Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/26/2008 - Study SessionCITY OF NEWPORT BEACH City Council Minutes City Council Study Session February 26, 2008 — 3:30 p.m. I. ROLL CALL Present: Council Member Henn, Mayor Pro Tem Daigle, Mayor Selich, Council Member Curry, Council Member Gardner Excused: Council Member Rosansky, Council Member Webb H. CURRENT BUSINESS 1. CLARIFICATION OF ITEMS ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR Regarding Item 8 (Water Rate Study), Council Member Henn stated that he would like to receive the results of various phases of the study as they are completed. Council Members Webb and Rosansky joined the meeting at 3:40 p.m. In response to Council questions regarding Item 7 (McFadden Square), City Manager Bludau stated that the City has had more than 80 annexations since it's incorporation in 1906 and listing some annexation names on the project and not all can make the timeline too long. Staff will also research if Lido is considered an Isle or Island. Regarding Items 20 and 21 (Insurance renewals), Council Member Henn requested a memorandum that would summarize the marketing requested for each of the coverages and the quotes that were received. He would like to understand if there were any coverage and /or policy changes of significance and if the City considered raising the coverage or lowering deductibles. Regarding Items 18 and 31 (New City Hall Facility), Council Member Curry wanted clarification on what will be discussed. Regarding Item 22 (McFadden Square), Council Member Webb stated that he will pull the item from the Consent Calendar at the regular council meeting for additions and corrections. 2. ORANGE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY (OCTA) PRESENTATION REGARDING THE SR-55 ACCESS STUDY. Allan Monsoor, Costa Mesa Mayor Pro Tem, thanked OCTA, Council Member Rosansky and Council Member Webb for their help with a purpose and needs study and for creating public outreach. He stated that he is looking forward to working with the City on other issues such as Banning Ranch and the airport, which are important to both cities. He also stated that he has had an opportunity to meet with some of Council to open a dialog on issues. Glen Campbell, OCTA, utilized a PowerPoint presentation consisting of information on the SR -55 which included the existing condition of the freeway, the planned Volume 58 — Page 402 City of Newport Beach Study Session February 26, 2008 freeway extension (approved in 1985), and the SR -55 access study overview Tony Petro, LSA and Associates, stated that the SR -55 Access Study Need is intended to incorporate input from staff and residents. He noted that staff meetings were held and they came up with ideas about Newport Boulevard's access, parking, congestion, business access and ease of transition through the communities in the east side of Costa Mesa. They also came up with a Purpose and Need Study to cover the volumes of traffic along the freeway, their impact in the corridors, community concerns and purposes for reducing traffic congestion. He reported that there are seven alternatives to the access study such as the no build/baseline, the current freeway plan, transportation system management, side street augmentation, improved conventional_ highway, vertical terminal enhancement, freeway elevated over Newport, Boulevard and cut/cover freeway. He stated that more outreach is needed and community meetings will be conducted to address the needs of those affected. Council Member Curry indicated that half of the traffic that comes from the SR -55 disperses through the Costa Mesa neighborhoods and the other half go down Pacific Coast Highway. He stated that the process will require a lot of community input and cooperation is needed. In response to Council Member. Henn's question, Mr. Petro stated that they are looking into the vertical terminal solution but the issue is that it is a very short distance and it will effect the geometric limits. In response to Mayor Selich's question, Mr. Campbell stated that the freeway agreement is between Caltrans and the City of Costa Mesa. Council Member Webb stated that the City was not a party to the agreement because there was a charter amendment that stated that the City must go to a vote of the people to enter into an agreement to build freeways. There were freeway agreements for the extension of SR -55 and 73 that have been rescinded. Mr. Mansoor stated that the concern of Costa Mesa with Alternative 2 of the current freeway plan is that some of the downtown and residential areas would have to be taken away. In response to Mayor Selich's question, Mr. Petro stated that all of the alternatives will effect the State's right of way in which Caltrans is a party to and consent would have to come from them. All of the construction for the alternatives remain short of Newport Beach but the capacity of the flow might impact this City, which is now being evaluated. Council Member Webb emphasized that it is important that people are not encouraged to bypass the downtown area of Costa Mesa because it could cause problems in this City. The negative impact on Coast Highway will come from people not getting off on 17th and 19th streets and staying on the freeway causing traffic problems. He noted that the purpose of the study is to handle all of the needs of the community and improve traffic. In response to Mayor Pro Tem Daigle's question, Mr. Petro stated that the EIR from the freeway agreement is a part of their research, but it will need to be updated. Anthony Peca expressed his concern about the removal of the existing plan and agreement by stating that it will also remove the current EIR which protects the Volume 58 - Page 403 City of Newport Beach Study Session February 26, 2008 community in the area. 3. TSUNAMI WARNING SIREN REQUESTS FOR PROPOSAL (RFP). Fire Chief Lewis utilized a PowerPoint presentation that included: issues that will be addressed, the system's purpose, the geographical coverage area, the types of systems and the Request for Proposal (RFP). In response to Council's question, Chief Lewis stated that more voice units are required than siren units and some companies offer a combination of voice and siren systems. He assured Council that both types of systems will be tested prior to the proposals. He indicated that he is not sure if the voice system can be heard very clearly and the City currently uses emergency personnel and their equipment to notify residents of emergencies. He also informed Council that some cities retrofit their old systems so their costs are less. In response to Council Member Webb's questions, Emergency Services Coordinator Katie Eing stated that the City's inundation area came from a USC study for Orange County that was based on the elevation and other tsunami information. They decided that the inundation area will be a mile and a half inland to assure the safety of the public if the maximum wave height of 33 feet is reached. In response to Council questions, Chief Lewis stated there is a higher likelihood of having an earthquake than a tsunami and that the siren system is best used for tsunami warnings. However, the system can be helpful in an earthquake or hazmat accident to let residents know to turn on their television. He noted that there are procedures in place for earthquakes and other disasters that emergency personnel and members of the CERT program are trained for. Visitors on the beaches will be instructed on what to do by lifeguards and other emergency personnel when the notification system goes off. The placement of sirens hasn't been decided at this time and there are restrictions placed by FEMA as far as how high they can be placed. Dolores Otting thanked Council for moving forward with the notification system. She stated that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) requested that coastal communities have two methods of warning people of a tsunami and that's why the sirens were incorporated on the Peninsula. 