HomeMy WebLinkAbout00 - Written CommentsReceived After Agenda Printed
September 22, 2020
Written Comments
September 22, 2020, City Council Agenda Comments
The following comments on items on the Newport Beach City Council agenda are submitted by:
Jim Mosher ( iimmosher(@yahoo.com ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach 92660 (949-548-6229)
Item Ill. CLOSED SESSION
Item A, continued from the Council's September 8 meeting, deals with the City owned property
at 883 W. 15th Street that formerly served as our West Newport Community Center, and is still
listed as a City facility with a number of public amenities. It is currently shared with Pacifica
Christian High School and is on the fifth year of a ten-year lease to them with a possibility of two
five-year extensions (C-5928).
As I said on September 8, the agenda notice is perversely non -transparent, choosing to say the
Council will be discussing "price" — a term which most would take to mean Pacifica has made an
offer to purchase the property. If that is indeed the case, one has to ask why the Council would
be discussing details of price before publicly discussing whether the City should retain
ownership of the property.
If, instead, Pacifica (or the City?) is seeking an adjustment in the rent, that could easily have
been indicated on the agenda, alleviating concerns the Council is being led down a
inadequately vetted path.
Item B is even more perversely non -transparent. It invites public comment on two matters where
the City is considering initiating litigation, but without the slightest hint of what the litigation might
be about. Items of this sort are always concerning because issues that could trigger litigation
have, by definition, at least two sides to them, yet here the Council is being asked to commit the
City to what could be expensive and underproductive action based, most likely, on hearing only
one (or, at the very least, hearing arguments with no equal chance to hear the rebuttals to
them).
If the Council is truly interested in transparency, albeit belated, I would suggest it consider
adopting a requirement under which all closed sessions are recorded as a matter of course, with
the recordings made public as soon as the matter under discussion is settled.
Item Xlll. MATTERS WHICH COUNCIL MEMBERS HAVE ASKED TO BE
PLACED ON A FUTURE AGENDA
I am quite puzzled to see the following matter listed as an item for possible future Council
discussion:
"• Resolution to announce the City's commitment to end child marriage in California"
While this may seem a noble commitment, I was not aware Newport Beach was a hotbed of
child marriage nor do I know how Newport Beach, by itself, could end child marriage in
California.
To the best of my knowledge, the City does not issue marriage certificates or otherwise legalize
or un -legalize marriages. This seems a matter of county or state law.
September 22, 2020, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 2 of 12
I have seen members of the public admonished for speaking on matters not "within the subject
matter jurisdiction of the City Council." This seems manifestly one of those. So I object to
wasting City resources on a matter the City has no power over.
Item 1. Minutes for the September 8, 2020 City Council Regular
Meeting
Comments: The passages shown in italics below are from the draft minutes. The page
numbers refer to Volume 64.
Page 510, paragraph 3: "Carol McDermott, representing Burr White Realty, Balboa Vacation
Rentals, Sea Breeze Vacation Rentals, and Abrams Coastal Properties, indicated ..."
[Her statement identifying clients suggests Ms. McDermott has resumed her career as a paid
lobbyist to Newport Beach government officials. I do not believe she has registered as one,
and perhaps needs to be reminded of the new obligation to do so.]
Page 511, beginning of long paragraph 1: "... a conditional permit to operate STLs and is not a
property right. City Attorney Harp concurred and advised that a STL is allowed through an
annual permit and that permits do not vest anyone with a property right, and it can be
withdrawn. However, he explained that a long-term lease or a rental agreement for more than
30 days is a property right."
[This conversation is interesting in that it seems inconsistent with NBMC Sec. 5.95.015,
which, even after the passage of the Phase 1 adjustments of Ordinance No. 2020-15,
identifies the right to an STL permit as something that attaches to properties where a permit
was granted prior to 2004 in certain "grandfathered" zoning districts. And on page 512, in the
straw polls at the end of this item, if a cap were to be imposed on the total number of STL
permits, the Council voted nearly unanimously to make the possession of a permit for a
particular unit a hereditary right, as well as a right that could be sold with the property to
future owners. I may be misunderstanding the legal definition of a right to property, but that
sounds like one to me.]
