Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout00 - Written CommentsReceived After Agenda Printed January 13, 2015 Written Comments January 13, 2015, Council Consent Calendar Comments The following comments on items on the Newport Beach City Council agenda are submitted by: Jim Mosher (i immosher(o).vahoo.com ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach 92660 (949-548-6229) Item 1. Minutes for the November 12, 2014 Study Session and Regular Meeting The page numbers below refer to Volume 62 of the City's minutes. The passages in italics are from the draft, with suggested changes shown in RtFike^••'^^ t underline format. 1. Page 111, Item SS2, paragraph 2: "Council Member Gardner noted that one of the challenges iwveixe involves people's attitude towards homelessness." 2. Page 111, Item SS2, paragraph 3: "Council Member Petros reported that he was the City's representative to the Housing and Community Development Committee." [Is this correctly reported? The closest thing I can find on the Clerk's Roster of Boards, Commissions and Committees is the "Orange County Housing Commission" to which the City's representative is a staff person. See also comment on agenda Item 9, below.] 3. Page 111, last sentence: "Rick Stein, Executive Director of Arts Orange County, provided a PowerPoint presentation to discuss the process, the desire to incorporate the Arts Plan into the City's General Plan, ..." [The video indicates Rick Stein provided only about 10 minutes of the Arts OC PowerPoint, while Pat Wayne provided the remaining 22 minutes of what they said would be a "15 minute presentation." I would suggest moving the identification of their titles (Executive Director and Deputy Director of Arts OC) to the preceding line and then saying something like: "Mr. Stein and Ms. Wayne provided a PowerPoint presentation... " ] 4. Page 113, paragraph 5: "Council Member Curry reported that, in 2010, he was privileged to participate in the Mayor's Institute of the Arts sponsored by the National Endowment of Americans for the Arts." [I suspect this was intended as a reference to "the Mayor's Institute of the on City Design sponsored by the National Endowment ofAMerisans for the Arts." See the minutes from March 23. 2010 (Volume 59, page 427)] 5. Page 113, paragraph 3 from end: "Sara Sarah Wilkinson, local artist, commented on ..." 6. Page 114, last paragraph before "III. PUBLIC COMMENTS: "PatBril, President of the Board of Directors of the Baroque Music Festival, commented on ..." Page 120, Item XVIII, paragraph 1, last sentence: "He added that a report on wastewater rates will be presented to the City Council in January." Page 124, last paragraph: "Planning Manager Alford addressed CEQA versus project review, General Plan, LCP and Zoning consistency, key sifi* site development review, Condition Conditional Use Permit findings, and details of the appeal." Page 126, paragraph 5, sentence 2: "She added that the consequences of Mariner's POW Pointe have not yet been felt and that Linda Isle residents..." 10. Page 129, motion: "Motion by Council Member Gardner, seconded by Council Member Henn, to approve AdminSure, Inc. as fge for Workers' Compensation Third Party Claims Administration with an annual expenditure of $260,784, effective January 1, 2015." [note: January 13, 2015, Council Consent Calendar Comments - Jim Mosher Page 2 of 6 "fog' is changed to "as the," then "Administration" would need to be changed to "Administrator." However, the Nov. 25 agenda said "for."] 11. Page 130, last long paragraph, last sentence: "Me Finance Director Matusiewicz added that a pension primer was completed and is currently located in the back of the City's budget." 12. Page 131, paragraph 3 from end: "Council Member Daigle commented on the accomplishments of the City Manager, City Attorney, and City Clerk, noting that major, quality of life issues for the community has have been addressed successfully." 13. Page 131, motion (starting at bottom of page): the phrase "subject to those terms and conditions approved by the City Council," which appears three times in the recommendation printed in the November 25`h agenda, seems inappropriate in the minutes, since the minute: are intended to memorialize what the Council did approve. Since the actual motion at 10:45 in the video was to approve the redlined contracts, I would suggest changing "subject to those terms and conditions approved by the City Councir' to something like "with the redlined changes as discussed." Item 3. Junior Guard Nonresident Fee Reduction I don't think this item, subsidizing non-resident participation in the Junior Lifeguards program, should be on the Consent Calendar because it alters a previous publicly discussed decision of the Council with no compelling reason I can detect offered for making such a change. The current cost recovery structure was established by Ordinance 2013-18, which originated in agenda Item 16 at the Council's October 22, 2013, meeting. As indicated in that staff report, the fact that local residents were offered a 15% discount relative to the