Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout00 - Written CommentsReceived After Agenda Printed Written Comments July 8, 2014 July 08, 2014, City Council Consent Calendar Comments The following comments on items on the Newport Beach City Council agenda are submitted by: Jim Mosher ( iimmosher(a )vahoo.com ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach 92660 (949- 548 -6229) Item 1. Minutes for the June 24, 2014 Study Session and Regular Meeting The page numbers below refer to Volume 61. The passages in italics are from the draft, with suggested changes shown in stfikenut underline format. 1. Page 600, paragraph 2: "Harbor Commissioner Girling commented on the operating budget of the Hornblower Cruises in their operation of the Marina del Rey service." 2. Page 601, paragraph 4, sentence 2: "She noted that the Dividend is costing the City and suggested modifying it so that it applies only to solar." 3. Page 602, paragraph 1: "Recreation Superintendent Levin provided information on the Peninsula Parade and Festival, the Parade Planning Committee, and discussed the Mariner's Mil Mariners Park Parade and Celebration." 4. Page 604, paragraph 3: "Mayor Hill announced the OASIS Senior Center is hosting a "Health and Healthy & Fit After 50" event..." 5. Page 605, final paragraph: "Council Member Gardner and Council Member Curry recused themselves from this item since they may own or may own stock in AT &T." [note: I thought owning 3% or less of the stock in a publicly- traded company was not normally considered a conflict of interest] 6. Page 606, Item XVII, sentence 1: "...and Orange County r^,soo��. keepers Coastkeeper representative Ray Hiemstra ..." Page 607, paragraph 2 from end, line 4: "... the applicant has agreed to reduce the height of the wall to the right of the driveway to enhance site sight lines." 8. Page 608, paragraph 4 from end, sentences 2 & 3: "He added that he reviewed the site sight triangles and the Caltrans Site 2l Manual for site slphf distances and indicated that the project meets those requirements. He expressed the opinion that installing a light will illuminate the area even further and suggested adding a condition to put a stop bar at the toe of the slope to reinforce that vehicles must stop to ensure that the site sight distance will be exceeded." [note: the book referenced in the first sentence is likely the Caltrans Highway Design Manual] 9. Page 609, Item 14, sentence 2: "He She indicated that the Planning Commission noted that the Zoning Code does not address vehicle lifts, ..." 10. Page 610, Item 15, paragraph 2: "In response to Council questions, Harbor Resources Manager Miller reported that this activity could be done in the ocean and clarified that air propulsion craft is are not permitted in the Harbor." 11. Page 611, paragraph 4: "Dean O'Malley, Jet Pack America, stated that he has been operating for three years, adapted to accommodate residents, has gone through location July 08, 2014, Council Consent Calendar comments - Jim Mosher Page 2 of 5 and process changes, and that their goal is to have it work for the City, residents, and tourists." Item 3. Resolution No. 2014 -54: Adopting a Memorandum of Understanding with the Newport Beach Police Association; and Resolution No. 2014 -55: For the Paying and Reporting of the Value of the Employer Paid Member Contribution (EPMC) 1. The Memorandum of Understanding said to be attached to Resolution 2014 -54 was not included in the printed staff report distributed on Thursday. That said, the preliminary electronic version of the MOU, highlighting the proposed changes with italics is very helpful. 2. In the summary of MOU provisions on page 3 of the staff report, it is unclear why a fixed 2.5% annual "cost of living" increase is being proposed rather than a number reflecting the actual change in cost of living, once it is known. 3. Since all employees are apparently being offered the same annual cost of living adjustment, it is also unclear what inequity between sub - groups the schedule of one -time $2,000 to $3,000 bonuses being offered to non -sworn employees is intended to rectify. 4. The statement on the last page of the staff report that "the City stopped reporting any EPMC for sworn members in 2013" is interesting since the most recently approved budget seems to continue to report such a line item (7442 PERS EMPLOYEE CNTRB ") paid by the City for all employees in all departments. 