Page 511, middle of paragraph 2: "..., believed a lottery system would be very difficult to
manage because of the property owners' uncertainty of obtaining a permit each year, ..."
[Sometimes novel ideas need novel thinking before dismissing them. The uncertainty could
be alleviated by holding the annual drawing and announcing the winners a year or more
before the date on which the applications for the properties drawn will be accepted. Potential
STL land owners would then have ample warning of whether their unit could be used as a
STL in a particular season or if they would have to find longer-term tenants. At the same
time, all owners of suitable properties would have a chance of participating, not just some
privileged few who through some quirk of history happened to hold a permit at a moment
when the Council changed its present or future regulations.]
September 22, 2020, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 3 of 12
Suggested corrections: Suggested corrections are indicated in S*'"°�u underline format.
Page 511, next to last sentence in long paragraph 1: "Community Development Director Jurjis
noted the number of illegal units have dropped significantly, to between 10-20." [Without
qualification it is impossible to tell if the comment was the number dropped "to 10-20" or "Ib 10-
20." The audio indicates the Director thought there are no more than 10 or 20 illegal units left.]
Page 513, Item XII:
Herdman, bullet 1: "Attended the Water Quality/Coastal Tidelands Committee meeting
and received an update regarding the trash wheel project,' an Airport Task Force
meeting, a meeting with Congressman Rouda to discuss sea level rise, a meeting of the
Technical Departures Subcommittee,2 which and noted the City will lobby the Board of
Supervisors regardingFe, ght Fixed Based Operator (FBO)3 leases at its September
15, 2020 meeting"
Brenner, bullet 1: " tttea Hosted a District 6 Town Hall regarding traffic issues and
loud vehicles on August 27, 2020, ...
Dixon, bullet 1: "Announced the City is encouraging residents to write to the Board of
Supervisors regarding the General Aviation Improvement Plan Pro -gram (GRIP)"
Page 514, Item XIII, bullet 1: "Consideration of an emergency ordinance to enforce State
guidance on face coverings by administrative citation [Brenner] There was o ^ No
members asked to bring the item back at a future meeting." [Who votes for or against an action
is important to those who elect the representatives. The statement that "There was no
consensus" implies there was a split vote of some kind, but (unlike in the following items) does
not identify who. According to the audio at 2:52:06, the Clerk said "no one raised their hand."]
Page 517, paragraph 2 from end, last sentence: "Re_parding a letter received, Deputy
Community Development Director Campbell advised that CalTrans is involved with housing
near airports and the conflicting rules predate the housing crisis." [Some transition is needed
because the Mayor mentioned the letter, which is on page 15-291 of the present agenda packet,
but it doesn't relate to the preceding sentence about computation of housing density. For clarity,
CalTrans is short for California Department of Transportation, and since air travel is major
component of transportation, they are the agency that oversees aviation in California. As such,
they are concerned about housing of any density in safety zones (which is the subject of the
letter).]
Page 518, paragraph 1: "... and the planning areas were created specifically to keep residential
units away from the safety zone and the area exceedin_g 65 CNEL; the Planned Community
The report stated the Trash Wheel construction would be completed by March 2021. The actual timeline
can be found in the presentation that has been posted from the WQ/CT meeting.
2 1 believe this was a reference to a subcommittee of the City's Aviation Committee. The Committee itself
had met on August 24. The body doing the lobbying was identified as the "the City," not the
subcommittee.
