Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/22/2013 - Study SessionCity Council Minutes City Council Study Session January 22, 2013 - 3 :30 p.m. I. ROLL CALL - 3:30 p.m. Present: Council Member Gardner, Council Member Petros, Mayor Pro Tem Hill, Mayor Curry, Council Member Selich, Council Member Henn, Council Member Daigle II. CURRENT BUSINESS 1. CLARIFICATION OF ITEMS ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR. In response to Council Member Gardner's questions regarding Item 4 (Contract Amendment for On -Call Landscape Architectural Services), Public Works Director Webb reported that, occasionally, there is a need for rehabilitation of landscaped medians. For example, he indicated that rehabilitation of the China Cove slope and other small projects can be completed quickly without the Request for Proposal process being needed. 2. REVIEW OF THE CITY'S PROPOSED 2014 RGP -54 DREDGING PERMIT AND THE CITY'S DRAFT NEWPORT SPECIFIC EELGRASS PLAN. Harbor Resources Manager Miller introduced the item and deferred to Harbor Commission Chair Doug West for a presentation. Chairman West provided a PowerPoint presentation regarding the Harbor Commission's recommendations to the City's RGP -54 permitting process that facilitates dock maintenance dredging in the harbor. He emphasized the importance of the adoption of a Newport- specific amendment to the Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy and the Eelgrass Protection and Mitigation Plan for Lower Newport Bay. He noted that the process is awaiting approval by the National Marine Fisheries Service, the California Coastal Commission, and various other agencies. He presented photographs of existing conditions in the harbor and addressed objectives, obstacles, the current situation, the deadline for a new Regional General Permit (RGP) framework, and approval by the Harbor Commission. Harbor Resources Manager Miller explained the RGP process. He addressed the three different permits needed, the complexity of the current process, and provided a brief history of the permit. He also addressed key provisions of the current RGP, the existing interim provision, the application process, and agency reviews. He noted that staff intends to streamline the process considerably, explained the necessary steps, and noted that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has supported the proposed concept, He presented details of the proposed plan for 2014, including continuing work with the Harbor Commission, the Harbor Commission Dredging Subcommittee, public input, and options for the next permit considered. Regarding costs related to the City conducting sediment testing and the sediment to be Volume 61 - Page 22 City of Newport Beach City Council Study Session January 22, 2013 tested, Harbor Resources Manager Miller indicated that the focus would be on areas in the harbor which are under private piers, using representative core samples. He highlighted the terms of the existing RGP and the proposed terms. In response to Council Member Daigle's questions, Mr.. Miller reported that it is their intent to link the Eelgrass Plan with the RGP process. He further addressed limits to the areas covered under the two plans. He reported that there is no written approval from any agency at this time, but indicated that the National Marine Fisheries Service has conceptually accepted the plan. In addition, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers indicated support of the plan and meetings will be scheduled in the future with various other agencies. Council Member Daigle stressed the need to get firm commitments. Mr. Miller detailed concepts the Council could explore that would spread out costs over a number of years by phasing the testing of sediment over several years. He addressed the pros and cons of the options. He pointed out that the plan would only cover dredging and does not include the repair of any docks or bulkheads. He presented the possibility of a tiered schedule for approving applications to streamline the process and information regarding the applicable fees. Regarding eelgrass, he reported on how the City is protecting eelgrass consistent with the Harbor Area Management Plan and noted that the City surveys eelgrass about every two years. He addressed public outreach and education, and reported that the Newport - specific plan will supersede the Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation Plan. He detailed the goals of the plan, including eelgrass management, thresholds, and reducing the burden for individual mitigation. He also addressed the historical use of RGP and the proposed timeline going forward. Mr. Miller reported meeting with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers which provided informal approval of the plan. He also reported on estimated costs for RGPs, including sediment, sampling and the permit application process. He requested direction from Council relative to funding the project through a budget amendment process and stated that there may be a need for consultant help regarding the Eelgrass Plan. In reply to Council Member Selich's question, Mr. Miller reported that the current RGP relies on the Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy which stated that dredging cannot occur within 15 feet of eelgrass. He acknowledged that there is a risk in having an RGP without solving the eelgrass problem. Mayor Pro Tom Hill addressed the timeline and the options available for funding the project. Regarding having a map depicting the location of eelgrass, Mr. Miller reported that one is available on the City's website. He added that there are no established mitigation banks in the harbor and stated that the goal of the plan is not to create eelgrass mitigation banks. He further discussed the possibility