted by: Jim Mosher ( jimmosher(c)yahoo.com ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach 92660 (949-548-6229) Item 1. Minutes for the February Z 2019 Special Meeting (Planning Session) and the February 12, 2019 City Council Meeting The passages shown in italics below are from the draft minutes with suggested corrections indicated in str°mutunderline format. The page numbers refer to Volume 64. Page 22, Item II, paragraph 1, line 2 from end: "... review the Dewayne Johnson vs. Mansante Monsanto Company lawsuit, ..." [the case referred to is here] Page 23, paragraph 3: "... and the different types of revenues reserves (non -spendable, restricted, committed, assigned, contingency, and surplus)." Page 24, paragraph 6: "Sandy Hassel ch, Ftc-li Sandie Haskell, Shore Cliffs, believed..." Page 24, last paragraph before Item V: "Jim Mosher noted the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) removed trash receptacles at bus stops, encouraged Council to receive public input before changing code enforcement to be proactive, expressed support for in -sourcing services due to the combination of Public Employees' Pension Reform Act (PEPRA) and prevailing wage requirements of City contracts, and asked how many traffic violations are being conducted by motorcycle officers compared to patros patrol car officers." Page 25, first paragraph: "City Attorney Harp announced that City Clerk Brown recused herself from discussions relative to the boardwalk due to real property interest conflicts." [The recusal announcements in these minutes, from this point forward, generally do not provide enough specificity for the public to understand what the conflict was, as required by the Political Reform Act. In the example quoted: what kind of "real property interest'? The verbal comments made Council meetings often fill in more detail, but the detailed explanation of the conflicts is not reflected in the minutes.] Page 25, paragraph under Muldoon recusal: "Discussion ensued relative to possibly using undergrounding funds for Old Newport Boulevard." Page 26, paragraph 2: "Regarding the Newport Pier and restaurant at the end of the pier, Public Works Director Webb discussed the benefits and cost savings with moving the restaurant closer to shore or somewhere else rear alon_g the pier." Page 26, paragraph 3 from end: "Dorothy Kraus indicated that Stop Polluting Our Newport (SPON) requests the City implement the 2016 West Newport Mesa Streetscape Master Plan this year and highlighted the SPON letter." Page 26, paragraph 2 from end: "Travis Mttan Whitten, Boys & Girls Club, described the larger project, ..." February 26, 2019, City Council Consent Calendar Comments - Jim Mosher Page 2 of 10 Page 26, last paragraph: "Tom Collis -ter Callister, Boys & Girls Club, discussed other benefits, Page 27, Item VI, paragraph 1: "City Manager Leung reported that contracts will be coming to the City Council to provide enhanced social/work services to assist the homeless and look at ensuring ways to provide the safest, less least polluting departures at John Wayne Airport (JWA)." Page 27, Item VI, paragraph 2: "Mayor Dixon reported on her visit to Washington DC to discuss airport -related issues and discussions with Congressman Rouda and other Congressional delegates, the support of the Federal Aviation Administration's Reauthorization Bill, and Congressman Rouda and Congresswoman Napolitano's support of Newport Beach's efforts. She stated she is encouraged and will continue working with Congressman Rouda." [I believe this report was given, in part, to fulfill the Government Code Section 53232.3 requirement to make a report in order to qualify for reimbursement of the costs of meals, lodging, and travel "incurred in the performance of official duties." The requirement is actually to make the public report "at the next regular meeting" (which was also done). It is not clear if the City is aware of the companion requirement of Section 53232.2, namely that to qualify, the travel must have been publicly approved by the Council as eligible for reimbursement, prior to its being undertaken (which is not so obvious in this case).] Page 29, Item III, paragraph 1: "Care" Caroline Taylor, Chrissie Emmel, Bill Applegate and Dave Grant discussed and provided handouts to express their concerns regarding the Newport Beach Aquatic Center's (NAC) current board members, ..." Page 29, Item III, paragraph 2: "Jim Mosher expressed concern regarding recent requests before the Zoning Administrator that are not constructing houses on stilts and referenced Item 3 (Floodplain Management) on tonight's agenda. Community Development Director Jurjis reported the maps do not go into effect until March 2019." [Although it is not clearly reflected in this passage from the draft minutes, I must apologize to City staff for the embarrassingly inaccurate part of the oral statement I made on February 12, in which I suggested that at the January 22 study session staff had presented a "misleading" picture of the City's proposed response to the new FEMA flood maps. My statement was based on a too hasty reading of a series of staff reports seeking approval for construction of replacement homes in newly -identified flood -prone areas of the West Newport