4. INSURANCE RENEWALS. Human Resources Director Ramsey stated that the budget for insurance renewals was approved by Council and the actual totals are less and there is a savings to the City. She stated that they are still getting information and plan to take the contracts to the Finance Committee once they are reviewed by the Risk Manager and City Attorney's Office to determine if the City has enough coverage. Mark Zahoryin, Brown & Brown, stated that changes were made this year to get prices down and that there are no significant changes in coverages as far as terms or limits. He also gave a brief overview of the company and their marketing process, stating that renewals are usually done by the week of February 11th but the City allows him to look for further reductions. He spoke briefly about the different kinds of insurance the City is purchasing and utilized a PowerPoint presentation that showed the names of the insurance companies, their premium amount and the tax amounts, if applicable. Volume 58 - Page 404 City of Newport Beach Study Session February 26, 2008 In response to Council Member Curry, Mr. Zahoryin stated that Brown & Brown monitors the insurance companies to make sure that there are no significant changes by checking their stability and assured Council that they stay on top of their accounts. 5. TRAFFIC SIGNAL COMMUNICATION MASTER PLAN. Public Works Director Badum introduced his staff, gave a history of the project and utilized a PowerPoint presentation that showed the project timeline, the overview of the program, additional modernization improvements, benefits, photos, phased project implementation, maps, current schedule, and the project cost estimate. In response to Council Member Rosansky's question, Public Works Director Badum stated that the areas of the phases can be switched but the airport, Jamboree and the McArthur and Irvine corridors are the key highest volume areas. He noted that the goal is to produce fast and efficient work and he is looking for direction from Council. He stated that certain signals on Pacific Coast Highway are owned by Caltrans and they do not allow the City to operate the systems that they own. In response to Council Member Henn's question, City Manager Bludau stated that Caltrans will have a liability if they continue to own the traffic lights but allow the City to control the synchronization. Council Member Webb urged Council to accquire the traffic signals from Caltrans because they will not allow the City to operate their system because their concern is the freeway flow. In response to Council Member Webb's question, Transportation/Development Services Manager Brine stated that by the end of Phase I staff will be trained to make changes to the signalization in case of emergency. Additional staff will be added further along the project as needed, however, in the meantime current staff will be offered overtime. The new system will allow staff to dial different synchronizations into the system and programs can be pre - designed for different situations. In response to Council Member Henn's question, Deputy Public Works Director Webb stated that the scheduling depends on the opportunity and funds availability. They already received $500,000 from Measure M funds and they will apply for another $500,000 and fair share fees can be used. Council Member Henn raised concerns over the proposed phasing; in particular that the Peninsula should be scheduled for no later than Phase IV of the project due to summer traffic congestion and concern over emergency evacuation from the Peninsula. Council Member Curry stated that traffic is the leading concern for the community. He believed that the schedule is where it needs to be and the City has the ability to work with Caltrans so all areas can improve. In response to Council's question, Public Works Director Badum stated that staff is not anticipating having problems, but with any new system it will have to be fine tuned and optimized. He indicated that performance criteria is built into the construction projects, but the software process could be a little more difficult because the software, installation and 'controllers are from seperate vendors. He said he will look<into building a performance criteria into the software process. A consultant can be brought on board to conduct a peer review and he is not sure of the cost. He Volume 58 - Page 405 City of Newport Beach Study Session February 26, 2008 assured Council that changing the equipment to the same type will allow a consistent communication between the signals, in which some areas will experience an increase in efficiency in traffic and connectivity issues will cease. Council Member Rosansky asked to have a report from Public Works Director Badum on the likelihood of Caltrans relinquishing the traffic signals on Pacific Coast Highway. He also suggested that there be a Council level committee set up to look at the relinquishment of the traffic lights on Pacific Coast Highway. City Manager Bludau clarified with Council that a peer review will be done quickly and asked if they should remove the item from the Regular•Council meeting agenda. Staff urged Council to approve the contract and requested that it be seperate from the peer review because it was a lengthy process and stated that the contractor has state of the art equipment and they are confident with the company that was chosen. They noted that there is a grant commitment for this project that needs to be filled by the end of this fiscal year. Council decided to discuss the item further at the Regular Council meeting. Dolores Otting agreed that it will be a better system to control traffic and believed that the City is sending false hope to the residents. There is a need for education about how fast residents will get through traffic. III. PUBLIC COMMENTS - None IV. ADJOURNMENT - 6:11 p.m. The agenda for the Study Session was posted on February 20, 2008, at 2:15 p.m. on the City Hall Bulletin Board located outside of the City of Newport Beach Administration Building. City Clerk Recording Secretary( I /!I �4L Mayor Volume 58 - Page 406