program's true cost had never been properly codified, and in addition, the Finance Committee recommended holding the line at $700 for residents even though a recent analysis suggested the true cost had increased from $809 to $853, hence the rather obscure cost recovery percentage of 82.1 % (0.821 *$853 = $700). Although a larger subsidy for City residents was suggested, my recollection is it was the Finance Committee's explicit recommendation (Item 5.0 at their June 24, 2013, meeting) not to offer even this $153 subsidy to non-residents,. In addition, the cost recovery table of Newport Beach Municipal Code Section 3.36.030, which had originally allowed only percentages to be indicated, had earlier been modified to allow dollar amounts to be entered. If the Council's intent in 2013, and now, is to freeze the Junior Guard user fee at $700, that number should be used, rather than an artificial percentage that will have to be modified the next time a true cost analysis is performed. As the staff report indicates, the program is already very popular, which seems to argue against reducing the fee. And "teaching youths.. the importance of healthy activities through physical exercise" would not seem to me a valid reason that Newport Beach taxpayers should subsidize the education of youths in other communities. Increasing ocean safety awareness does seem something a beach city might be interested in subsidizing, however I suspect even $700 is much too high a barrier for participation by youths from many communities. January 13, 2015, Council Consent Calendar Comments - Jim Mosher Page 3 of 6 Moreover, if the Council is revisiting NBMC Section 3.36.030 and its "Exhibit A" cost recovery table, there are a number of other problems with it that might be addressed: 1. The City's Master Fee Schedule offers facility rentals, and possibly other services, at distinctly different rates for different groups (residents, nonresidents, for -profits, non- profits, much like the residents -only discount for the Junior Guards) in ways that are not justified in "Exhibit A". 2. Among the discounted rates that are listed, the "1%" cost recovery for library room rentals has long seemed like a typo compared to the rate for renting rooms at other facilities (apparently "45%" at OASIS and "50%" elsewhere). 3. The $0 fee for appeals by "officials" (the last item in the table), which like the 82.1 % recovery for Junior Guards was added by Ordinance 2013-18, seems especially problematic to me since it would seem to encourage individual Council, Board or Commission members to act on their own. The City Charter, and good governance in general, envisions a City Council deliberating and acting publicly as a body by majority vote, outside of which the individual members have no powers different from those of the average citizen. The vague powers and exemptions afforded individual Council members in Newport Beach is an issue that came up in the Woody's Wharf appeal which will apparently be the subject of Closed Session discussion at the present meeting (California Court of Appeal Case No. G050155). Finally, in connection with dock fees, the new Council members may be interested to observe the City does not always seek to recover 100% of what it believes to be fair market costs. Item 4. Balboa Village Parking Management and Resident Parking Permit Program (PA2014-016) This item consists of the "second reading" (and adoption) of three ordinances. While it is common for the second reading of ordinances to be placed on the Consent Calendar, the underlying assumption is that those voting will have reviewed and discussed them at their introduction ("first reading"). This case is peculiar in two ways. First, a majority of the present Council members are new and did not have an opportunity to participate in the discussion at the first reading on November 25'". Second, these were part of a larger package and public debate centered almost entirely on an ordinance establishing a Residential Permit Parking Program that was not ultimately introduced. As a result, the present three ordinances have been subjected to very little critical review. In view of the above history, I think it would be prudent for the present Council to continue this item so they may defer their approval until they, and the public, have had a chance to study the ramifications of these proposed, and rather complex, ordinances in more detail. Beyond that, I have trouble understanding the significance of the new RP3 Survey form attached to the report as Attachment CC6 ("Advisory Ballot"). Contrary to what the staff report implies, I do not recall Attachment CC6, or the way in which a new survey might be conducted, having been reviewed or approved by the Balboa Village Advisory Committee. If the Council is being asked to review and approve this form, or the mode of conducting the survey, the potential for that action is not clear from the agenda. January 13, 2015, Council Consent Calendar Comments - Jim Mosher Page 4 of 6 With regard to the ordinances, since this is a majority of the Council's first