oceanfront, set to be presented to the Zoning Administrator on February 14, and a too hasty review of the slides about that which had been presented to the Council on January 22 (showing historic storm damage in the area). As Director Jurjis quite correctly corrected me, had I taken the time to review the January 22 video, staff quite clearly and forthrightly explained that staff had before them a series of construction applications scheduled for approval before the new maps go into effect on March 21, and that they would be treated differently from applications considered after March 21 — in connection with which I believe there is even a community meeting scheduled for March 14. Again, I apologize for suggesting staff presented anything misleading on January 22. They did not. On the contrary, their presentation, unlike mine, was scrupulously accurate.] February 26, 2019, City Council Consent Calendar Comments - Jim Mosher Page 3 of 10 Page 29, Item III, last paragraph: "Regarding Closed Session Item IV.B and out of an abundance of caution, Council Member Brenner recused herself based on potential effects on a family member and City Manager Leung recused herself due to potential impacts on her personal finances." [The purpose of these recusals was totally baffling to the public since the February 12 agenda gave no indication at all of what the subject of Item IV.B was. As the minutes reflect, the item was noticed simply as "CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL, ANTICIPATED LITIGATION — INITIATION OF LITIGATION (Government Code § 54956.9(d)(4): 1 matter." Only after the fact, in the Item VII I closed session report, was it revealed that the time had been reserved for the Council to privately discuss its response to "the allegations raised against the management of the Newport Aquatic Center." This was particularly puzzling since a request (subsequently withdrawn) for discussion of the same topic (presumably in open session) appeared later on the agenda under Item XIII. MATTERS WHICH COUNCIL MEMBERS HAVE ASKED TO BE PLACED ON A FUTURE AGENDA. I personally find the handling of this questionable First, I can see no harm, and instead see considerable value, in matters like this, in announcing on the agenda, for the public to see, what the topic of the "conference with legal counsel" was to be. Announcing the topic prior to the discussion would clearly have enhanced transparency without in any way jeopardizing the City's position if the Council had decided to initiate litigation. And in the absence of a closed session report (as is most often the case), not announcing the topic would have meant nothing more than that the public would have been left forever wondering what the Council had met in closed session for. Second, from the closed session report, it appears that what was discussed was not the initiation of litigation, but rather preliminary steps the Council might want to take before deciding if getting involved in litigation was appropriate. In other words, "getting to the bottom of the matter" as to what the true situation at the NAC is. I am not convinced that was a proper topic for a closed session. In particular, I do not believe any of the limited justifications for closed sessions provided in the Brown Act were intended to allow city councils to meet in private simply so they could "candidly" discuss matters some might regard as controversial or embarrassing, nor to discuss litigation to which the city is not currently a party. On the contrary, it seems to me the Council could easily have discussed the allegations in open session, as seems to have been originally planned, directed the City Attorney to investigate some or all of them, and only after publicly receiving the results of the investigation decide whether it needed to meet in closed session to discuss a possible litigation strategy. In the present case, it is not like any of this is secret. The NAC is involved in litigation to which the City is not currently a party and the court filings of complaints and responses are a matter of public record. The rationale for the public not being allowed to observe the Council's handling of this needs to be better explained.] February 26, 2019, City Council Consent Calendar Comments - Jim Mosher Page 4 of 10 Page 31, under "Mayor Dixon," end of first bullet: "..., and reported on an emergency sewer and roadway repair on Clubhouse Drive and an emergent water main break emergency on Jamboree Road and Bayside Drive." Page 32, under "ORDINANCE FOR INTRODUCTION": "3. Pulled from the Consent Calendar by staff." Page 34, under "MISCELLANEOUS": "13. Pulled from the Consent Calendar by Council member Herdman." Page 35, end of motion at bottom of page: "...; and c) direct staff to come back with a resolution that amends the makeup of the Steering Committee to have seven (7) citizen members." [with the Mayor as an ex officio member, the total membership will be eight members] Page 36, Item XVII, paragraph 1: "City Attorney Harp highlighted his previous Closed Session Report for Pat Rolfus, Jim '"W^ ten Warmin_gton, Jr. and Susan Skinner who expressed support for moving forward with the NAC investigation." Page 36, Item XVII, paragraph 4: "Peggy Palmer expressed concerns