3 The meaning of "FBO" was not stated, but it is as corrected.
September 22, 2020, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 4 of 12
(PC) text does not allow residential units in Safety Zone 3, but allows residential units in Safety
Zone 6, which covers the entire area; the regulations in the PC text make this project consistent
with the written plan, but the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) found it inconsistent with the
plan; Council may approve the project and override the ALUC's finding, ..."
Page 518, paragraph 3: "In response to Mayor Pro Tem Avery's questions, Deputy Community
Development Director Campbell indicated CalTrans' concerns were the same as the ALUC's
concerns, stated that the property..."
Page 518, paragraph 4: '7n response to Council Member Brenner's questions, Deputy
Community Development Director Campbell could not say whether the number of affordable
housing units required on this site by the upcoming Housing Element would be the same or
more than the number required by the current Housing Element, because policies have not
been determined for the upcoming Housing Element." [see audio at 3:36:30; alternatively:
"required of this owner''.]
Page 519, 520 and 521: The two paragraphs at the top of each of these three pages don't have
the normal space between them.
Item 3. Resolution No. 2020-79: Medi -Cal Managed Care Rate Range
Intergovernmental Transfer (IGT) Program
The agenda announcement for this item is a model of obscurity.
The Brown Act (Sec. 54954.2(a)(1)) encourages providing a description of 20 words or less
from which the public can deduce if an item is on interest to them, or not.
The present announcement, by Word's count, uses 213 words, none of which provide any
indication this item has to do with seeking reimbursement for costs incurrent by the City in
transporting Medi -Cal patients by ambulance.
It would be nice to say there was a time when things were better, but in this case the
announcements have been equally obscure since they first appeared as Item 8 on June 24,
2016. They have simply grown two extra parts, the significance of which is not entirely clear:
since Section 1 of the proposed resolution authorizes the Mayor to execute the documents cited
in recommendations (c) and (d) in the agenda and on staff report page 3-1, it's not clear why
separate recommendations for that are needed.
Item 4. Resolution No. 2020-80: Supporting the Newport Beach Fire
Department
Although the moral obligation to provide aid to others in need might seem sufficient, it would
have been helpful for the staff report to indicate who pays the cost of providing mutual aid. I
believe part of it is regarded as much-needed training, but doesn't the state pay something (for
example, through the California Fire Assistance Agreement?
As to the resolution, shouldn't the title be "COMMENDING" rather than "SUPPORTING"? One
would hope the Council supports all the City's employees, not just the Fire Department.
September 22, 2020, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 5 of 12
Also, the staff report does not explain the 15 -minute response time mentioned in Section 1. The
engine leaves within 15 minutes of the City receiving a request for aid? Isn't there an approval
process that might take longer? Or is compliance with requests mandatory?
Item 5. Resolution No. 2020-81: Supporting the Criminal Sentencing,
Parole, and DNA Collection Initiative (Proposition 20)
As I indicated when the Council was voting on September 8 to commit City resources to
preparing this item for the agenda, it is my understanding that government bodies in the United
States are not supposed to put their finger on the scale by "taking sides" on matters once they
have been placed before voters at an election, and in particular, are not supposed to spend
taxpayer money explicitly encouraging people to "vote yes" or "vote no."
They are, in California, apparently allowed to take a position based on an impartial analysis of
the impact of a measure on their jurisdiction. But their election activity is supposed to be limited
to that, leaving voters free to draw their own conclusions based on the same objective data.
As might have been guessed from the September 8 agenda announcement directing staff to
reach a predetermined conclusion ("Consider supporting [but not opposing] Proposition 20") this
does not seem that kind of legitimate analysis.
Beyond that, the staff report provides only generic information, much not clearly applicable to
Newport Beach. For example, while it is interesting that "violent crime increased again for most
cities in California over 100,000 in population," Newport Beach (with a population of less than
86,000) is not such a city. In short, I am unable to find anything in the staff report or resolution
informing me how passage of this proposition would specifically impact the City of Newport
Beach, including whether it would increase or decrease government costs.