of seeding eelgrass. In response to Mayor Curry's question, Mr. Miller reported that the National Marine Fisheries Service takes the lead in eelgrass issues in California. Mayor Curry suggested going forward with the partial funding of $100,000 and then determine what will be viable going forward with the benefit of using some governmental consultants. Council Member Henn expressed that be would like to see the process move along faster than it has. He believed that not much will be accomplished with the RGP if the Eelgrass Plan does not move forward. He agreed with the partial funding of $100,000 at this time. Council Member Daigle agreed with Mayor Curry's comments and noted that there is a resource in Washington, D.C. and discussed the possibility of obtaining their support. Council Member Selich addressed costs without the Eelgrass Plan and stressed that this is Volume 61 - Page 23 City of Newport Beach City Council Study Session January 22, 2013 a critical component in the process. He expressed concerns with dredging in the basin around Linda Isle and the Grand Canal, noting that those areas are outside the pierhead line area and dock owners would have to obtain their own dredging permits. Mr. Miller reported that the plan does not cover the outside lagoon at Linda Isle since eelgrass is not located between the bulkhead and the pierhead line where the docks exist. Regarding the Grand Canal, he indicated that there might be a way to convince the agencies the area could be part of the plan. Lisa Miller, Shellmaker Marine, indicated that she does marine construction in the area, as well as regulatory work, and stated that she was part of the task force which developed the new RGP. She believed that this is a good plan, addressed the eelgrass depth and yardage, and noted that there has not been an RGP which allows individuals or commercial clients to take advantage of general dredging opportunities. She addressed the benefits to the City due to the new plan and stated that it makes sense to tie the Eelgrass Plan to the RGP since the Eelgrass Plan would have wider applications for existing dock tenants. She urged Council to consider the new plan and addressed the costs of individual permits. John Abell discussed the existing, complicated., and costly process and encouraged Council to approve the new plan. Council Member Henn emphasized that his focus is on getting the Eelgrass Plan completed and approved. Brian Ouzouman expressed support of the Eelgrass Plan and stated that the current process is complicated and costly. He believes that there must be a reasonable approach where an allotment is provided. Mr. Miller indicated that he will prepare a formal report to Council for its meeting on February 12, 2013. 3. SR-55/NEWPORT BOULEVARD IMPROVEMENT STUDY UPDATE. City Traffic Engineer Brine reported that Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) representatives are in attendance to provide an update on the SR-55/Newport Boulevard Improvement Study. He provided a brief background and reported working with OCTA staff, Caltrans, and the City of Costa Mesa to compile and review the study. Joe Alcock, OCTA Senior Transportation Analyst, reported that the completion of the study is currently underway and provided an overview of key findings. He provided a brief background and the goal of the effort. He noted that this is not included in the Measure M2 Freeway Program nor is there available funding for potential improvements at this time. He reported that the study is to initiate project development processes for State facilities. He detailed four alternatives which include a baseline for "no build ", a transportation system management alternative, an elevated lane at Superior Avenue alternative, and a cut-and-cover tunnel concept. He addressed the public involvement program, general observations from the public outreach efforts, and next steps. In response to Council Member Gardner's question, Mr. Alcock reported that the least impactful alternative for the City in terms of traffic would be the transportation system management alternative. Council Member Petros commented on the lack of available funding and believed that the Volume 61 - Page 24 City of Newport Beach City Council Study Session January 22, 2013 best alternative for Newport Beach would be to facilitate traffic into the City with the least amount of congestion. He stated that the transportation system management alternative would be his preferred choice. Mr. Alcock clarified that any decision would occur later in the environmental document phase. Mr. Alcock also reported that the agency is currently working with Coltrane to execute a cooperative agreement for OCTA to provide oversight and obtain final approval of the document. Council Member Venn commented on input received from the Central Newport Homeowners Association that anything which could be done to improve eastbound and westbound access on Coast Highway and de- emphasize the natural tendency of traffic congesting the Peninsula would be preferred. Mr. Alcock noted that this study did not consider those factors; however, a study will be initiated with the City and other coastal cities to look at potential improvements along Coast Highway. Jim Mosher addressed the City Charter's provisions regarding freeways and believed that entering into an agreement related to the construction of freeways within City limits or the modification of City streets to connect with freeways would need voter approval. He believed that the provision was ignored with the construction of the 73- Freeway, City Manager Kiff expressed his appreciation to OCTA representatives for their presentation. He noted that Council recently identified the corridor study as a priority item and invited OCTA representatives to help the City