April 15, 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 5. Corporation Yard, Utility Yard and Oilfield Gate Rehabilitation – Award of Contract No. 9749-1 (25F02)
According to page 2 of the staff report, the low bid, from a firm that offered to perform the gate repair work at substantially lower cost than the recommended one, was rejected as “non-responsive” because the bidder provided only one reference.
The report does not indicate whether providing multiple references was a bid requirement.
If it was not, why was providing only one regarded as disqualifying? And if it was not automatically disqualifying, shouldn’t the reference have been contacted to learn if the firm’s work was satisfactory and, if staff felt necessary, additional references requested?
Item 6. Slurry Seal Program FY 2024-25 – Award of Contract No. 9717-1 (25R04)
I do not claim to be an expert on pavement maintenance, but when the Council approved the notice of completion
for the prior slurry seal contract as Item 5 at the February 11 meeting, I noted orally that cracks in the pavement on the my own street had reappeared less than a year after their “sealing” on April 23, 2024, by Roy Allan Slurry Seal.
The photograph at right is the condition of some of those today.
From my limited observations of what Roy Allan did, the main slurry coating had been preceded a week or so
earlier by some gentlemen walking by and rather casually spraying a bit of a tar-like substance on the cracks. That pre-coating appears to have done little other than bleed up through the slurry coating in the area around the cracks, which promptly reappeared.
Again, I do not know if this is normal, or not, but if the intent of the exercise is to remove the cracks (which I believe we have been told are bad because they allow water to penetrate), it did not seem particularly effective.
Received After Agenda Printed
April 15, 2025
Written Comments
April 15, 2025, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 2 of 5 Additionally, in the follow-up a week or two later, that
previous
contractor
seems
to
have
misplaced
either
the
striping
or
the
reflectors,
causing
one
to
be
painted
over
as
shown
at
the
arrow
in
the
photo
at
left
(and
note
more
cracks
to
right
of
stripes).
Assuming this was less good work than we might
expect,
I
am
pleased
to
see
a
different
contractor,
American
Asphalt
South,
beat
out
Roy
Allan
for
the
new
contract
(if
only
by
a
very
tiny
margin)
and
hope
they
will
do
better.
Item 7. Approval of Amendment No. Three to On-Call Maintenance and Repair
Services
Agreement
with
Ray
Brian
Carmody
dba
Carmody
Construction
Company
(C-8480-1A)
See comment on Item 9, below. The transparency of how Council-approved on-call contracts are
being
used
is
not
as
good
as
it
could
be.
Item 9. Approval of Professional Services Agreements with Anchor QEA,
Inc.,
Dudek,
and
Moffatt
&
Nichol
for
On-Call
Marine
/
Coastal
Engineering
and
Harbor
Related
Services
Section B of Council Policy F-14 requires all contracts in excess of $120,000 to be approved by the City Council. In this case, staff is asking the Council to approve three 5-year $500,000 “on-call” professional services
contracts.
Section G of Policy F-14 addresses such contracts, but is ambiguous as to whether, once approved by the Council with a $500,000 limit, staff can use the contracts to request services in any
amount
up
to
that
limit,
or
has
to
return
to
the
Council
for
approval
of
any
individual
request
to
use
the
contract
that
exceeds
$120,000.
If
the
former
is
correct,
the
Council
will,
in
effect,
be
authorizing
staff
to
make
potentially
quite
large
expenditures
on
purposes
that
receive
no
further
Council
oversight.
However that may be, as Section 2 of each proposed contract indicates, no work can be performed
without
a
request
from
City
staff
and
a
“letter
proposal”
from
the
contractor
in
response.
Unfortunately,
the
public
(and
presumably
the
Council?)
does
not
normally
see
these
requests
and
proposals,
so
transparency
as
to
how
the
approved
contracts
are
actually
being
used
is
poor.
April 15, 2025, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 3 of 5 At various times there have been promises that all approved letter proposals would be provided to
the
City
Clerk
for
posting
as
attachments
to
the
on-call
contracts
in
the
City’s
Laserfiche
contracts database. That would have provided some public visibility regarding how broad Council approvals like these are being used, but there was no follow-through and, to the best of my
knowledge,
only
a
very
few
letter
proposals
have
ever
been
archived.
As to the proposed contracts, there appears to be an error in Section 3.1, warning the “
Consultant
to
strictly
adhere
to
the
schedule
set
forth
in
Exhibit
A
and
the
Letter
Proposal.
”
Exhibit A, in each, consists of an identical two-page “Scope of Services” followed by what seems
to
be
the
proposal
document
the
contractor
submitted
in
response
to
the
RFP.
While Subsection 2.1 requires the letter proposal to include “ The estimated number of hours ” and
“
The
time
needed
to
finish
the
specific
project
,”
there
is
nothing
I
can
find
in
Exhibit
A
that
dictates
any
other
schedule
(or
any
schedule
at
all,
other
than
vague
promises
to
work
quickly
and
efficiently).
It
would
seem
the
words
“
Exhibit
A
and
”
should
be
deleted.
Item 10. Professional Services Agreement with Carpi & Clay, Inc. for Federal
Advocacy
Services
My only personal experience of what the City’s “federal advocates” do is from Carpi & Clay’s oral
reports
at
some
of
the
City’s
increasingly
rare
Aviation
Committee
meetings,
most
recently
by
Mr.
Commins.