encounter with them, I think it would have been helpful to go back to the redlined versions so they can see how they differ from the present Municipal Code. Regarding the specific ordinances: Ordinance No. 2014-20 (Adopting the Balboa Village Parking Management District Plan and Establishing the Balboa Village Parking Management Overlay District) 1. The intent of this ordinance is to eliminate the requirement for off-street parking for most, but not all, commercial uses in Balboa Village. Although there are many who would question the wisdom of not requiring off-street parking for any uses, I find the exclusion of "Marine Services Uses" from the exemption (proposed Subsection 20.28.30.D.1.d.i at the top of page 4-7 of the staff report) particularly problematic. Marine -related uses, as well as Entertainment uses, would seem to me what make the Village unique, and if they are required to provide parking while other uses are not, the a likely consequence of adopting the ordinance as presently written would be to force the traditional "Fun Zone" uses out, to be replaced by less unique uses having no parking requirement. 2. As required by NBMC Subsection 20.28.030.A ("Parking Management District Plan Required"), Section 4 of the proposed ordinance says (near bottom of page 4-8 of the staff report) that by voting "yes" the Council will be approving "The Balboa Village Parking Management District Plan," but I would guess it is completely unclear to the public, and probably to most of the Council, exactly what plan is being approved by this ordinance or what it contains. I think a more explicit reference to the document in question is needed, so that what is being approved can be identified and reviewed. 3. The assurances in Section 5 that elimination of the off-street parking requirement will have no foreseeable effect on the environment seem questionable to me. Ordinance No. 2014-21 (Amending Newport Beach Municipal Code Sections 12.44.025 and 12.44.027 and Adding Section 12.44.029 Relating to Parking Funds) 1. This ordinance seems particularly troublesome to me, and would particularly benefit from the Council seeing a redlined version dramatizing how it differs from the existing Chapter 12_44. In particular, it appears to make significant changes to programs completely unrelated to Balboa Village with no mention of that on the agenda or in the staff report, and with no notice to the residents and businesses who might be affected. 2. In particular, earlier Councils have used the authority provided in City Charter Section 1113 to establish "inviolate" Capital Improvement Funds dedicating parking revenues in other areas of the City to specific uses. The present ordinance appears to terminate the existing flow of 50% of local parking meter revenues into a West Newport fund and into a Balboa Peninsula wide fund. The elimination of the latter is particularly worrisome because I understand the entire balance of the latter fund (and then some?) was used to acquire the former market that became the Palm Street lot in Balboa Village. As a result, other areas on the Peninsula have for many years paid into a fund such as the one being created, but with the changes stand to reap no benefit from it or reciprocity from Balboa Village. January 13, 2015, Council Consent Calendar Comments - Jim Mosher Page 5 of 6 3. If this ordinance is adopted, the Council would appear to be sending mixed messages by doubling the dedication of parking revenues to local improvements in Balboa Village while eliminating the concept in other parts of the City where such promises had previously been made. 4. It also seems noteworthy that the proposed ordinance does not cite Charter Section 1113 in the new Section 12.44.029 which establishes the new Balboa Village Area Benefit District Reserve, so apparently those funds will not be held inviolate. 5. The parking meter revenue allocation schemes in NBMC Chapter 12.44 may well be in need of update, but I think the matter should be noticed so all those affected, not just those in Balboa Village, know the City is making these changes. Ordinance No. 2014-22 (Amending Section 12.44.040 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code Pertaining to On -Street Parking Meter Fees in Balboa Village) 1. Unlike the other two, this seems a straightforward ordinance, although as at least one long time resident noted at the BVAC meetings, businesses on Balboa Island seem to thrive without meters. 2. The code of Section 12.44.040 could be cleaned up and consolidated since many of the zones share the same basic $1.50 per hour rate. All zones sharing that rate could be combined in a single subsection, followed by the exceptions. Item 5. Resolution Updating the List of Designated Employees for 2015 Under the City's Conflict of Interest Code 1. In its present form, the disclosure of financial conflicts of interest is at best a very imperfect process, relying largely on the honor system. 