Indeed, much of the proposed resolution looks suspiciously similar to the one -size -fits all
Sample Resolution in the "Keep California Safe" Yes 20 Toolkit on the blatantly partisan website
organizing support for the proposition. Instead of a reasoned analysis, it seems no more than a
compilation of reasons to vote yes.
Two innovations of the present proposed resolution compared to the Yes 20 sample resolution
are the introduction of names for Proposition 20 in the title and Section 1 action, none of which
are the official name of the proposition as listed in the California Secretary of State's Voter
Guide_
Finally, it might be noted the Proposition 20's opponents also have a website, and what their
arguments might be and what might be wrong with them is not addressed in the City's
supposedly objective and impartial analysis.
In short, I urge the Council not to adopt this resolution because it does not appear to
represent a considered position based on an objective analysis of the impact of Proposition 20
on the City of Newport Beach, but rather simply the predetermined personal views of some of
the Council members. They should express those views as individuals, not as a City.
September 22, 2020, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 6 of 12
Item 6. Resolution No. 2020-82: Opposing California Proposition 15 -
"Tax on Commercial and Industrial Properties for Education and
Local Government Funding Initiative (2020)"
This resolution suffers from the same problems as the one in Item 5: rather than a reasoned
analysis of the impact of the proposition on the City of Newport Beach, it is staff's predictable
response to the direction it received from the Council to cobble together reasons to justify a
predetermined position, in this case opposing Proposition 15.
And despite this being a matter for which a much more objective fact -based financial
investigation of the impact on the City of Newport Beach would be possible, none is provided:
the one paragraph "analysis" on page 6-2 tells me nothing about how Proposition 15 specifically
affects Newport Beach.
The proposed resolution doesn't help me, either. Again, it assigns a title not found in the state's
Voter Guide. Again, we are inundated with generic one -size -fits -all arguments such as "the
County Assessors' Association4 found that the "split -roll" initiative would result in a net loss of
revenue for some counties" without being told if Orange is one of those counties.
One thing that differentiates this is that in the case of Item 5, 1 was able to believe most of our
police actually agree with the conclusion of the resolution they prepared supporting Proposition
20. 1 am much less inclined to believe our financial professionals believe the conclusion their
resolution purports to reach, since most of the arguments they chose to collect say Proposition
15 will likely increase property tax revenues to the City.
In any event, I see that Mayor O'Neill and Council member Muldoon are already identified as
members of the "No on Prop 15" coalition. Others wanting to add their names as individuals
should do so. I do not think they should be adding the City's name without a clearer
understanding of how Proposition 15 would impact the City.
To put this all very simply: if the City Council has facts about how the passage of a proposition
will affect the finances or operation of the city as a municipal corporation, it is appropriate for
them to disclose that information so voters can weigh it in making their decision how to vote. But
what the other myriad consequences of a proposition may be, and how to weigh them, is up to
the voters decide, and it is emphatically not government's role to tell them what they should
think any more than it is government's role to tell them what candidates they should vote for.
4 Note: There is no "County Assessors' Association." It is the "California Assessors' Association" (made
up of county assessors) whose findings are being referred to.
September 22, 2020, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 7 of 12
Item 9. Award of Maintenance and Repair Services Agreement with
Quality Commercial Cleaning, Inc., DBA Spectrum Facility
Although not mentioned in the staff report, the Council last saw, but did not publicly discuss, its
existing contract with Spectrum as Item 4 on its October 22, 2019, consent calendar.
Before that, "Pressure washing" (which I think is another name used for the same thing) was
discussed at the Council's February 2, 2019, Saturday planning session (see page 22 of the
PowerPoint), although I don't recall any conclusions being reached.
As a result, the City's policy on cleaning public areas remains something of a mystery.
