HomeMy WebLinkAbout00 - Non-Agenda Item - Written CommentsMulvey, Jennifer
From: Rieff, Kim
Sent: Monday, December 21, 2020 7:09 AM
To: Mulvey, Jennifer
Subject: FW: Non -agenda comments (12/18/2020)
From: Jim Mosher <jimmosher@yahoo.com>
Sent: Friday, December 18, 2020 4:13 PM
To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: Non -agenda comments (12/18/2020)
[EXTERNAL EMAIL) DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Mayor Avery and members of the Council,
For those interested, this is the promised follow-up to the non -agenda comments I made at this
morning's Council meeting.
JetSuiteX litigation
According the Dec. 15 article in the Daily Pilot, the suit filed by JetSuiteX (doing business as "JSX") ,
protesting the City -requested and County -approved move of their operations to the main passenger
terminal, "calls into question the continued viability of the JWA Access Plan."
The Access Plan implements and is the very heart of what is supposed to be protected by the
Settlement Agreement.
As such, the City's interest in defending the validity of the Access Plan is much stronger than the
County's.
I don't know if the City has already been named as a party to the suit, but if not, I would hope the
Council would direct staff to assist the County with its defense.
Law & Order Comment 1: Unpermitted Harbor Structures
All structures placed on the waters of Newport Harbor (the term "structures" includes everything other
than operable watercraft) are supposed to have permits and to be built to published
standards (NBMC Subsection 17.35.010.A).
As indicated in Subsection I.A.10.b(6) on page 34 of those standards, "Any increase in dock footprint"
requires not just local permitting, but also state and federal permits.
Over the years, it seems many structures have been added to the harbor without benefit of any
permits or adherence to the construction standards.
This summer, City staff became aware of and issued a "courtesy notice of violation" for unpermitted
dock extensions at 1322 / 1324 E. Balboa Boulevard, in the Peninsula Point area, which allowed a
larger -than -previously -allowed boat to be parked in the public waterway at the end of F Street (As
indicated in the agenda packet, a dock reconfiguration -- not including these extensions -- was
approved by the Harbor Commission in October 2014, at which time Mayor Avery was Chair and
expressed concern that the public be compensated for the encroachment into public water. Although
the allowed size of the vessel was limited by the 2014 permit, it appears no encroachment fee was
ever collected.)
The permittees appealed the notice to the Harbor Commission, which heard the matter as their Item
6.1 on December 9, 2020. The individual hearing materials are still temporarily posted and have also
been permanently archived in a single very large file.
On a 4:3 vote, the Commission rescinded the violation, based in large part on the appellants
extensive evidence of a numerous other "non-permanent"/"removable" dock extensions and other
non -permitted structures existing elsewhere in the harbor (by his estimate more than 300), which
made it seem their violation was being unfairly singled out.
Much more could be said about this, but the Harbor Commission's rescission of the notice of violation
(which the permittees could argue now constitutes City "approval" of their work) could be called up for
review through December 23.
Law & Order Comment 2: Removing Unwanted Guests from Private Homes
Given most Council members' interest in property rights and the services property owners expect in
return for paying their taxes, I thought you might be interested to know how difficult it is for
homeowners in Newport Beach to remove an unwanted guest from their private home.
I have a formerly homeless person in my home who now has the means to live on his own and no
longer has my permission to be there.
California has both a general trespassing law which would seem applicable to this situation (Penal
Code Subsection 602(0) applicable to people on property with no agreement to be there), and a very
specific "lodger" law applicable to a person who claims to have some kind of agreement to stay in an
owner -occupied home, but, under Civil Code Section 1946.5 and Penal Code Section
602.3, becomes a trespasser on failing to leave after 30 -days written notice to do so. The process for
the latter, which is not supposed to require court action, is actually detailed on the Orange County
Sheriffs website.
Rather remarkably, homeowners discover that even after one has given the lawful notice terminating
any permission that may formerly have been given to stay in a private home, neither the OC Sheriff
nor the Newport Beach Police will assist in the trespasser's removal nor even inform the person they
appear to be trespassing.
Instead, they tell me I must first have a judge confirm to them a state of trespass exists by going
through the formal court eviction process, even though the trespasser has no chance whatsoever of
ultimately prevailing, and even though, with the court short-staffed by COVID, it appears that will take
months.
Much as with the lack of consistent enforcement of harbor regulations, this lack of enforcement of
trespassing laws only gives the trespasser an ever greater sense of entitlement to do as they wish
with absolute impunity.
From the legal terminology I learned this morning, should I, as a Newport Beach citizen and taxpayer,
be seeking a writ requiring law enforcement to do their duty?
Ad Hoc Committees
I did not discuss this since it was not mentioned in the agenda, but this morning's action regarding the
jail release litigation included the appointment by the Council of a two -member ad hoc committee to
work with staff and approve City's brief.
I would like to remind the Council that while Government Code Subsection 54952(b) exempts from
open meeting requirements "advisory committees, composed solely of the members of the legislative
body that are less than a quorum of the legislative body," one has to assume that refers only to
committees that publicly advise the City Council, not to committees that privately advise others on
behalf of the Council as a whole. Otherwise decisions purportedly representing the will of the Council
could be made with the public having no way of monitoring them or even being aware of them.
I, therefore, look forward to seeing notices of all the meetings of this new committee, including an
opportunity for the public to observe its activities.
Yours sincerely,
Jim Mosher