5. Also on the last page of the staff report, the math of the "Fiscal Impact" is hard to follow. If as it says on the preceding page, the employees are picking up costs previously borne by the City amounting to 0.5 to 2.1 % of salary each year, then that would seem like it should soften the impact of the 2.5% COLA to something in the range of a 2.0 to 0.4% new burden on taxpayers -- yet the report says the net cost to taxpayers of the wage increases, as offset by the higher employee contributions, will be an increase of 2.2% each year. 6. Finally, in Section 2 of Resolution 2014 -55, although it copies the terminology from the previous resolution, is the City's promise really to pay ".97% of the normal contributions as EPMC'? Or is it to pay ".97% of the normal compensation as EPMC "? Item 4. Resolution No. 2014 -56: Amending Resolution No. 2014 -52 to Establish Salary Ranges for the Emergency Medical Services Division Chief (Fire Department) and the Deputy Director (Recreation & Senior Services Department) and Establish One Part-Time Marketing Specialist Position (Library Services) as Full -Time 1. 1 had the impression the City's departments were organized into "divisions," and that the person in charge of a department was called a "director" and the person in charge of a division called a "manager." Apparently that is not correct, or at least not a uniformly observed convention. 2. The timing of this item seems a little strange: July 08, 2014, Council Consent Calendar comments - Jim Mosher Page 3 of 5 a. Regarding the "Emergency Medical Services Division Chief' position, before reorganizing the division, wouldn't it be wise to review the results of the strategic plan evaluation ordered by the Council last year, at the Fire Department's request? b. Regarding the "Deputy Director, Recreation and Senior Services," that position title was already called out in the draft budget for FY2014 -15 approved by the Council in June (see page 169; with a 5.9% raise over the salary formerly paid the "Recreation Superintendent "). Shouldn't the position have been created before it was used in the budget? 3. Regarding the change of the Library Services Marketing Specialist position from part-time to full -time, should the Council be taking this action without a recommendation from the Board of Library Trustees? I thought Charter Section 708(a) put the BLT in charge of overseeing administration of the City's libraries. 4. Finally, in Sections 1 and 2 of Resolution 2014 -56, since this is being presented to Council as a renaming of existing positions rather than a creation of new ones, shouldn't it be made clear that existing job classifications are being disestablished simultaneously with the new ones being established? Otherwise it would seem the old positions would remain in existence, with the possibility that they could be filled in addition to the new ones. Item 5. Resolution No. 2014 -57, A Resolution to Increase the Corona del Mar Business Improvement District's Advisory Board from Seven to Nine Members 1. This report continues the fiction that the California Streets and Highways Code dictates the manner in which business improvement district advisory boards are to be appointed by a City Council. a. The Streets and Highways Code, in fact, provides no guidance other than that the Council must appoint an advisory board, and that the Council may, but is not required to, restrict membership on the board to persons subject to the BID assessment (Section 36530). b. This state directive has to be considered in light of Article VII of the City Charter which both gives and limits the power of the Council to create boards and commissions when it is required to do so. c. Admittedly, there is problem harmonizing the two since Article VII restricts membership to qualified electors of Newport Beach, while the state code anticipates the possibility of a broader membership (and equity would certainly argue that all those assessed have an opportunity to serve on the board), but I don't think this conflict abolishes the remaining provisions of either code, including such things as staggered four -year terms. 2. ]also do not believe this is the first time the CdM BID Board has received more applications than there are seats. In the past, the sitting board tended to reject applications from persons not already on the board. It is comforting the Board is now recognizing the value of new blood, but there is a danger of too large a board being unable to convene a quorum. July 08, 2014, Council Consent Calendar comments - Jim Mosher Page 4 of 5 3. More important than the preceding quibbles, it is not clear from the staff report if all those eligible for the two new board positions will be clearly notified of the opportunity to serve (an advertisement on the City website or in the Daily Pilot classifieds is unlikely to reach the full BID membership), and if more than two applications are received, will the Board will recommend increasing its size yet again? Item 6. Building Inspection and Plan Review Services - Approval of Professional Services Agreements with VCA Code, JAS Pacific, and MRH Structural Engineers I thought it was going to be the practice of the City Manager to highlight big ticket items by placing them on the regular non - consent portion of the calendar, even though little discussion may be expected. I don't know what the intended dollar threshold was, but this would seem like a big ticket item. Item 7. Amendment No. 