and requested assistance relative to auto dealerships conducting test drives in the Newport Heights neighborhoods." Page 36, Item XVII, last paragraph: "Charles Go Klobe asked if accessory dwelling units count toward the City's Regional Housing Need ^ "^c-atie Needs Assessment (RHNA) count." Page 36, Item 14, paragraph 1: "Community Development Director Jurjis, Principal Planner Ramirez, and Associate Planner Zdeba utilized a PowerPoint presentation to display the project site (former Wtiyama Kitayama site), discuss the proposed project, required entitlements, the development agreement, paths of travel, elevations, the environmental review, traffic analysis, mitigation, the land use change, Charter Section 423, prevideelrp ovide a summary, and review the approvals by the Planning Commission and the Airport Land Use Commission." Page 36, last paragraph: "Patti Lampman, Board Member of the Baycrest Court Homeowners Association, asked Council to protect their property rights and noted trash pickup for Kitiyama Kitayama occurred on Bristol Street and were also open for lunch, not just dinner." Page 37, paragraph 1: "Kirk Snyder, President of the Baycrest Gout and Bayview Court Homeowners Associations, ..." Page 37, paragraph 5: "Tom BuYepe Dallape indicated he took a parent to a memory care facility..." Page 40, paragraph 2: "Dan '%eniliek Vozenilek, AT&T Area Manager, noted that February 26, 2019, City Council Consent Calendar Comments - Jim Mosher Page 5 of 10 Item 3. Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance No 2019-2, Amending Newport Beach Municipal Code Chapters 15.05 and 15.50 Related to Floodplain Management As indicated in my comments to Item 1 (page 2, above), I apologize for making a misstatement at the last Council meeting regarding the City's approach to floodplain management, based on a too quick review of the presentation at the January 22, 2019, study session. The slides from that presentation did, however, indicate amendments to the Zoning Code might be necessary to address issues involving carports and accessory structures in low-lying flood - prone areas, with one tentative agenda suggesting something involving those amendments could be coming back as early as the present meeting. Apparently that is not happening. Regarding the present ordinance, as best I can tell it is making very few substantive changes to the current language in NBMC Chapter 15.50 about floodplain management, other than acknowledging (on staff report page 3-5) that the City will be using updated maps effective March 21, and the explicit acknowledgement (on staff report page 3-16) that a WE" designation in the FEMA documents implies being in a "Coastal High Hazard Area." That, as it always has, requires construction on stilts. The biggest change, apparently unrelated to the ordinance, is that until now the City has had no properties with that designation. As indicated above, my poorly informed comment at the last meeting was based on a reading of Zoning Administrator staff reports for new oceanfront construction in West Newport, and noticing the ease with which, in evaluating the area's exposure to coastal hazards, the FEMA assessment was dismissed in favor of the conclusions of a private coastal hazards expert, who found not only no present risk, but no future risk even with sea level rise factored in. I do not personally know which conclusion is correct, but I was more than a little worried to see the pictures on January 22 showing repeated examples of historic storm damage in the same area. It would appear the beaches may be wider now, assisted by the groins, but I don't know how rapidly those wide beaches could disappear as a result of storm action. My concern is that by assuring property owners of the absence of risk, the City may be creating a future liability for itself. Item 4. Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance Nos. 2019-3 and 2019-4 Related to the Harbor Pointe Senior Living Project Located at 101 Bayview Place (PA2015-210) I have not read most of the many pages of documents the Council is being asked to approve. I do notice that in the fifth "Whereas" on staff report page 4-6, the word "complimentary' was probably meant to be "complementary." I also find strange provision "E" of the Development Agreement, on page 4-42, with its vague promise of a payment of $150,000 to private local groups, which it appears is neither binding nor in any way part of the Agreement (despite the use of the word "shall"). I also have to February 26, 2019, City Council Consent Calendar Comments - Jim Mosher Page 6 of 10 wonder when it became the practice for development agreements in Newport Beach to be negotiated by City staff and presented to the City Council in a take -it -or -leave -it format. In the early days of my Council watching, the Council publicly appointed a subcommittee of its members to negotiate an agreement for consideration by the full body. I am also curious about the source of the fair share fees cited on page 4-70, and whether the result would be different if the current "office" land use option were used instead of the "restaurant" one. And I do think Council member Avery's "no" vote on this on February 12 was the correct one. As much as senior assisted living is needed in Newport Beach, this may or may not be the best place for it. Indeed, Bayview is one of the few "planned communities" in Newport Beach that actually seems to have been planned as a community: with provisions for residential, office, hotel, retail, and restaurant uses. I do not think people who bought into that community plan should have the General Plan designation and zoning changed on the whim of a new owner of one property. On the contrary, I believe the appropriate locations for assisted living in Newport Beach should be more broadly vetted through the General Plan Update process. Item 5. Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance No. 2019-5, Amending the City's Certified Local Coastal Program for Consistency (LC2017-002) I did not comment on this item when it (and its companion resolution amending the City's Coastal Land Use Plan) was before the Council for first reading as Item 15 on February 12, but it is not an item that should pass without comment, or, indeed, without reconsideration by the Council, particularly with regard to the changes it makes to allowed height limits in coastal "planned communities." I did comment when staff recommended the Council seek these "clean-up" changes as Item 10 at its July 11, 2017, meeting. And again, both in writing and orally (although limited to two minutes on the entire package), when staff's recommendations were before the Coastal Commission as Item W24b on December 12, 2018. In both cases, some changes were made, which I appreciate. However, the application of the City's traditional height limits to the many planned community districts that are located in the Coastal Zone but outside the Shoreline Height Limitation Area remains problematic. Instead of upholding those traditional standards, the adoption of these amendments will perpetuate a misunderstanding about the limits that began with a poorly -vetted sentence in the 2010 update of the Zoning Code (which followed the 2006 update to the City's General Plan). Background Information on Newport Beach Height Limits In 1972, with Ordinance No. 1454, the City adopted a comprehensive system of height limits for the entire city, with a base height (expressed for flat roofs) allowed by right and a maximum height that could be granted by discretionary approval for each type of structure. In all cases, February 26, 2019, City Council Consent Calendar Comments - Jim Mosher Page 7 of 10 sloping roofs could go higher by 5 feet. For example, the base height for multifamily residential structures (3 units or more) throughout the city was set at 28 feet with a maximum of 32 (37 feet for sloping roofs). For nonresidential structures, tighter limits than elsewhere were imposed in what was deemed the "Shoreline Height Limitation Area" — up to a maximum of 35 feet flat/40 feet sloping in the Area compared to 50 feet flat/55 feet sloping outside the Area. The creation or amendment of a planned community was one of the ways to justify going from the base height to the maximum height, but it was never a way to escape the limits. There was, however, a grandfathering clause: "Proposed structures within a Planned Community District adopted prior to the effective date of this ordinance may be constructed in accordance with the height limits contained within the Planned Community Text; provided, however, that a Use Permit shall be required for any structure which exceeds the height limits established by this Chapter." Since 1972, the City Council has never consciously or publicly changed this scheme. However, in 2010, when the Zoning Code was comprehensively updated as a result of the 2006 General Plan Update, City staff, in an attempt to consolidate the existing code, managed to garble the grandfathering clause so that the present NBMC Sec. 20.30.060.C.1, enumerating the limits created in 1972, now contains this sentence: "Height limits established as part of an adopted planned community shall not be subject to this subsection." Although the layman's "Summary of Change" accompanying adoption of the 2010 Zoning Code explicitly stated no changes were being made to the City's traditional height limits, City staff now says this phrase approved by the Council in 2010 means that the 1972 system of height limits does not apply not just to planned communities adopted prior to 1972, but to all planned communities in Newport Beach, whenever adopted, past or future. The most egregious recent example of the misapplication of this purported new height "exception" for planned communities occurred in 2016 with the "car wash" proposal at 150 Newport Center Drive, in which staff recommended declaring the 1.26 acre parcel across the street from Muldoon's Irish Pub to be a planned community, thereby allowing construction of a 75.5 foot tall condo tower, where the normal maximum height for multifamily structures (outside the "High Rise Area" and the West Newport "Height Overlay District"), even with a sloping roof, has long been 33 feet, with discretionary approval to an absolute maximum of 37 feet. Continuing Confusion Regarding Height Limits in the LCP The Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan certified in 2017 (NBMC Title 21) included this same garbled grandfathering clause — offset by safety valves inserted by the CCC assuring that even planned communities couldn't go over the "35 foot" limit within the Shoreline Height Limitation Area (which is only a portion of the Coastal Zone). Those phrases were added because of the statement in Section 4.4.2 ("Bulk and Height Limitation") of the Coastal Resource Protection chapter of the City's Coastal Land Use Plan that "new development within the Shoreline Height Limitation Zone is limited to a height of 35 feet" and the certified Policy 4.4.2-1: "Maintain the 35 -foot height limitation in the Shoreline Height Limitation Zone." February 26, 2019, City Council Consent Calendar Comments - Jim Mosher Page 8 of 10 The present "clean-up" amendments, when presented to the Council on July 11, 2017, were intended in part to clarify that the "the 35 -foot height limitation" in Newport Beach has always allowed, for all classes of structures, an additional 5 feet for sloped roofs. That is well and good. And when the Council was alerted, by separate letters from SPON and me, to the garbled grandfathering clause, the Council unanimously (with Mayor Pro Tem Duffield absent) directed staff to remove it as part of the amendment request. That, too, is well and good. But, as indicated in the 2017 staff memo, the interest in correcting this got wrapped up in the confusion over the meaning of the "35 foot" height limitation, and, apparently unknown to the Council, City staff inserted into the present amendments a new passage retaining the purported "exemption" from height limits for planned communities in the large part of the Coastal Zone outside the Shoreline Height Limitation Area. This is subsection "f" of NBMC Section 21.30.060(C)(2) on page 5-6 of the present staff report. To the best of my knowledge, Council never gave staff any direction to exempt planned communities outside the Shoreline Height Limitation Area, especially since doing that would have been inconsistent with Policy 4.4.2-3 of the certified Coastal Land Use Plan, which promises the Implementation Plan will "Implement the regulation of the building envelope to preserve public views through the height, setback, floor area, lot coverage, and building bulk regulation of the Zoning Code in effect as of October 13, 2005 that limit the building profile and maximize public view opportunities." Including staff's purported 2010 exemption for planned communities outside the Shoreline Height Limitation Area in subsection "f" is inconsistent with our governing Coastal Land Use Plan because there was no such exemption in the Zoning Code in 2005. Indeed, as late as October 2010, the Newport Beach Zoning Code had this to say about height limits in planned communities throughout the city — whether in or out of the Shoreline Height Limitation Area: Sec. 20.65.050 Planned Community Districts. In each planned community district established subsequent to the adoption of this chapter, the height limits shall be established as part of the Planned Community Development Plan; provided, however, that in no event shall the development exceed the height limits permitted in the height limitation zones as set forth under Section 20.65.040. In other words, as had been the case since 1972, the creation of a planned community was a possible justification for building structures to the maximum height allowed for structures of the corresponding type in the 1972 system, but not for exceeding them. As a result, further work is clearly needed on the new subsection "f" of the LCP Implementation Plan, as well as to correct the garbled section in the 2010 Zoning Code. What can the City Council do? On February 12, 1 was silent on this in part because I bought into the assertion in that staff report (page 15-2), that "The City Council must either accept or reject these suggested February 26, 2019, City Council Consent Calendar Comments - Jim Mosher Page 9 of 10 modifications. If the City Council rejects the suggested modifications, the City would need to process a new LCP amendment and obtain Coastal Commission approval." On more careful consideration, I believe the CCC has given the City permission to make the amendments, but is not requiring it to. As a result, I believe the Council could make some of the suggested amendments, but not others. In particular, it could ask staff to delete the problematic subsection "f" (on page 5-6), dealing with height limits in planned communities, from the ordinance — on the theory that being silent about planned communities is better than enacting incorrect language. Depending on whether he sees that section as interrelated to others, the CCC's Executive Director might or might not then find the Council's ordinance consistent with the modifications approved by the CCC in December. Alternatively, if the Council believes planned communities were never intended to be exempt from the City's comprehensive system of height limits, then it could adopt the present CCC - sanctioned language and direct staff to immediately begin processing a request for an amendment to the new language, squaring it better with the Council's understanding of how the general height limits apply to structures in Coastal Zone planned communities — both inside and outside the Shoreline Height