One of the current Council candidates says much about Newport's "villages" by which I think he
means its commercial centers. Yet some commercial areas are scheduled for cleaning in this
contract, while others are not. And I know sidewalks along Coast Highway in Corona del Mar
have, on rare occasion, been cleaned (possibly by another vendor) at the expense of the local
City -sponsored business improvement district.
This raises the question, unexplained in the staff report, of how, or if, the City cleans sidewalks
in commercial areas not mentioned in this contract: for example, north and south Bristol,
Campus, Westcliff/Dover Drive, Mariners Mile, Cannery Village and many, many more.
Likewise, I frequently see the outdoor public areas around the City Hall itself, including the plaza
at the Central Library end of the Civic Green as well as the pavers around the Community Room
and Council Chambers, being cleaned even though this contract covers only the parking
structure. Similarly, the public areas around the library branches and community centers need
periodic cleaning.
Who cleans those and out of what contract are they paid?
The current agenda item leaves these a mystery.
Item 11. Approval of Beach Fire Rings Security Professional Services
Agreement with Lyons Security Service, Inc.
If, as the staff report indicates, the most current contract with Lyons (C-8458-3) "ended on April
20,5 2020," and the new contract does not start until September 22, it seems reasonable to ask
who provided security this summer and how they were paid?
It also seems reasonable to ask if fire ring activity has decreased (or increased) leading to a
need for less (or more) security compared to when interest in the rings was piqued by the
controversy over wood -burning in 2012-2014?
5 Actually April 30, 2020.
September 22, 2020, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 8 of 12
Item 14. Community Development Block Grant Program Year 2019-20,
Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report
Was this report prepared by an outsider administrator, as it was in past years? If so, it would
seem the preparer should be identified on the cover page.
As to the body of the report:
On pages 2 and 3 (staff report pages 14-8 and 14-9), in Table 1 and Figure 1, was the lower
than expected number of persons served in the "Fair Housing Services" category a result of
cancellation, due to COVID-19, of planned meetings? If so, why was the full $12,000
allocation spent when not all the expected services were provided?
2. Regarding the report on progress in providing affordable housing starting on page 9 (staff
report page 14-15) why has the City Council's Affordable Housing Task Force not met since
2016 to assess the situation?
3. On page 11 (staff report page 14-17) the significance of the 178 persons cited in Table 7 is
not at all apparent from the narrative. What activity or activities does the table refer to?
4. On page 25 (staff report page 14-31), is the information about Accessory Dwelling Units
current? It mentions no changes since 2017, yet the Zoning Code relative to ADU's was
amended by Ordinance No. 2018-14 and most recently by Ordinance No. 2020-9 in March
2020.
5. It is interesting to read on page 19 (staff report page 14-25) that the grant approved to the
Council on Aging for a Long Term Care Ombudsman was refused due to the excessive
overhead required on their part to comply with CDBG regulations. Could anything be done
to reduce the overhead? Including offering more of the technical assistance mentioned on
page 27 (staff report page 14-33)?
Item 15. Ordinance Nos. 2020-22 and 2020-23: Newport Airport Village
Planned Community Development Plan (PA2014-225)
At first blush, approval of this private request seems like an easy way to make progress
toward the City's 4,834 -unit Regional Housing Needs Assessment problem. But on
reflection, I don't think it's a wise move for the City.
As our Housing Element Update Advisory Committee has acknowledged, building new "market
rate" housing in Newport Beach is not a problem. The City's core RHNA dilemma is finding
locations for 1,048 moderate income, 928 low income, and especially 1,452 for very -low income
units.
Intuitively, the areas of the City currently least in demand for housing are those where low and
very -low income units seems most likely to be built. And this is an area — the Campus Tract --
where housing seemed so implausible it isn't even allowed in our current General Plan.
September 22, 2020, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 9 of 12
Yet, for acceptance of one-time fees of a little under $10 million (which is thought insufficient to
cover the increased future costs to the City of the land use change'), the Council is being asked
to remove this property from the puzzle and allow them to be developed with up to 95% market
rate units, with the "affordable" housing obligation being satisfied by building 10% moderate -
income or 10% low-income or 5% very -low income.'
