Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout00 - Written CommentsReceived After Agenda Printed Written Comments September 9, 2014 September 9, 2014, Council Consent Calendar Comments The following comments on items on the Newport Beach City Council agenda are submitted by: Jim Mosher( iimmosher(a)yahoo.com ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach 92660 (949 -548 -6229) Item 1. Minutes for the August 12, 2014 Regular Meeting The page numbers below refer to Volume 62. The passages in italics are from the draft, with suggested changes shown in strikeout underline format. 1. Pages 18 -31: the footer on the first page of the draft minutes refers to the volume as "62," but the remaining pages refer to it as "61." 1 believe a new volume started with the July 22 meeting and the footer on pages 18 -31 should be changed to read: "Volume 64 62'. 2. Page 20, last paragraph: "Evelyn Hart, Chair of the Foundation, read a letter from Alison Ryffel of Balboa Peninsula Point Association, ..." [note: The draft minutes accurately reflect what was said. The suggestion, if adopted, would clarify what was probably intended.] 3. Page 21, Item III (Public Comments): "Jim Mosher stated that since there is no Closed Session, and urged Council to confine its conversation during the recess to non -City business." 4. Page 26, last paragraph: "Motion by Council Member Gardner, seconded by Council Member Curry, ..." 5. Page 27, paragraph 1, sentence 2: "He commented on the documents, the lack of clarity in transferring of public funds from one entity to another although "'° UnGleaF the budgets and their boards." 6. Page 28, Item 24, paragraph 3: "Council Member Curry clarified that the SiEy users will be paying less under the proposed fee scheme." 7. Page 29, paragraph 3 from end, sentence 2: "He added that this is a perfect Capital Improvement Project and commended Public Works Director Webb." 8. Page 30, Item 26, paragraph 3: "Planner Drasler provided a PowerPoint presentation addressing the vicinity map and location, surrounding properties, the project plan including specifications and support equipment, equipment c-lesare enclosure additional landscaping, site plan, photographic simulations and recommendations." September 9, 2014, Council Consent Calendar comments - Jim Mosher Page 2 of 3 Item 4. Ordinance Repealing Resolution No. 2013 -6 and Expressing Intent to Comply with California Senate Bill No. 7 Relating to Prevailing Wage Law for Locally- Funded Public Works Projects I thought the 2012 California Supreme Court case cited in the staff report implied that to exempt itself from the state's prevailing wage statute, a charter city had to enact a local law of equal force (that is, a charter provision or ordinance) with contradictory rules. So in 2013, 1 thought it curious City staff recommended adopting nothing more than a resolution declaring its prevailing wage policy. I find it equally curious that City staff now feels an ordinance is needed to repeal a resolution. It is also interesting that this ordinance will not be "codified ": that is, it will not become visible in the Newport Beach Municipal Code. That makes one wonder how many other uncodified ordinances the city has. That is of particular interest because the City Charter empowers the City Council to assign additional powers and duties to several of the voter - created boards and commissions, but by ordinance (and presumably only by ordinance). One wonders if there might be powers or duties that were assigned but have since been forgotten. Or other rules like the present one about prevailing wages. Item 5. Adoption of Updated Recycled Water Rates (Ordinance and Resolution) 1. The ordinance says in its title that it is adding a new chapter to the Newport Beach Municipal Code, which it does indeed seem to be doing, although only one section of that new chapter is defined. Should a title for the new Chapter 14.13 be provided? Since the resolution recognizes, but does not adopt the ordinance, I believe the third "WHEREAS" from the bottom of the first page (page 5 -7 of the printed agenda packet) was intended to read: "WHEREAS on August 12, 2014, City Council approved the HF &H recycled water rate structure recommendation and herebyaelep adopted Newport Beach Municipal Code ( "NBMC') Section 14.13.010, Recycled Water Rates Established, to charge and collect a monthly fixed recycled water service charge, ..." 3. The Exhibit "A" and Exhibit "B" which the last page of the Resolution says are attached have not been provided. I assume Exhibit "B" was intended to be similar to the Attachment B appearing on page 5 -6 of the agenda packet. Exhibit "A" was evidently intended to be an extract of the "Year 1" rates from it. But whatever was intended, it seems essential to attach both exhibits, since under the terms of the Resolution they (and not anything else) indicate the rates being adopted. September 9, 2014, Council Consent Calendar comments - Jim Mosher Page 3 of 3 Item 6. Amendment No. One to Agreement for Weed Abatement Services The staff report refers (under "Discussion ") to the approval of a contract at a June 11, 2014, City Council meeting. Although a contract (C -3484) may have been signed on June 11, the Council met on June 10, where the weed abatement contract was Item 18. 2. The staff report explains the reason for the amendment as a substantial error in the description of the project provided to bidders. It is good that staff is being transparent about the error, but an obvious question is whether a different vendor might have been selected if the current specifications had been correctly provided, especially since one vendor already submitted a lower bid? Item 7. Shore Cliffs Property Owners Association Request for Street Tree Up- lighting and Electrical Appurtenances 1. 1 feel the policy against allowing private electrical installations in the public right of way, and private lighting of public trees, is a good one, and this request should be denied. The plans and pictures described in the HOA letter (Attachment B) do not seem to have been provided to the City Council, making it difficult to evaluate the proposed project. 3. Various conditions that might be included in an encroachment agreement are described in the staff report, but a draft agreement has not been provided, and it is unclear who the details are left up to. Item 8. Lifeguard Headquarters Rehabilitation Project - Notice of Completion and Acceptance of Contract No. C4869 Is the "Estimated Completion Date per 2013 Baseline Schedule" of "July 1, 2013" a typo? Should it read "July 1, 2014 "? If not, was the projected completed a year later than originally planned? Item 9. Newport Boulevard and 32nd Street Modification - Approval of Two Irrevocable Offer of Dedications of City Owned Parcels for Roadway Improvement Purposes - Contract C -4881 Although these are referred to as "irrevocable" dedications, the ownership by the City doesn't appear to be changing. That is, the documents say the City is offering the property to the City. Couldn't a future City Council return the property to its current status as "city owned parcels" as easily as the present Council is changing it to "public right of way "? If not, who would the future Council buy the property from? The process does not seem to be "irrevocable" to me.