Limitation Area. Indeed, the initiation of a "2019 Cleanup" of the LCP and Zoning Codes is one of the future items expected to come before the Planning Commission according to the tentative agenda released on February 19. Correction of the handling of planning community districts in both the LCP and the Zoning Code should be part of that. Additional Concerns Beyond the above concerns, much of the remainder of this "clean-up" package is confusingly written. For example, in Section 21.30.015(E)(5) (staff report page 5-5), it is unclear if the sentence about bulkheads is intended to be read as replacing the paragraph that precedes it, or in addition to it. As another example, proposed Section 21.52.090.13 (staff report page 5-13), says no modifications are allowed to the certified standards for "nonresidential floor area ratios," yet subsection e.4 under that (staff report page 5-14) gives the approver of a coastal development permit authority to grant unlimited increases in "in allowed floor area of additions for uses that have nonconforming parking." Not only does that contradict the previous assurance, but it seems to give owners of property with nonconforming parking a privilege not enjoyed by those with conforming parking. Moreover, and quite significantly, as best I can tell the proposed amendments add a variance procedure without specifying who has the power to grant variances. Our Zoning Code, which this supposedly parallels, is very clear (in Section 20.52.090 "Variances," subsection "C") that only the Planning Commission can. In the amended LCP-IP, by contrast, the references to "review authority" suggest whoever reviews the CDP application, which is typically the Zoning Administrator, can. Given these many problems, it might be noted the CCC vote on the present "clean-up" amendment package was 7-3, with Commissioners Howell, Groom and (alternate) Escalante voting against the staff recommendation to approve the amendments as modified. February 26, 2019, City Council Consent Calendar Comments - Jim Mosher Page 10 of 10 Finally, it might be noted that Resolution No. 2019-16, adopted at the February 12, 2019, meeting, contains at least one error. Subsection H on page 3 was intended to read: "H. An alteration or addition to a landmark building structure may be allowed to exceed the height limit by up to 20 feet." (see the CCC's suggested modifications as shown on page 15-31 of the Feb. 12, 2019, City Council staff report). How the CCC will respond to this is unclear to me, since the language accepted by the Council is not that approved by the CCC. Received After Agenda Printed February 26, 2019 Item No. 15 February 26, 2019, City Council Item 15 Comments The following comments on an item on the Newport Beach City Council agenda are submitted by: Jim Mosher ( jimmosher(c)yahoo.com ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach 92660 (949-548-6229) Item 15. Introduction of an Ordinance Amending the Newport Beach Municipal Code Relating to On -street Parking Impacts Due to Construction Activities and the Overall Time a Construction Project May Take This item asks the Council to begin the enactment of new regulations whose stated purpose is "to address residential street parking impacted by the ongoing construction occurring in residential neighborhoods and the length of time a construction project may take." Here are some comments based on a quick first reading: Section 1: Modifications to NBMC Section 10.28.040 ("Construction Activity -Noise Regulations") – staff report pages 15-8 and 15-23 (redline) The merits of the modifications recommended by this portion of the ordinance – strangely attacking parking through noise -- are a bit difficult to consider without understanding they are in Chapter 10.28, entitled "Loud and Unreasonable Noise," and that there is a companion Section 10.28.045 ("Real Property Maintenance—Noise Regulations"). 2. As welcome as relief from noise may be, unless they say so, the scope of these noise regulations is in no way limited to residential streets or residential neighborhoods. 3. Is it the Council's intention to prohibit construction noise even in non-residential areas (such as, near the airport) on summer Saturdays, as these changes would do? a. In this connection, the new subsection "3" on staff report pages 15-9 and 15-24 (redline) creates a possible exception for multifamily construction projects, but as best I can tell no exception is offered for commercial construction in any area. 4. Likewise, is it the Council's intention to prohibit the young professional do-it-yourselfer from upgrading their home on summer Saturdays – which would seem the most logical time they might be doing it, and might not involve any construction parking? a. In that connection, the existing code already makes fuzzy the boundary between noise related to "Construction Activity" and "Maintenance" activity. Couldn't "painting" and "plastering" be either? But under the new ordinance, if it is "construction" it will be prohibited throughout the city on summer Saturdays, while if it is "maintenance" it will not 5. Even in purely residential neighborhoods, if this is truly addressing nothing more than parking impacts, why would noise related to construction activity