January 28, 2025, City Council Agenda Comments
The following comments on items on the Newport Beach City Council agenda are submitted by:
Jim Mosher ( [email protected] ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach 92660 (949-548-6229) Item III.A. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS
I continue to think the City could improve transparency by disclosing why it is interested in leasing or buying properties under negotiation in closed session.
It is a particular mystery to me why the City would be interested in the 1.2 acre office parcel at 3848 Campus Drive, a property facing the airport at the corner of Campus and Quail. According to the CIty’s What's Going on in My Neighborhood? map, the owner is pursuing an application, PA2023-0145, to build a 78,000 square foot self-storage operation on the site.
What is the City’s interest in the property?
If it is considering building a new fire station to serve the residential development anticipated in the Airport Area, this seems unusually close to the existing station in Santa Ana Heights.
Item 1. Minutes for the January 14, 2025 City Council Meeting The passage shown in italics below is from the draft minutes with a suggested correction shown in strikeout underline format. The page number refers to Volume 66.
1870, …” [see presentation, slide 6]
Item 6. Bay Crossing Water Transmission Main and Sewer Force Main Rehabilitation – Award of Contract No. 8487-3 (16W12)
The Location Map provided as Attachment A (page 6-4) is unusual in that the background image of streets is so faded that when printed it is nearly invisible, looking more like a watermark than a reference image intended for study.
Item 7. Approval of Amendment No. Two to Professional Services Agreement with Corrpro Companies, Inc. for Cathodic Protection Program, Contract No. 9483-1 (24W11)
This started as a staff-approved $59,855, contract C-9483-1, entered into on February 1, 2024, which, according to its preamble, was to cover an evaluation of the City’s vulnerability to corrosion in its steel water transmission lines and preparation of a project that could be bid to improve it – although the contractor, in their Scope of Services and Billing Rates, seems to have understood the latter to be an extra, separately-charged task:
Received After Agenda Printed
January 28, 2025
Written Comments
January 28, 2025, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 2 of 4 It has now ballooned into a $247,610 proposal based largely, it seems, on the contractor’s own recommendations.
Could the size of this effort (going over staff approval limits) have been anticipated at the beginning
so
it
would
have
been
subject
to
a
more
transparent
award
process,
with
Council
approval?
Or, assuming there is more than one company that does this kind of work, should this large next phase
be
separately
bid?
Item 8. Approval of Amendment No. One to Residential Solid Waste Collection
&
Recycling
Contract
(Contract
No.
8823-1)
with
CR&R
Inc.
–
Addition
of
5%
De-Escalation
Maximum
I understand the logic of this request, but I have a number of problems with it:
1. Since I assume CR&R is not requesting this amendment to receive less money from the City,
I
am
completely
baffled
by
the
statement
under
“FISCAL
IMPACT”
on
page
8-2
that
approving
this
action
“
will
lower
costs
to
the
City
by
approximately
$436,000
for
FY
2024-25
relative
to
last
year's
FY
2023-24
cost.
”
Isn’t
the
real
question,
and
the
fiscal
impact,
how
much
more
the
City
will
pay
if
the
Council
approves
this
than
it
would
without
an
approval?
2. The proposed amendment, page 8-3, indicates the Council is being asked to approve a complete replacement of Attachment J to the original contract C-8823-1, but the new Attachment J is not provided in redlined format, so it is difficult for either the Council or the public
to
be
sure
exactly
what
changes
are
being
made
to
it.
3. Far more concerning to me is the statement in the staff report, which seems to be that “ This decrease
would
be
applied
retroactively
to
the
beginning
of
FY
2024-25,
July
1,
2024
.”
Does this mean CR&R will be expecting a refund for services already performed, using a higher
rate,
re-computed
using
a
smaller
adjustment
starting
July
1 of
last
year,
as
if
the
decrease
had
been
capped
back
then?
While I have no problem with changing the terms “going forward,” an increased payment for past services seems completely at odds with the general principle, enshrined in Article XI, Section 10(a), of the California Constitution, that entities contracting with cities are expected to provide the services they promised at the cost agreed to, and cannot demand extra compensation,
not
anticipated
in
the
contract,
for
them.
It might be noted that no system of price adjustments based on year-to-year CPI changes with arbitrarily
imposed
caps
is
ever
going
to
be
fair
and
equitable
because,
as
the
examples
in
the
staff
report
confirm,
there
is
not
symmetry
in
the
long
term
errors
introduced
when
the
actual
change
in
a
given
year
exceeds
the
caps
by
unpredictable
amounts.
If the City wanted a fairer system, it might consider setting rates each year based on the rate in the
contract’s
start
year
corrected
by
the
ratio
of
the
true
CPI
(not
a
capped
one)
in
the
current
year
compared
to
the
CPI
in
the
contract’s
start
year.
If
there
is
a
wish
to
insulate
both
parties
from
unexpectedly
large
fluctuations,
the
increase
or
decrease
in
any
one
year
could
be
limited
to
a
maximum
of
5%.
Unless
the
changes
are
all
one-sided
and
larger
than
that
limit,
the
series
January 28, 2025, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 3 of 4 of 5%, or smaller, yearly rate adjustments would eventually produce a rate in correct alignment with
the
contractor’s
true,
total
change
in
costs
since
the
contract
started.
1 Item 10. Approve Professional Services Agreement with Environmental
Compliance
Inspection
Services
Corp.
for
Grease
Control
Device
Inspection
Services
As the staff report indicates, only one proposal, from the current incumbent, was received for this
contract.