In other words, the request is to guarantee this property can be developed with market
rate units with no obligation to build any low or very -low income units.
Before taking that precipitous action, the Council should realize that if all other land owners in
the City were granted a similar right to develop housing with such low fractions of affordable
housing, the City would have to plan not just for "4,834 new units by 2029" but the following:
• 10,480 units of development to meet the 1,048 unit moderate income goal
• another 9,280 units of development to meet the 928 unit low income goal
• another 29,040 units of development to meet the 928 unit low income goal
for a total of something like 49,000 new housing units to be planned for by 2029 — which
exceeds the City's entire current housing stock (thought to be around 45,000 units).
Ideally, before the Council takes action, this would be referred to the HEUAC for a
recommendation as to how this proposal will fit into its overall recommendation for
meeting the City's RHNA obligation.
However, I suspect the chair of the HEUAC will say the decision on any specific application is a
political one best left to the Council. The Council should say no.
Moreover, as to the liability a city assumes when it overrides an Airport Land Use Commission's
decision of incompatibility, I appreciate other cities have made the same claim, but it seems
highly implausible the City assumes no future liability, as asserted by City staff at the September
8 meeting. I also appreciate the agreements with the applicant promise the applicant will
indemnify the City against future claims, but the idea is unfathomable to me that if in the
absence of an override a county has a legal liability regarding accidents, all liability on anyone
could evaporate if a city approves development despite the county's safety concerns. Intuitively,
overriding the County's safety advice imposes greater liability on the City, not less.
As to what happened at the July 16, 2020, ALUC meeting, Appendix G to the present agenda
item (starting on page 15-217) purports to be the "ALUC Staff Report." It is not. It is, instead, the
ALUC's Agenda Item 2 report which includes (see page 15-236) a letter informing the City the
Newport Airport Village staff report will be provided to them prior to the hearing. The actual 84 -
page Newport Airport Village staff report was their July 16 agenda Item 1.
6 The fiscal impact analysis, predicting a net loss to the City of $619,887 per year in perpetuity as a
result of the excess of expenses over revenues related to the newly allowed land uses compared
to those currently allowed, seems not be mentioned in the present staff report save for an old
reference to it in the reproduction of the previous staff report on page 15-188. The actual analysis
can be found starting on page 14-199 of the September 8 agenda packet.
' This is found in Section II.E.9 on page 11 of the Planned Community Development Plan (agenda packet
page 15-102), which is guaranteed against change by the Development Agreement.
September 22, 2020, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 10 of 12
It might also be noted that in the ALUC's response to the Notice of Intent to Overrule (page 15-
282), they take the notice to apply only to the Newport Airport Village development project and
not to their finding of inconsistency as to the General Plan or Zoning Code amendments. That is
certainly a reasonable interpretation of the title of Resolution No. 2020-73 which only announces
an intention to find the PCDP consistent with the AELUP.
Finally as to airport compatibility, I might mention that at last week's Quarterly Noise Meeting at
JWA, I mentioned the possibility the Council would be approving a housing development across
the street on Campus from the ACI Jet FBO. JWA Access and Noise staff noted this area is
under the flight path for the airport's many general aviation touch-and-go operations as
well as a route frequently used by helicopters.
As to tribal consultation, page 15-8 refers to an "Exhibit O" without explaining what it is an
exhibit to. This seems actually to be Attachment O on page 15-294, and it is not clear from it
that enough time has been allowed for a final response. In fact, the tribe appears to have told
the City within the last couple of weeks (the exact date is not disclosed) that they are in the
process of reviewing the policies.