At
those,
they
appear
competent,
although
the
staff
report
is
not
clear
on
what,
if
any,
alternative
strengths
the
other
bidder
could
provide
at
a
substantially
lower
monthly
fee.
As to the proposed contract with Carpi & Clay, I might suggest that on page A-2 the Scope of Services
(agenda
packet
page
10-20)
the
following
corrections
might
be
considered
in
the
upper
half
of
the
page:
“ g. Identify and advocate for mechanisms that accelerate airline fleet transition to newer, quieter and lower emissions aircraft .” … “ j. Advocate for the granting of waivers for to allow for the efficient use of drones by local public
safety
authorities
.”
The first correction is suggested because while newer planes are often cleaner and quieter than older
ones,
the
age
of
a
plane
does
not
necessarily
correlate
with
the
noise
and
pollution
it
produces.
I
believe
we
would
be
happy
if
a
poorly-performing
fleet
were
replaced
with
a
better-performing
one
even
if
the
replacement
planes
were
older.
The second suggestion corrects what seems a typo.
Item 11. Approval of Professional Service Agreement with Bloc Films, LLC
for
Junior
Lifeguard
Video
Production
Services
It might have been helpful for the staff report to identify the second-ranked proposer, Red 88 Media, as the incumbent, having been selected as Item 11 at the May 14, 2019, Council meeting.
April 15, 2025, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 4 of 5 Item 12. Resolution No. 2025-13: Notice of Intent to Override Orange County
Airport
Land
Use
Commission’s
Determination
of
Inconsistency
for
an
Amendment
to
the
Housing
Opportunity
(HO)
Overlay
Zoning
and
Coastal
Zoning
Districts
(PA2024-0205)
As the staff report indicates, this item is not about the merits of the “project,” but simply an announcement that the Council might, at a future meeting, consider overriding the ALUC’s determination of its inconsistency with the County’s JWA Airport Environs Land Use Plan. As such, it seems curious it does not make clear the ALUC’s sole concern was with the proposed
addition
of
Footnote
1 to
Table
2-16,
reserving
179
of
the
Airport
Area
Housing
Overlay
units
for
the
City-owned
property
at
1201
Dove
Street,
as
shown
on
page
12-4.
County staff recommended a finding of consistency based on a belief that although the Commission
had
previously
found
adding
a
housing
overlay
to
the
Airport
Area
inconsistent
with
the
AELUP,
it
would
be
better
to
confine
the
units
to
what
it
believed
to
be
a
lower
noise
area
than
allowing
them
to
go
anywhere.
The
Commission
itself
felt
it
needed
to
repeat
its
message
that
any
additional
housing
in
the
Airport
Area
would
be
inconsistent.
Additionally,
the
Commissioners
felt
1201
Dove
was
a
particularly
bad
place,
both
in
terms
of
noise
and
safety,
because
the
propeller-powered
planes
heading
initially
south
from
the
airport
would
be
passing
over
it
while
turning
and
climbing
at
relatively
low
altitude
(between
500
and
1,000
feet).
This
seems
to
be
supported
by
the
flight
tracks
shown
on
page
12-132,
in
which
1201
Dove
would
seem
to
be
at
approximately
the
location
of
the
added
green
dot:
Regarding the noise issue, I am not sure anyone has actually measured the impact of aircraft noise
at
this
location,
the
only
contours
I
am
aware
of
being
theoretical
projections.
April 15, 2025, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 5 of 5 Contours produced in the 1980’s (and still used in the AELUP) showed lobes of enhanced noise over this area at the 60 dB CNEL level, presumably caused by the propeller aircraft, but the more recent contours now used in the City’s General Plan Noise Element (see Council Item 22 from November 14, 2023), and the Annual Contours posted by the airport, do not. The Commissioners do not believe the noise from propeller planes has improved much. It is unclear who
is
right.
Regarding the safety issue, the staff report correctly notes that in the event of an override, California Public Utilities Code Section 21678 immunizes the airport operator (in this case the County) from any liability for damage it might cause. Although it does not say, one would assume
the
City
assumes
that
liability
as
a
result
of
ignoring
the
ALUC’s
advice.
Setting aside these concerns, the staff report does not explain why the City is fighting to add a housing
entitlement
to
this
property.
The
public
has
been
told
it
was
purchased
as
the
future
site
of
our
Police
Headquarters.
Yet
in
this
“project,”
the
City
is
seeking
housing
entitlements
at
both
the
old
and
presumed
new
locations.
Has
the
plan
changed,
with
the
new
headquarters
to
be
built
at
some
other
location,
so
that
neither
of
the
previously-considered
sites
will
be
needed
for
that
purpose?
Or
does
it
envision
a
combination
of
housing
and
a
Police
Headquarters
at
1201
Dove?
Finally, it should be noted that the housing overlay that underlies the present dispute with the ALUC,
including
the
units
to
be
reserved
for
1201
Dove,
was
added
to
the
City’s
General
Plan
Land
Use
ELement
without
a
Greenlight
vote
and
that
act
is
the
subject
of
litigation,
the
outcome
of
which
could
affect
the
validity
of
the
entitlement.
Item 13. Revocable License Agreement with Heritage Wellness Collective
for
Temporary
Use
of
City
Property
for
the
Corona
del
Mar
Farmers’
Market
Others may have asked (I have not read the many public comments), but do we know how much
revenue
the
operator
receives
and
what
profit
that
generates
?
If it is at all substantial, shouldn’t the City share in the revenue as it does for most other uses of public
property?