The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About00 - Written CommentsReceived After Agenda Printed February 28, 2017 Written Comments February 28, 2017, Council Consent Calendar Comments The following comments on items on the Newport Beach City Council agenda are submitted by: Jim Mosher ( jimmosher(cDyahoo.com ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach 92660 (949-548-6229) Item 1. Minutes for the February 14, 2017 City Council Meeting The page numbers below refer to Volume 63. The passages in italics are from the draft minutes with suggested corrections shown in strut underline format. Page 186: paragraph 5: "Lynn Linh Do presented Valentine's Day cards to the City Council." Page 186: paragraph 4 from end: "Jim Mosher stated the largest revenue source was residential property tax and discussed the purpose of the FFP. He expressed concern with clams postponing the publiE�s bidding on the Corona del Mar Library without Council direction to do so." Page 188: Item III: "perencin Referencing Closed Session Item C, Jim Mosher suggested including information that the City is looking for potential locations for the new Lido Fire Station." Page 189: Item XII, paragraph 2: "Council Member Peotter requested a study session relative to wireless telecommunications and the right-of-way ordinance. [see Item Xllll" Page 190: paragraph 2: "Council Member Herdman suggested Item 21 (Certification of Petition for Referendum of Resolution No. 2016-127 Relating to the Museum House Residential Project) be moved to scheduled for further action on the February 28, 2017 agenda. City Attorney Harp explained the potential litigation allegation." Page 190: Item XIII, bullet 2, paragraph 3 (after recusal by Mayor Muldoon): "The remaining City Council members unanimously concurred to place the matter on a future agenda." Page 197: motion: "... and b) review the ,.,,.,Ge ptual sidewalk layout and proyide ,v,.:danGe on the eeneeapprove the Ee-nEepf conceptual sidewalk layout as discussed; waive City Council Policy G-1 and approve the removal of public trees to accommodate the sidewalk, and direct staff to ..." Item 4. Resolution Supporting Submission of Grant Applications Under the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) Measure M2 Tier 1 Environmental Cleanup Program (17X12) It bothers me to see resolutions, like this, saying (Section 1 on page 4-4) "The City Council has reviewed and supports the grant proposal ..." when the actual proposal is not attached to the agenda item. The lack of an attachment suggests neither the public nor (presumably) the Council has actually seen, let alone "reviewed," it. February 28, 2017, Council Consent Calendar Comments - Jim Mosher Page 2 of 3 In this case, the staff report says (page 4-2) the eventual proposal may be for "water wheel collection systems," which refers to potential collection of trash in the Back Bay using a floating barge anchored near the Jamboree Road bridge over San Diego Creek. This is particularly problematic because there has been significant pushback to that proposal from local neighbors and groups such as the Newport Bay Conservancy. And despite the claim in the staff report that "These types of projects have been reviewed and encouraged by the City's Water Quality/Coastal Tidelands Committee," as far as I know the water wheel concept has not yet been formally discussed or endorsed by the Council — nor do I recall the Council receiving any formal written recommendation from the committee. Although the figure on page 4-6 ("Attachment B") does not seem to be part of the resolution, I am worried that adoption of the resolution will be interpreted as a final approval by the Council of whatever staff eventually proposes, including anything consistent with Attachment B — plus a commitment of up to $100,000 of City money toward it. No matter how environmentally useful the water wheel proposal may be, it seems to me the Council needs to truly review and debate the concept before "supporting" it. Item 5. Resolution to Revise Parking Restrictions Near Corona del Mar High School While the proposed format of the list of parking restrictions seems to be a significant and welcome improvement over that of the soon -to -be -repealed Resolution 2015-73, so major a change makes it tedious and difficult to ensure that the only changes being approved are those highlighted in the staff report. Even assuming the remainder of old schedule has been properly carried forward, the present action begs the frequently asked question: why do certain areas of the city have parking restrictions to accommodate effective street sweeping while others do not? Item 6. Sewer Main Lining and Repairs Project - Notice of Completion for Contract No. 6363 (Project No. 15S03) It is good to see a project completed under budget, but the staff report does not explain why less sewer pipe was replaced than originally planned. Is it trying to say the cost ended lower because some pipe was lined rather than replaced? Or is it lower because some pipe planned for repair was not repaired at all? If the latter, why and when will the remaining pipe be attended to? Also since the report says the construction costs were expensed from the Wastewater Enterprise account, it would be helpful to the remind the public if this project was truly funded by the enterprise account, that is, by sewer ratepayers, or if it was one made possible by the General Fund bailout of the enterprise fund. To reiterate the objection to the bailout, there are large areas of the City in which taxpayers not only receive no special benefit from the City sewer system (because their properties are not connected to it), but they pay separately, and to separate agencies for the repair and upkeep of February 28, 2017, Council Consent Calendar Comments - Jim Mosher Page 3 of 3 their own sewer service. Property owners connected to the City system are not, to the best of my knowledge, offering to help fund repairs in those other areas, so it seems unfair to expect those in the non -City areas to pay for the City repairs. To be equitable, for every General Fund contribution to the City's Wastewater Enterprise fund, it would seem there would need to be a comparable pro -rated contribution offered to the Irvine Ranch Water District, the Costa Mesa Sanitary District and any other wastewater providers operating within the City limits. Item 7. Balboa Island Seawall - Approval of Amendment No. 2 to the Professional Services Agreement with COWI (15H11) I have great respect for Dr. Bob Stein, but his staff report seems a little strange to me in that it seems to be saying the City will be taking over review of its own Coastal Development Permit application, but to complete that process will need an additional $22,370 for an outside consultant to inform the City of the City's "prior research, analysis and public outreach." I would think the City would have a record of its past work readily at hand and not need a consultant — and certainly not $22,370 — to compile it. That said, I applaud the report for including the previous versions of the contract in question as well as the proposed change to it. Item 8. Approve Amendment No. 2 with Great Scott Tree Service, Inc. for Tree Maintenance Services For the seven remaining years of its term, the request is for a $400,000 per year increase in the "not to exceed" amount of the existing contract, for a potential additional cost of $2,800,000. That is a large amount, and it would have been helpful to provide a link to the existing contract that is being amended (C-5648). The staff report seems to imply the increased amount may not be used. However, if it is, the explanation under "Funding Requirements" of where the money will come from is extremely vague. Is sufficient money actually "there"? Item 9. Agreement for Retiree Health Savings Plan Claims and Reimbursement Administration This item seems unusual in that the Council is being asked to approve Attachment A which appears to be a contract written by the vendor rather than the more normal City -written contract. Moreover, the staff report mentions and justifies the need for a brief extension of term, but provides no explanation I am able to find of the other changes Meritain is requesting in their contract amendment.