2. It is good the proposed Resolution includes, in Exhibit 2, a clear explanation of the disclosure categories, something that has not always been the case. 3. The allocation of categories seems reasonable to me, however with the City's increased dependence on outside consultants, the use of the one -size -fits -all classification for consultants has been haphazardly applied. Some department heads exempt all or almost all their consultants, while others do not. For example, my recollection is the outside consultant who assisted the City in preparing the RFP for trash outsourcing, who helped develop and award the contract and who has, I believe, been hired to monitor compliance with it, was either not included or designated as being exempt from the disclosure process, leaving the public with no knowledge of financial interests that might influence his decisions. The financial ties of other consultants who strongly influence other City decisions are similarly undisclosed. 4. For those who make decisions in public, such as Council members and Board and Commission members, voluntary disclosure of the so called "ex parte' communications received outside public view would seem an even more important tool for the public to understand what influences the decisions. January 13, 2015, Council Consent Calendar Comments - Jim Mosher Page 6 of 6 Item 9. Appointments by the Mayor to Council Committees, City Council Citizens Ad Hoc Committees, Joint Governmental Committees, and Citizens Advisory Committees This item is good in that it recognizes that the Newport Beach City Council acts as a body, not as individuals, and even the Mayor's powers cannot be executed without the approval of the full Council acting in public. 2. Each year the City sees through this list, and the more comprehensive "Maddy Act" Roster of Boards. Commissions and Committees the Clerk posts, the many "Joint Governmental Committees" on which the City has representatives. a. It would probably be good for the public to be better informed about what these groups are empowered to do and what the City representative's role on them is. Information on the City's website ranges from fairly complete, to scanty, to probably obsolete. In no cases are clear directions given as to how to monitor the activities of these groups, and only rarely are reports about them given at Council meetings. b. One wonders how complete the list is. For example, under agenda Item 1, above, it was noted that Councilman Petros mentioned he was the City's representative on a Housing and Community Development Committee which does not seem to be listed here, and I know there is a "Liaison" committee between this City, The City of Costa Mesa, the Costa Mesa Sanitary District and Mesa Water that (very) occasionally meets and seems different from the description of the "Inter -City Liaison Committee" listed. Likewise, the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), which I would think it might be important to have a City representative attend, seems to have been dropped from the current appointments list. 3. Even among strictly internal City committees, one wonders how complete the list is. For example, a couple of "Council Committees" shown on the most recent roster linked to above are missing from the present list without any formal announcement I'm aware of that they have completed their work (specifically the "Ad Hoc Committee to Negotiate the Re -Use of the City Hall Site' and the "Task Force on Committees") and the public has no idea if they will suddenly reappear. Similarly, in last year's appointments there was a "Building Ad Hoc Committee" which I understood may have met privately to "approve" changes to the Civic Center project, and may have begun to do so for Marina Park. Although it has disappeared from the roster, Mayor Hill indicated it might still exist as an informal "working group" to whom City staff could turn for advice. If so, the public does not know who might be on it or what it does, and those familiar with the dock tax issue may recall the distaste such shadowy groups purportedly acting on behalf of the Council can create. The Council should perhaps be reminded that under the Brown Act, a sub -group appointed by the Council can meet privately only if (among other requirements) their task is confined to bringing an advisory report back for public action by the full Council. Received After Agenda Printed January 13, 2014 Written Comments - Non -Agenda January 13, 2015, Council Agenda Comment The following comment on the Newport Beach City Council agenda is submitted by: Jim Mosher (i immosher(o).vahoo.com ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach 92660 (949-548-6229) General comment: On May 14, 2013, as part of its annual changes to the Council Policy Manual Item 19 at that meeting), the Council modified Policy A-6 ("Open Meeting Policies") to change the way in which the Council can place items on the agenda. Although the Ralph M. Brown Act, specifically Section 54954.2(a)(2), allows a council to vote to put an item on a future agenda without that vote itself being previously announced, Section 3.0 of the Council's current Policy A-6 requires a two step process in Newport Beach. Under