Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11 - Newsracks-Fixed Pedestal Zones in CdM - Written CommentsReceived After Agenda Printed March 14, 2017 Item No. 11 March 14, 2017, Council Agenda Item 11 Comments The following comments on items on the Newport Beach City Council agenda are submitted by: Jim Mosher ( iimmosherayahoo.com ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach 92660 (949-548-6229) Item 11. Newsracks/Fixed Pedestal Zones in Corona del Mar 1. This item asks the Council to consider several actions, including "Rescind Ordinance No. 86-18" and introducing an ordinance .to "amend" (in fact completely replace) Newport Beach Municipal Code Chapter 5.70. The staff report also includes a "Fixed Pedestal Plan" (Attachment B) and Fixed Pedestal Guidelines (Attachment C). 2. With regard to the rescission of Ordinance No. 86-18, NBMC Chapter 5.70 as currently codified notes: "Prior ordinance history: 1684, 83-14, 86-18 and 86-29." Of those prior ordinances it is unclear why No. 86-18 is being singled out for rescission. And if it does need to be repealed, it is unclear how the Council can do that without introducing an ordinance saying it intends to do so. Why is the repeal of the prior ordinances not simply included in the new one? 3. With regard to the Fixed Pedestal Guidelines (Attachment C): a. The staff report does not make clear how these relate to the Council actions. b. However they relate to the new Chapter 5.70, it is not clear what status, permanance or enforceability they will have, nor is it clear there is any guarantee these will even be the guidelines adopted. As written, they create a confusion of terminology by declaring the existence of six FPU "zones" in CdM, whereas in the new Chapter 5.70 it appears that the entirety of the Corona del Mar business district from Avocado to Poppy is a single FPU "zone." 4. With regard to the proposed ordinance (Attachment D): a. It is highly unusual for an amendment of this sort to presented to the Council without a redline version highlighting the changes being made from the existing legislation. Dispensing with that places a great burden on the public and the Council in trying to discern what has been changed and why — and those changes seem to involve more than just those necessary to add the new CdM provisions. b. As a trivial example, in the third line from the end on staff report page 11-9, the word "hereby" has been arbitrarily inserted. What is gained by adding such a meaningless word? (if one wants to wordsmith, I would think deleting the "hereby" from the preceding paragraph would be more sensible) c. Page 11-11: The choice of "Fixed Pedestal Unit" for the terminology seems unfortunate and confusing since many of what are termed ""Freestanding Newsrack" units are also on pedestals equally permanently fixed to the public right-of-way. The intended distinction seems to be that the City provides the FPUs and determines their location at its sole discretion. The requirement that they be "approved by the Director" seems a bit redundant if the City provides them. March 14, 2017, Council agenda Item 11 comments - Jim Mosher Page 2 of 2 d. Page 11-11: In Section 5.70.020.A, meaning of the phrase "on the adoption date of the ordinance codified in this chapter" is both unclear and requires detective work on the part of the reader. If it is intended to mean "the most recent ordinance codified in this chapter" it should say so. If it means the date of adoption of some specific ordinance, such as the present one, it should simply list the date ("in effect on March 28, 2017" or whatever). e. Page 11-13: Under "6." at the top of the page, it is unclear what "K -Jack Style Mount Model 100" (also mentioned under E on page 11-15) refers to. Google finds this in municipal ordinances, but not in vendor's catalogs. It may be an obsolete term, as there does seem to be a Model KJ -100, but that now appears to be an entire newsstand rather than a mount and may or may not be what the ordinance was trying to refer to in the 1980's or before. ii. Under Item E, the formatting has been changed so that what was formerly a combination of "and" and "or" conditions (having nothing to do with FPUs) is now a long list of "ors". It is difficult to tell if this was intentional or not. Page 11-14: Items F and G appear to be new regulations regarding Freestanding Newsracks. In the absence of a redline, how many other new or changed regulations there may be is difficult to discern. g. Page 11-15: Under "i" (fourth paragraph from top of the page) I am baffled by what a "public pedestrian wall" is and how its "width" is used. Is "wall" a typo? Page 11-16: The paragraph at the bottom of the page repeats findings about CdM already stated on page 11-10. This was not necessary for Marine Avenue. Why is it necessary for CdM? i. I have not read most of the following pages, and do not know what has been changed. Page 11-21: Item A at the bottom of the page should state the commencement date and not leave it up to the reader to try to compute it. k. Page 11-22: Under Item D, the "In the event that" at the beginning of "3." makes it ungrammatical in view of the language introducing it ("if: "). Page 11-23: The direction to codify the severability clause, rather than simply making it part of the adopting ordinance, is somewhat unusual. When this is done, certain changes need to be made to the boilerplate language. For example, replacing "ordinance" with "chapter". The existing language of NBMC Section 5.70.060 provides a model for this, as would have been more evident if a redline had been provided.