HomeMy WebLinkAbout03 - Harbor Mooring Regulations Modifications - CorrespondenceFrom: City Clerk's Office Received After Agenda Printed
Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2017 3:16 PM March 28, 2017
To: Mulvey, Jennifer; Rieff, Kim Item No. 3
Subject: FW: Harbor Mooring Regulation Modifications -- additional comments on CC agenda
Item 3 (Mar. 28, 2017)
From: Jim Mosher
Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2017 3:12:15 PM (UTC -08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada)
To: City Clerk's Office
Subject: Harbor Mooring Regulation Modifications -- additional comments on CC agenda Item 3 (Mar. 28, 2017)
Dear Council members,
At its February 28 Study Session, the Council discussed a number of policy options regarding harbor
moorings, and saw a redline of the proposed modifications to the Harbor Code.
I'm not sure enough time was devoted to the question of whether the proposed code changes
accurately implement the advertised policy changes.
In my view, Ordinance 2017-7, being recommended for introduction in tonight's agenda Item 3,
should be deferred until it has been more carefully reviewed.
Based on the few pages of the clean copy I have reviewed (starting on page 3-19 of the staff report), I
believe it contains serious flaws.
To point out but a few:
1. On page 3-22, in "2" the first sentence is in the wrong place. It should more logically be merged
into "3.a" on the following page.
2. On page 3-23, clause "d" should be stricken. It creates a circular reference. That is the section it
refers to (which should actually be "E" and "F") refers back to this section to determine if an entity is
qualified -- and this section refers to that.
3. In that same vein, the ordinance repeatedly refers to the transfer regulations as if they are in
subsection "E". As just noted, they are actually spread over "E" and "F".
4. On page 3-24, Subsection E itself is written in such a convoluted way "No ... except.. except ..."
that without reference to the February 28 policy summary, it's intent cannot be discerned. It also
refers to itself as the statement of transfer regulations, when most of them are in "F." In fact, "E"
appears to generally prohibit transfers.
5. On page 3-27, Subsection G likewise clearly states that transfers are not allowed, in contradiction
to the sections of the proposed code that imply they somehow are.
In short, this ordinance needs a lot of work.
Yours sincerely,
Jim Mosher