that policy, in response to a Council member's request to discuss a topic, the City Manager is instructed to agendize a vote at the next meeting as to whether the full Council wants staff to expend the resources necessary to prepare for a discussion of the subject. Only if the matter passes that vote is it brought back (at a still later meeting) for discussion. On the present agenda, Items SS2, SS4, 11, 12, 13 and 14 are all indicated as having been placed on the agenda at the request of individual Council members without the two step process and the vote of the full Council required by Policy A-6 having ever been taken, nor with Policy A- 6 having been waived. Since the public should have a reasonable expectation that the Council will follow its own policies, it would seem to me that the Council should either follow or revise Policy A-6, or at a minimum, after an elaboration of reasons in a public discussion, explicitly waive policies it doesn't wish to follow in a particular circumstance. Received After Agenda Printed January 13, 2015 Non -Agenda Item Good evening — my name is Diana Blaisure (1-13-15) I am a member of the Newport Citizens for Responsible Growth (NCRG), a group of residents representing five of the seven homeowners associations that include close to 2000 homes surrounding Corona del Mar high school. I am also a resident of The Bluffs. Joining me tonight is another member of NCRG: Kathryn Kendall, Board member of The Plaza Community. We are very concerned about the proposed sports complex and related additional amenities at Corona del Mar high school. A number of my neighbors sent the council emails in November and December expressing their concerns and in some cases opposition to the proposed sports complex at CDM high. The purpose of my presentation tonight, in addition to introducing myself to the new members of the City council, is to bring you up to date regarding the status of the proposed sports complex: on December 9, 2014 the Newport Mesa School District Board approved the development of a scope of work that would include improvements they currently have allocated funds for and additional amenities that the Corona del Mar Foundation has committed to fund, regardless of the cost. Handout The school district has 7.4 million to cover the cost of improving the track and field (with artificial turf) and adding bleacher seating. The NCRG supports improvements to the track and field. The CDM Foundation position is to provide over 6.8 million dollars to install lighting, a public address system, concession stands and more than doubling the seating from the current 600 seats to 1,500 seats. Those amendments/additions are not supported by the NCRG. The amendments to the sports complex would also allow rental of the facility for non CDM high activities which we also oppose. As some of my neighbors have informed you, the impacts of lights, parking, traffic, noise and trash would have a measurable and negative impact on our neighborhoods and quality of life. For example, some of the homes are just 100 feet from the current CDM high track. And, both The Bluffs and The Plaza have private streets that would be impacted. In addition, one estimate is that depending on the proximity to the CDM high sports complex, property values would be diminished by an average of five percent resulting in a measureable loss of property tax revenue. The schedule for the environmental review has not been established. It is understood that the City will be part of the project and environmental review process. NCRG intends to keep you apprised of events related to the proposed CDM high sports complex and work with you as we all assess and respond to the proposed project. 1276k_0 i4 Newport- Mesa Unified School District: Item Inspector M �'I�;I:.is Newport - Mesa Unified School District p ffim __. .MACK Der 09. 2014 : Rpoular McPtina of the Roard of Etln[ation antarrnt+ie VERSION 24 DISCUSSION'ACTION CALENDAR * b. Approve Design Scope for the Corona del Mar High School Sports Field Renovation [Status: Ready to publish] [Discussion Item] [Vote] PREVIA S ITEM a .1 NEXT f1'EM vRecommendation It is recommended that the Board of Education authorize staff to proceed with the Design Scope for the Corona del Mar High School Sports Facility to include an all-weather track and field, and seating for one thousand spectators, and such other elements as the Board directs for additive alternatives, contingent upon receipt of donated funding to pay for such elements. ,wBudget Impact Capital Facilities Funds: Previous Board approved $7.4 Million; additive alternate funding sufficient to cover planning and construction costs pertaining to those elements. No additional District funding beyond the $7.4 Million previously authorized has been identified. vBack, round In September of 2013 the Board of Education authorized the upgrade of the Corona del Mar High School Sports Field to install an all-weather field and track, and to increase the seating capacity to one thousand seats. The Board authorized $7.4 Million for this purpose. Parent and community interests within the Corona del Mar community have proposed additional elements for inclusion in the project. For planning to proceed it is necessary for the Board of Education to make a determination of the complete project scope. At the Board meeting of November 18, 2014, after receiving testimony from the Corona del Mar community, the Board of Education directed the Superintendent to bring the question of project scope determination for the Project to the December 9, 2014 board meeting. The elements already authorized by the Board include: 1. All-weather (artificial surface) track and field. 