participate in the same. 4. DISCUSSION REGARDING THE APPLICABILITY OF PREVAILING WAGE TO CITY PROJECTS. City Manager Kiff reported that a prevailing wage item is also on the Regular Meeting Agenda and it is being considered at this time because a number of interested parties requested to provide Council with information. Jim Adams, Los Angeles /Orange County Building and Construction Trade Council, provided a video about the benefits of the Prevailing Wage Law. Cindy McMackin, owner of a local mechanical contracting company, provided information regarding her company, as well as their community involvement. She believed that it is in the City's best interest to require prevailing wage on all City projects. She relayed the importance of prevailing wage and problems experienced if prevailing wage is not paid. Mark Fowler, Executive Vice President of Western Wall and Southern Contracting Association, spoke in support of paying prevailing wage and provided information regarding his background. He discussed potential problems with construction defects and litigation relative to not paying prevailing wage. He encouraged the City to continue its prevailing wage program. Robert Rowe, Fire Sprinkler Advisory Board of Southern California, spoke in support of prevailing wage and discussed the delays and substandard work resulting from not paying prevailing wage to contractors. He spoke in opposition to the City's resolution authorizing an exemption from paying prevailing wage and believed that lower wages would result in added costs to the City in the long run. Travis Winsor, Chief Executive Officer of the Wayland Group, presented information on his company and spoke in support of the prevailing wage provisions. He addressed problems with safety, quality of work, and worker retention as a result of not paying Volume 61 - Page 25 City of Newport Beach City Council Study Session January 22, 2013 prevailing wage, as well as increased costs and decreased productivity. Ile encouraged Council to protect prevailing wage. Doug Mangione, read a Letter into the record from Derrick Spalding, Director of Business Development with the National Electric Contractors Association, which expressed support of prevailing wage and requested the City continue to require prevailing wage on all City projects. He addressed the need for a highly skilled workforce. Jim Mosher expressed concern with Charter Cities ignoring State laws without publicly adopting alternative local laws to fill the vacuum, not filled by State law. He suggested that staff provide information related to the extent in which the City has not paid prevailing wage on City projects. Greg McClelland, Western Steel Council, spoke in opposition to the proposed resolution and in support of prevailing wage. He noted that he chooses to pay prevailing wage, listed the positive benefits, and discussed problems resulting from not paying prevailing wage. Samantha Draper, Research Analyst with Smart Cities Prevail, presented information regarding her organization and believed that prevailing wage provides the best value for the City's taxpayers. She stated that research shows that prevailing wage does not increase construction costs, but can actually lower costs. She addressed the benefits of prevailing wage and noted that labor costs only account for 22% of construction costs and believed that not following a prevailing wage policy is not worth the risk. Dave Lawhorn, Training Director for the Orange County Electrical Apprenticeship Program, provided information on the value of his program and spoke in support of prevailing wage. In response to Council Member Daigle's inquiry, staff confirmed that the new Civic Center was built using the prevailing wage policy. City Manager Kiff clarified that the proposed resolution states the City's intention to continue to choose whether or not to pay prevailing wage. He pointed out the broad definition of "Public Works Projects" and the benefits of allowing Council the option to choose whether to pay prevailing wage or not. Council Member Gardner believed that the item being presented is very narrow and does not provide Council with a choice. City Attorney Harp reported that the use of prevailing wage is currently determined by the City Council pursuant to an existing resolution. He noted that the proposed resolution before the City Council tonight states that prevailing wage would not apply unless Council determines otherwise. Ile added that Council has the option to modify the language of the proposed resolution if it so chooses. III. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON - AGENDA ITEMS AND CLOSED SESSION Bonnie McClellan commented on the dock tax and spoke in opposition to renting private docks. She expressed concerns with the possibility of increased pollution in the bay, trash, parking, noise, the need for extra staff to clean or maintain boats on rented docks, increases in petty crime, and impacts to privacy. Regarding Closed Session Item II.0 (City Clerk Performance Evaluation), Jun Mosher commented positively about the City Clerk's Office, but suggested including the City seal on legal notice publications. He also suggested that every published notice be placed on the City's website. He addressed the maintenance of written records by the City Clerk's Office and believed that the transition from the old document imaging system to the new system has taken too long. Volume 61 - Page 26 City of Newport Beach City Council Study Session January 22, 2013 IV. ADJOURNMENT - 5:34 p.m The agenda for the Study Session was posted on January 17, 2013, at 3:45 p.m. on the City Hall Bulletin Board located outside of the City of Newport Beach Administration Building. Ov b� i. Nm,� Recording Secretary 6'. ",-X Mayor' �UVVv4 City Clerk ~— Volume 61 - Page 27