1 to the Professional Services Agreement with Project Dimensions for the Lifeguard Headquarters Rehabilitation Project Contract No. 4869 (CAP12 -0008) The report does not make clear if the problems encountered were outside the scope of what should have been anticipated in, and covered by, the original proposal. Item 9. Approval of On -Call Repair Services Agreement with Littlejohn - Reuland Corporation for Electric Motor Repair Services 1. The report does not make clear if either of the respondents, including the one being recommended for approval, had previously performed such work for the City. Exhibit B to the proposed contract, apparently copied from "Attachment D: Proposal Offer Form" of the City's RFP, contains a strangely moth -eaten text with so many letters missing from words, or shifted in position, that its content is difficult to be sure of. 3. This is probably a standard City form, and well understood by those who use it, but the hourly rates specified in that exhibit take some reading- between - the -lines to make sense of. For example, taken literally, the rate charged during normal hours on Saturday (presumably "overtime ") does not seem to be defined, nor does the after -hours rate (presumably "double time ") on days other than Sunday. Item 11. Adoption of 2014 Sewer System Management Plan 1. The prevention of sewage spills would seem a major water quality issue for the City, so I find it surprising that this item is being recommended for approval without it having been, to the best of my knowledge, reviewed by the City's Water Quality / Coastal Tidelands Committee. This opinion is based in part on having attended meetings of the Costa Mesa Sanitary District (in whose sewer jurisdiction I live), where staff's plan would, at least in theory, have be carefully scrutinized by an elected panel of citizen board members. July 08, 2014, Council Consent Calendar comments - Jim Mosher Page 5 of 5 2. Regarding the substance of the Plan: a. On page 8, the difficulty of taking measures to reduce inflow of storm water through manhole covers in flooded streets seems exaggerated. The Costa Mesa Sanitary District, for example, has been sealing the pick -holes in the most vulnerable covers with simple plastic plugs, which they think is helpful. I would think some kind of water- resisting gasket or membrane around the perimeter of the cover would help as well. b. On page 13, I'm not sure I understand the parenthetical statement that "the City of Newport Beach owns and maintains all sewer laterals" [the feeder lines that connect the private plumbing to the in- street City mainlines]. In many jurisdictions, the property owner is responsible for the entire lateral to its connection with the mainline. I thought that in Newport Beach the property owner was still responsible for the part of the lateral under their private property, but the City maintained the part beyond the property line (that is, under the sidewalk to center of street). I find it hard to believe the City inspects and repairs every homeowner's private sewer line, all the way to their house, every 18 months, as the Plan implies. However, I don't know what the policy is or where to find it. c. On page 14, the City's Fats, Oils, and Grease (FOG) program seems rather anemic if grease control devices are required only "for new restaurants and restaurants undertaking a major remodel." d. The Plan does not seem to address the need for coordination with other agencies and rapid response in areas of the City where residents may not know the correct responsible agency (such as last year's major Anniversary Lane sewage spill) as well as in episodes where extra manpower /equipment is needed (such as the Balboa Island mainline breakage caused by a dredging error). 3. Again, I think the Sewer System Management Plan, and knowledge of it, might benefit from a more careful public review of the sort it would receive in a more specialized jurisdiction. Item 12. Direction to Staff on Various Issues This item continues, to me, to be an odd perversion of the Brown Act. Regarding the first issue (the environmentally - directed development fee proposal), the video of the June 24 meeting indicates that four Council members voted to have the City Manager poll "the full Council" on July 8 on whether they wanted to agendize the matter. Since four is already a winning majority, this second vote seems unnecessary, and the Brown Act does not require it. Voting to put something on a future agenda for discussion does not require a pre - announcement that a vote will take place. What the Brown Act prohibits is discussion of the substance or merits of the issue before it has been agendized. 2. Oddly missing from this item, is Council member Gardner's request, made simultaneously with that regarding the Goldenrod Footbridge, for a vote to be held on placing on a future agenda for discussion the possibility of banning the smoking of e- cigarettes in public spaces.