Item 16. Resolution No. 2020-85: Approval of Short Term Lodging
Permit and Renewal Fees
The staff report indicates the fee increases are based on a study of cost increases, and I don't
doubt that. However, one of the major new costs cited is the answering service which is
apparently going to be apportioned over some assumed number of active permits. Yet, the
report does not indicate if the contract for that has been signed yet or what it will cost (or how
many permits it is expected to be distributed over). I am additionally unable to find such a
contract in the City's online database, although I could easily have missed it. It would have
seemed helpful to provide that information.
As to the proposed resolution, in Section 1 on page 16-5, "... rounded down to the nearest
quarter" was likely intended to read "... rounded down to the nearest quarter 11
Item 17. Ordinance No. 2020-24: Amending Chapter 12.54 of the
Newport Beach Municipal Code Pertaining to the Oceanfront
Boardwalk Safety Program
I have these comments on the proposed Ordinance No. 2020-24:
Section 12.54.010 (Purpose and Intent) of the existing code should be repealed. Such
passages belong in the enacting ordinance (as they are in the Whereas clauses of the
present ordinance). In the past, some City ordinances didn't have any Whereas clauses so
the purpose statements were put in the code, as here. But when placed in the code they
only create confusion, and can be used to invalidate regulations when they don't match a
decades -old statement of purpose. In this case, the codified statement of purpose and intent
from Ordinance No. 91-53 (which is largely an interesting non -codified report on the
September 22, 2020, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 11 of 12
conclusions of an ad hoc committee charged with improving boardwalk safety) has served
its purpose and is no longer needed.
2. Adding new definitions to Section 12.54.020 is unnecessary. In fact, it seems a fool's errand
that could be avoided by deleting most of the existing definitions.
a. This is because the primary purpose of the entire Chapter 12.54 is simply to impose
an 8 mph speed limit and rules of the road applicable to all users of the boardwalk.
b. Rather than attempting to anticipate and describe every possible boardwalk
user, it is much easier and more concise to simply apply those rules to "all
users."
c. Should that be done, the only definitions needed in Section 12.54.020 are:
i. "Boardwalk" (existing)
ii. "Pass" (existing)
iii. "User" (new)
d. The proposed addition of a definition of a "motorized scooter" is necessary only
because motorized scooters are prohibited from operating on the boardwalk in
Section 12.54.025. However, other kinds of vehicles are prohibited that are
mentioned nowhere in this chapter. Namely, surreys and pedicabs are prohibited
on the boardwalk in NBMC Subsection 12.56.040.A. Skateboarding on "Ocean
Front" 8 appears to be prohibited most recently by Resolution No. 2012-15.
i. It is difficult to determine if other things might be prohibited on the boardwalk
elsewhere in the code or regulations.
ii. But if we are revising the code, wouldn't it make more sense for all the
boardwalk prohibitions to be in one place?
3. Under the proposed scheme, Chapter 12.54 would consist of:
• 12.54.020 Definitions (simplified as above)
• 12.54.025 Banned Vehicles (replaces "Motorized Scooters" and includes description of
each banned vehicle — no need for separate definition elsewhere)
• 12.54.030 Speed Limit (applies to all boardwalk users, including pedestrians/runners)
• 12.54.040 Unsafe Operation (applies to all boardwalk users)
12.54.050 Direction of Flow/Rules of the Road (applies to all boardwalk users)
"8 1 have no idea why, in Resolution No. 2012-15, skateboarding on "Ocean Front between Adams Street
and A" Street' is separately prohibited when all of "Ocean Front' is prohibited. But relying on Council
resolutions to flesh out ordinances strikes me as a bad idea. It is very difficult to know the resolution one
is looking at is current. It could easily have been superseded by something adopted under a different
name.
September 22, 2020, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 12 of 12
• 12.54.060 Special Restrictions (would allow Traffic Engineer to post localized rules for
"specified classes of users" without identifying what those classes might be)
• 12.54.070 Penalty (no revision necessary other than setting desired fine amounts
since this refers to violation of code sections rather than specific vehicle types)