on summer Saturdays be subject to different standards than the same noise on non -summer Saturdays in the February 26, 2019, City Council Item 15 Comments - Jim Mosher Page 2 of 3 many areas of the City where there is no discernable difference in summer versus non - summer parking availability (not to mention in gated communities)? a. For the staff's information, while there is obviously a large difference between the availability of on -street parking in summer versus winter in public areas close to the beach and harbor, I am not aware of any such difference in most of the city. Certainly not in the area where I live. b. Such areas are impacted by construction parking, but it is not seasonal. Section 4: adding a new Section 15.02.095, which adds a "Time limit on permitted construction" — staff report pages 15-10 and 15-25 (redline) 1. The desirability of this change is also difficult to analyze without seeing it within the context of the California Building Code in which it exists, and the modifications Newport Beach has already made to that in NBMC Chapter 15.02. 2. Without a full understanding of those codes, it would seem to me that rather than requiring a new section, this might more logically be an addition to our existing amendment to building code Section 105.5 in NMBC Sec. 15.02.100 — dealing with the circumstances under which a building permit expires. 3. Wherever it belongs: a. The new time limit paragraph seems rather inartfully worded. b. When a request to extend construction activity beyond the five years has been made, shouldn't there be some form of notice (for example, posting on the site), so that neighbors who might object to an extension can provide comment to the Director, and possibly appeal his or her decision? It is quite unclear to me what the consequences of failing to complete permitted work within five years are. i. Does that need to be spelled out? ii. Is the property owner fined for each day the work is not completed? If so, how much? iii. Or does the incomplete work have to be demolished? Section 5: amends NBMC Section 15.16.010 to add a definition of "Temporary Project Information Sign" — staff report pages 15-10 and 15-25 (redline) 1. Changes to the City's Sign Code are always a little tricky, since the City has two: the "Sign Code" in Chapter 15.16 and the "Sign Standards" in Chapter 20.42 — which often have duplicative provisions. a. The changes proposed to Chapter 20.42 may require changes, not offered by the present ordinance, to the corresponding or conflicting parts of Chapter 20.42. February 26, 2019, City Council Item 15 Comments - Jim Mosher Page 3 of 3 Section 6: amending NBMC Subsection 15.16.340(A) of the existing "Temporary Signs" section — staff report pages 15-11 and 15-25 (redline) 1. This proposed amendment to subsection A seems completely superfluous in view of the proposed amendment to subsection B ("Section 7" of the present ordinance) which makes this entire section inapplicable to temporary project information signs. 2. If this amendment is retained: a. The change to the first sentence — limiting project information signs to 100 square feet or less — seems superfluous since the second sentence sets their size at "2 feet in height by 3 feet in length" (which is exactly 6 square feet, with no leeway — certainly far less than 100 square feet). b. The change to the second sentence, setting the size, also seems superfluous, since the proposed Section 8 of this ordinance adds a NBMC Sec. 15.60.030 which also sets the size at "2 feet in height by 3 feet in length." Section 10: adding a new Chapter 15.90 ("Construction Parking Management in Residential Districts") — staff report pages 15-14 and 15-29 (redline) This seems to be the meat of the ordinance, addressing construction parking related to residential construction. 2. Subsection 15.90.030.0 (at the top of staff report page 15-17 and bottom of page 15-31) ends with an obvious typo: a. The reference to "the right to appeal in accordance with Section 15.90.050" should be to "Section 15.90.040." b. The proposed title ("Issuance and Denial") would also make more sense if it said "Approval or Denial" (since nothing is "issued"). 3. Everything seems to be going along reasonably well until one gets to proposed Subsection 15.90.030.E ("Notification of Implementation of Construction Parking Management Plan") a. In that subsection we discover the required Construction Parking Management Plans have no force or effect unless there turn out to be more than one proposals for simultaneous residential construction "located within 200 feet of each other." i. First, does this mean within 200 feet measured along street frontages? Or 200 feet "as the crow flies"? If it is the latter, the parking might well be on different streets and not interact with each other. ii. Second, and more importantly, does this not create a vast bureaucratic burden on both applicants and City staff, to prepare, review and approve plans, the majority of which will never be used? 4. Regarding Section 15.90.040 ("Rights of Appeal or Calls for Review"), since this involves building and construction activity, would the City's Building and Fire Board of Appeal not be a more appropriate appeals body than the Planning Commission?