2. Total bleacher seating capacity of 1,000 seats. aCurrent Consideration On December 5, 2014 a letter from CDM Foundation was received proposing the following additional elements to be included in the Project: 3. Additional seating of 385, bringing total facility to 1,385. (maximum space allowance for the site), plus press box and elevator (if DSA required) 4. Field Building for Concessions/Team Rooms/Storage/Restrooms/Ticketing. S. Lighting of track & field and pathway lights. 6. CEQA Mitigation if required. http:ilnmusd.esbaagendaouline.netlegi-binlWebObjectslnmusd-eAgenda.woalwol0.0.7.13.0.0.7.2.0.40.23.0.193.13.1.13.1.1.0.0.3.1 112 12/6/2014 Newport - Mesa Unified School District: Item Inspector 7. Allowance for additional equipment; sound system. 8. Planning for utilities and drainage systems sufficient to allow cost effective extension to the other two areas of the athletic fields if for subsequent field improvements if later approved by the Board of Education If all of the additional elements (3-8 above) were included in the Project the additional cost is estimated to be $6.75 Million beyond the $7.4 Million authorized by the Board of Education. Of the approximate $6.75 Million, $220,000 would be required to commence planning for preliminary design through the Design Development stage. An additional $475,000 would be required to commence the preparation of construction documents and for the added fees for DSA Submittal. The remaining balance would be contingent upon the actual construction bid as awarded for the additive alternates in the public bid process. In other words, the $6.75 Million total is an estimate. Final cost would be dependent on the final bid amount plus additional construction management costs. If funds were not available for the additive alternates as priced through the public bid process then one or more would need to be removed from the Project prior to the award of the construction bid. For planning to proceed it is necessary for the Board of Education to make a determination of the complete project scope. ,wApproved by Reed Board Agenda December 9, 2014 ,vSupporting Documents r3: CdM Foundation letter 12-05-14 aav+etwmrxow PREIVIV lS rr" tYeXT trem �r a_ hap.//nmusd.esbaagendaonliae.net/egi-bin/WebObjects/nmusd-eAgenda.woa/wo/0.0.7.13.0.07.2.0.40.23.0.193.13.1.13.1.1.0.03.1 1�k P E f : '° '2/2 December 5, 2014 Dear Deputy Superintendent Reed: Foundation The CdNI Foundation requests that additional design elements be added to the Pending proposed project for the renovation of the Corona dei Mar High School Sports Field and that this augmented proposal be -submitted for approval by the Board of Education. We hereby declare our intent to pay the necessary design fees and associated costs generated by the inclusion of the additional elements in the Project scope through the design process, with funds to be delivered to the District in accordance with a Memorandum of Understanding (MQU) to be mutually agreed to subsequent to the N-MUSD Board action authorizing the Project. We propose to augment the Project scope so that in addition to the all-weather track/field and 1,000 seat capacity project as already funded by the Board that it be comprised of the following additional elements: 1. Additional seating of 385, bringing total facility to 1,385 (maximum space allowance for the site), plus press box and elevator fif DSA required). 2. Field Building for Concessions/Team Rooms_/Storage/Restrooms/Ticketing. 3. Lighting of track and field and pathway lights. 4. CEQA Mitigation if required_ 5. Allowance for additional equipment; sound system. 6. Planning for utilities and drainage systems sufficient to allow cost effective extension to the other two areas of the athletic fields if for subsequent field improvements if later approved by the Board of Education. We understand that if the Board agrees to this proposal that at the completion of the design Process the Project will be publicly bid with the augmented elements included as "additive alternates." We acknowledge that prior to the Board's award of the bid we will be responsible to contribute the necessary funding for the added construction costs, plus the pro -rated additional costs for project management, fees and change orders relative to the augmented elements. We further understand that all such issues shall be defined in a Memorandum of Understanding (MOUj between ourselves and the District which will need to be negotiated between the