It seems the same incumbent was also the only proposer when the existing contract was awarded as Item 7 on February 11, 2014. And that may have been the case for over 20 years (see, for example, Item 9 from November 25, 2003, and Item 4 from January 25, 2005). Is there really no competition in this field? Item 12. Lease Agreement with Basin Marine, Inc. for Use of a Portion of
the
Real
Property
and
Tidelands
at
the
Balboa
Yacht
Basin
Located
at
829
Harbor
Island
Drive
I can partially see the justification for collecting less than fair market rent from the operator of what
the
City
considers
to
be
an
essential
service.
But I am unable to see why the choice of operator would not be subject to competitive bidding. The Abstract to the staff report implies that Basin Marine has had its operation at this site since the
1940’s,
an
assertion
repeated
on
page
12-3
(“
The
Tenant
has
operated
the
Premises
under
various agreements since the 1940s ”). However, the earliest contract, C-2490, on file with the City Clerk indicates they have been involved “only” since September 20, 1973 (as seems more correctly
reflected
in
Recital
D
of
the
proposed
lease,
on
page
12-7).
Item 13. License Agreement with The Regents of the University of California
for
Operation
of
a
Coastal
Observation
System
at
the
Newport
Pier
Is there any relation between this and the probes producing similar information about water in the
harbor,
operated
under
the
eyes
of
the
Harbor
Department?
Item 14. Planning Commission Agenda for the January 23, 2025 Meeting
As Item 3 on its agenda, the Commission heard an item of considerable public interest – involving
allowing
areas
in
Newport
Center
currently
limited
to
32 feet
in
height
to
go
to
heights
1 The City instituted a similar system for the biennial adjustment of electoral campaign contribution limits with
Ordinance No. 2019-19, choosing a fixed reference year of 2019. Because the limit is rounded to the nearest
$100,
the
former
system
based
on
short-term
changes
in
CPI
did
not
accurately
capture
the
cumulative
effect
of
small
annual
changes
in
CPI.
Possibly
to
“save”
words,
or
possibly
unknowingly,
the
City
reverted
to
what
looks
like
that
flawed
former
system
(see
NBMC
Subsection 1.25.030.C)
somewhere
in
the
ill-conceived
471-page
Ordinance No. 2023-22.
January 28, 2025, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 4 of 4 up to 270 feet for residential development. Yet it passed largely unknown to the general public (the
only
speaker
from
the
general
public,
other
than
myself,
being
someone
I
had
told
about
it).
I believe the lack of public involvement was due both to the very limited amount of information provided
in
the
agenda
announcement
(which
refers
only
to
height
“adjustments”
and
not
to
amounts)
and
to
an
antiquated
system
of
noticing
which,
for
proposals
where
there
are
more
than
1,000
people
within
300
feet
of
impacted
properties,
requires
only
publication
of
a
small,
one-time ad in the “Legal Notices” section of the City’s “official newspaper,” the Daily Pilot. I think it is fair to guess very few people see those notices, especially if they read the “paper” online
(where
that
isn’t
even
a
section
with
a
link
to
it).
Since the Item 3 proposal will be coming to the Council for final action, it is probably not necessary
to
comment
on
its
substance
at
this
time,
but
in
my
view
increasing
heights
allowed
“by
right,”
rather
than
allowing
them
as
an
incentive
for
incorporating
affordable
units,
is
counter-productive
to
meeting
the
City’s
RHNA
obligations.
It
removes
that
incentive
and,
instead,
encourages
construction
of
the
large,
luxury
units
which
are
not
being
requested
by
the
state.
While
it
has
been
said
that
the
City
only
has
to
plan
for
affordable
housing,
not
build
it,
a
failure
to
produce
what
has
been
promised
puts
the
City
at
risk
of
de-certification
of
its
Housing
Element
and
the
consequences
that
flow
from
that,
including
loss
of
local
control
over
the
construction
of
those
lower
income
units.
Item 16. General Plan Update Steering Committee (GPUSC) Bi-Monthly
Update
to
the
City
Council
In the four months since the last “Bi-Monthly” Update, one of the main developments has been the
update
committee
members'
discovery
that
all
their
memberships
will
end
on
February
11. As a GPAC member, but speaking as an individual, I can say that has been very discouraging and
somewhat
put
on
hold
plans
to
continue
meetings
of
the
Noise
Subcommittee
mentioned
in
the
last
bullet
on
page
16-5,
since
its
future
membership
is
unknown.
In that respect, if there is, indeed, to be a change in membership, I see a lack of plan as to how the
current
committee
members
are
expected
to
pass
on
any
insights
they
have
gained
to
the
new
members.
With regard to the consultant’s recommendation to change the format of our General Plan, as mentioned
in
GPUSC
Chair
Gardner’s
memo
on
the
final
page,
which
includes
a
proposal
to
adopt
a
“primarily
web-based”
format,
I
have
some
misgivings
about
that.
While
progress
and
innovation
can
be
helpful,
other
cities’
and
counties’
efforts
in
that
direction
have
been
less
than
successful.
Online
projects
started
with
the
best
of
intentions
tend
to
fall
into
neglect.
And
while
new,
official
documents
and
amendments
are
approved
in
printed,
form,
the
web-based
products
may
or
may
not
be
accurately
and
timely
updated
to
reflect
them,
so
they
become
unreliable. One of the most complex efforts of this sort in California is the San Bernardino Countywide Plan, which, after changing its URL, seems not have figured out how to incorporate their changing Housing Element and has a “Tracking & Implementation” section (hidden under the
“Business
Plan”)
that
is
still,
at
least
four
years
after
its
debut,
in
a
“coming
soon”
state.