HomeMy WebLinkAboutSupplemental - Robert Goldberg P..
Questions for 11/13/18
Item C: Warrants
Page 7, middle: #8402 for the October Business (credit) Card includes $295 for the "Strategic
Planning Lunch". However, the credit card bill from the previously month included a $172
payment (check#7971) for "Lunch for Strategic Planning Workshop."
Were there two separate events, or two lunch purchases for the one event held on
September 12th?
1
Page 11, top: #8448 $16,825 for OC Property tax. In the FY 18-19 budget, I could find only one
account that mentions this—the Intergovernmental Account (043-925-45000) for the Sewer
Operations Fund.
Is the entire bill is being paid by the Sewer Operations Fund?
Item H: Rasic Contract to Install SCE Service Connection
When the 1st Street restaurant project was discussed at Council on Sept 10th, the City Attorney
stated that the four-month rent-free period would begin after the City issued building permits
for tenant improvements.
Has the City issued these building permits yet?If so, on what date?
At the same meeting, there was a discussion about the delay in repairing the roof which was
attributed to architectural design enhancements sought by the tenant. My impression from
that discussion was that our financial commitment was to replace "like for like," and anything
over and beyond that would require a "credit" or chip-in from the tenant. Item H indicates that
we are installing a 600 amp electrical service panel. My understanding is that the current
service panel is only 100 amps.
What would be the cost to install a new 100 amp or even 200 amp service panel?
Item H: Proposed Changes to Parking Municipal Code and Parking Policy
Regarding the proposed changes to the M.C.:
8.15.025 Storage of Vehicles on Street or City Property (Stationary Vehicles)
With the proposed change in the 72-hour rule, any vehicle that has moved less than 150 feet
will be treated as if it has not moved at all. Couple this with the change in enforcement from
chalked tires to LPR scanning, and the following scenarios are possible:
a) Resident A works night shifts and parks his car in front of his house during the day. Daily
drive-by by the LPR scanner show his car has moved several times within the 50-foot
frontage of his house. On the fourth day of scanning, the parking officer is alerted to a
violation of the new code.
b) Resident B is retired and has left his car parked in front of his house for two days.
Routine daily LPR scanning by the City's parking enforcement officer records it location.
On day three, Resident B moves his car directly across the street to avoid a street
sweeping violation. Its location is again recorded as "stationary" by the daily LPR scan
since it has moved less than 150 feet. On day four, Resident B moves his car back in
front of his house. Later in the day, the parking officer is alerted to a violation of the
new code.
Both of these "re-parking" situations would not violate the current parking code, but clearly
would violate the revised code. Many more scenarios exist that would place a large number of
vehicles, which are in fact moved frequently, in violation as well.
My understanding is that the current 72-hour rule is enforced only upon complaint, and I
expect that staff will indicate that they are not intending to change this practice. However, I
would still argue, that as a matter of law, whenever possible, code language should be written
as intended, and enforced as written.
Perhaps the code could be made to more closely match the public's expectations and current
practice. I can think of two possible ways. The first would be to reduce the distance a car has to
move every 72 hours in a residential area to say, 5, 10 or 15 feet. This would "legalize" re-
parking in front of one's residence. Another, but perhaps more complicated alternative, would
be for the code to include an exemption for residents who park in front of their legal
residences. Given that the LPR system can interface with the DMV database and therefore,
presumably display the address of the vehicle owner's legal residence, I would think this
exemption might be technologically feasible.
8.15.105 Parking Meters and Zones
Section F is an unmodified section that allows parking at a mechanically failed meter. I may be
wrong, but I seem to recall that this is not allowed in Huntington Beach.
Should we consider that here to discourage meter tampering?
8.15.110 Parking Permits
A new Section A states "Each such permit shall be designated by City Council resolution to
reflect the particular parking permit parking district."
Is it staff's intention to have multiple parking districts in Old Town? Or is this just in
reference to the current two districts that we have—Old Town and Riviera Drive?
A revised Section B.2 regarding Guest Parking changed the purchaser from "any city resident"
to "any city residence."
Was the purpose of this change to comport better with the Council Policy 100-9, Section
3.A which uses the term "household?"If so, why not use the term "household"here?
Regarding Proposed Changes to the Council Parking Permit Policy:
4. Procedure
This section now requires the creation of an on-line account with the City. This may be
burdensome for residents without internet access.
N.,