parties prior to the commencement of planning for the Project. Thank you for your consideration of this request, Sincerely, U)M Foundation ( 1) 2549 Eastbluff Drive Suite 483 Newport Beach Jules Marine, President California 92660 CdM Foundation www.ccimfourdation. org Tax ID 33-06688;2 RECEIVED AFTER AGENDA PRINTED ITENLNO. NON - AIPENDA Date L./lam �� j�l-1 Copies ent'?o rC • I D Russell Niewiarowski ay Council 20102 Kline Drivey Manager 2014 DEC 16 Newport Beach, CA 9260 qt�y Attorney 714-580-3937 �® '�'IGE GF -L FK David Kiff, City Manager, CIT Y Council Members: Diane B. Dixon, Tony Petros, Duffy Duffield, Kevin Muldoon, Edward D. Seilch, Scott Peotter, Keith D. Curry Date: December 12, 2014 RE: Request for an Amendment to Municipal Code 12.40.055 Dear Mr. Kiff and Council Members, I am requesting an amendment to the municipal code. Specifically, for the addition of verbiage to prevent abuse or misuse of the Municipal Code. 12.40.055, G., #1 and #2 states: 1. Large motor vehicles, or nonmotorized vehicles which are attached to a motor vehicle, parked for less than twenty-four (24) consecutive hours if parked adjacent to the owner's residence for the purpose of loading, unloading, cleaning, battery -charging, or other activity preparatory or incidental to travel; 2. Large motor vehicles, or nonmotorized vehicles which are attached to a motor vehicle, parked adjacent to the owner's residence or at such location approved by the Chief of Police, for more than seventy-two (72) hours for the purpose of loading, unloading, cleaning, battery -charging, or other activity preparatory or incidental to travel, provided permission has been granted by the Chief of Police, or his or her designee; The above language "travel" is open for interpretation and misuse. Webster's definition for travel states: 1. Togo on a trip or journey: to go to a place and especially one that is faraway 2. To go through or over (a place) during a trip or journey 3. To move from one place to another Which definition does the municipal code imply? I would assume that it is the first definition, based on the totality of the language, which clearly states that the parking of the oversized vehicle adjacent to resident's residence is to allow for the preparatory tasks needed to prepare the vehicle for a lengthy trip/journey/vacation. Without proper clarification, the language could be interpreted as allowing the resident to simply travel to the neighborhood store and back, etc., and perpetually store their oversized vehicle on the public residential streets. Also, the language DOES NOT specify how often a resident can park his oversized vehicle adjacent to his residence for the purpose of preparing for travel, nor does the language specify how often a 72 -hour pass can be granted to a resident. According to Parking Supervisor Heidi Moss, designee to the Chief of Police, she had informed me that a resident could be granted this 72 -hour pass "indefinitely". It does not seem reasonable that a resident would need to be granted 72 -hour passes indefinitely. The language of the municipal code is to clearly prevent the permanent storage of oversized vehicles on public residential streets. There needs to be an agreed, designated number of days per year that a resident can park their oversized vehicle adjacent to their resident for a 24-hour period, and the total number of passes that a resident can request per calendar year. I would propose the following verbiage additions to the municipal code 12.40.055, G., 41 and #2 language: 1. Large motor vehicles, or nonmotorized vehicles which are attached to a motor vehicle, parked for less than twenty-four (24) consecutive hours if parked adjacent to the owner's residence for the purpose of loading, unloading, cleaning, battery -charging, or other activity preparatory or incidental to travel. Travel is defined as: To go on a trip or journey: to go to a place and especially one that Is far away. A resident is allowed one (1) twenty-four (24) hour period per month for such travel; 2. Large motor vehicles, or nonmotorized vehicles which are attached to a motor vehicle, parked adjacent to the owner's residence or at such location approved by the Chief of Police, for more than seventy-two (72) hours for the purpose of loading, unloading, cleaning, battery -charging, or other activity preparatory or incidental to travel (defined above), provided permission has been granted by the Chief of Police, or his or her designee. A resident is allowed one (1) seventy-two (72) hour pass per month for such travel. A resident must apply with the City Police Department for each requested pass, and once the pass is granted, must be displayed in the oversized vehicle's windshield. In closing, I am requesting the amendment to Municipal Code 12.40.055, G., #1 and #2 to prevent the misuse of the code by providing much needed clarification to the language for the purpose of bettering the residential communities of Newport Beach by preventing negligent residents from storing oversized vehicles on public streets. Sincerely, Russell P. Niewiarowski