Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/22/2003 - Study SessionCITY OF NEWPORT BEACH City Council Minutes Study Session April 22, 2003 - 4:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Heffernan, Proctor, Ridgeway, Adams, Webb, Nichols (arrived late), Mayor Bromberg Absent: None CURRENT BUSINESS 1. CLARIFICATION OF ITEMS ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR - None. 2. MODIFICATION PERMIT STANDARDS OF REVIEW. City Manager Bludau indicated that the staff report tries to give Council a clear understanding of the duties, authorities, and regulations of the Modifications Committee. Planning Director Temple stated that the staff members who deal with the modification process on a daily basis hear a lot of the same comments Council hears about potentially excessive variations to development standards that could change the type and style of development in the City. She reported that the modifications process was incorporated into the zoning code in 1968 and they currently process about 153 permits a year. She added that the Modifications Committee also deals with items the Planning Commission previously discussed (i.e. parcel maps, lot line adjustments, and condominium conversions). She explained that a modification is the granting of minor relief from the strict provisions of the zoning code development standards in particular areas. She stated that the committee feels they do not have enough tools to effectively deal with the issues raised through the modification process. Ms. Temple reported that some communities allow minor variations or modifications which are within set numerical parameters of the code. She stated that staff feels that this approach may not be the best way to handle these issues since the City's zoning code is unique and not typical. Further, the City has adopted certain types of development regulations and a numerical limitation may not meet the former Council's intent when the modification process was established, and referenced the examples on page 3 of the staff report. Ms. Temple stated that the other approach is to look at what findings need to be made in order to approve a modification. She explained that the principal intent of this is to ensure that whatever is requested is not injurious to the neighborhood, so it often lies with the surrounding neighbors or Modifications Committee to prove that the request will be harmful. She stated that this could be hard to establish, particularly when there are differing opinions. Ms. Temple stated that a potential approach for Council would be to strengthen the findings needed to approve a modification. Mayor Bromberg indicated that he gets asked about the difference between a variance and a modification. Ms. Temple explained that, in order to approve a Volume 56 - Page 89 INDEX Modification Permit Standards (68) City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes April 22, 2003 INDEX variance, the person needs to prove that there is something very unusual about the physical configuration of the property that is restricting the full enjoyment and use of the property. She stated that the variance standard in State planning law has a high bar for approval. She reported that the City's modification system allows an applicant to request a minor variation to a development standard. She clarified that the Modification Committee cannot approve exceeding height or floor area limits, but the applicant can ask for a relief from the development standards and would only have to say that the idea will not be detrimental to surrounding properties. Mr. Bludau indicated that there are a number of architects who design projects with modifications in mind already. Ms. Temple agreed and stated that this is allowed since they only need to make a finding of no detriment. Regarding mansionization, Mayor Bromberg asked what type of application is used for this. He stated that a lot of residents feel that the modifications process leads to homes that are much larger than they should be. Ms. Temple reported that the floor area or overall height of the building cannot be modified through a modification permit, but it does affect where the building is sited on the property and how it is viewed by surrounding properties, regardless if the building is bigger. She stated that a modification permit is a discretionary permit and can be appealed to the Planning Commission and then to Council. Council Member Webb stated that a lot of modification requests are related to reducing setbacks. He believed that those types of modifications should be either eliminated or minimized as much as possible, unless they use the same findings as variances to try to justify the setbacks. He noted that safety personnel need a certain amount of space to access a property. Ms. Temple clarified that a modification is not needed for those types of encroachments. Council Member Webb believed that, due to the lack of ability to gain access for first aid purposes, the City should look at changing the zoning code so there is a clear area. He indicated that he does not have a problem with architectural features in the upper areas going into the setbacks. He noted that, when there are existing nonconforming uses that are in setback areas, the Modifications Committee looks at extending those uses because they already existed; however, new building should not be allowed the same uses in the setback areas. He stated that he would like the City to be really strict on setback areas. Council Member Webb noted that there are a lot of narrow alleys that are 10 feet wide, but if backyard encroachments are allowed it is almost impossible to get in and out of garages. Council Member Heffernan stated that, in the Port Streets, families are parking their SUVs partially on the sidewalks because of their front yard setbacks. He indicated that, because a few people have setbacks like this, others think they are entitled to it. He asked if neighbors are given notice about modification considerations. Ms. Temple indicated that the modification process provides a 100 foot radius notice, but believed that it should have the same radius as every other permit. Council Member Heffernan expressed concern that this is changing the setbacks in the City because the justification becomes that the Modifications Committee cannot deny a property since it already approved surrounding setback changes. He added that this changes the setback rules through the modification process instead of doing it in a formal manner. Volume 56 - Page 90 City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes April 22, 2003 INDEX Council Member Adams asked what the extent is for front yard setback reductions in the Port Streets. Ms. Temple reported that the Port Street setbacks are different from house to house. She stated that the Public Works standard minimum driveway clearing from the back of the sidewalk is 18 feet, and indicated that the City may want to look at some of those standards to help the committee establish what the minimums should be. Council Member Nichols stated that there are a lot of substandard lots in Corona del Mar and noted that, when the property owner had the lot line adjustment done, they knew that the lot was substandard. He believed that the City should not allow overgrowth on substandard lots. Ms. Temple explained that a lot line adjustment is not a modification and they do not approve any lot line adjustments or subdivisions in areas like Corona del Mar that are less than 30 feet wide. Council Member Nichols requested clarification about end lots that reverse its direction. Ms. Temple stated that reorganizing lots to front on a different street than originally subdivided was done in the 1920s and 1930s without receiving any approval from the City. She indicated that the City cannot force property owners to reorient their lot. She stated that lot line adjustments are sometimes requested to reorganize a couple of lots into a more usable configuration. In these cases, there is almost always a setback issue. Council Member Nichols stated that he also has concerns about basements being taller than 7 feet and having false ceilings and floors. Ms. Temple stated that this issue is not dealt with in the modification process. Council Member Nichols expressed concern about people having open space on the first floor to be able to build a third floor as long as they do not exceed the height limit. Ms. Temple stated that this is a code issue. Elaine Linhoff stated that she noticed that most modifications are approved. She expressed concern that this means that staff is setting policy. Council Member Proctor stated that staff is not setting policy but normally has to make Findings. However, staffs hands are somewhat tied since the burden of proof shifts to the applicant in this process. He asked what other communities do about these issues. Ms. Temple believed that the City is more relaxed about what needs to be proven to approve the variations. She stated that many communities have similar processes, but most need more rigorous findings in order to make their approval. Assistant City Manager Wood stated that other communities probably had a process similar to the City's years ago, but over time they have tightened the findings. Public Works Director Badum noted that the Public Works Department is in support of reviewing the modification permit program because staff gets frustrated with the one finding as it makes it difficult to make good decisions when there is not a lot of guidance. Mayor Pro Tem Ridgeway believed that the modifications process is not broken and emphasized that people cannot increase their floor area ratio or height limit under the modification procedure. He agreed that the noticing radius should be expanded to 300 feet. He explained that the City is an old beach city which adopted a zoning code years ago and has legal nonconforming uses almost in every area. He stated that the burden of proof has changed and suggested that Council Member Webb discuss his concerns with the Fire Department. He referenced page 5 of the staff report and noted that it was suggested that using practical difficulty guidelines, unnecessary hardships, or results inconsistent with the general purposes of the zoning code be. used while maintaining reasonable use of property. He believed that, as the City tinkers with this, it Volume 56 - Page 91 City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes April 22, 2003 INDEX should invite every engineer and architect to provide comments. He noted that, once this gets into a discretionary process, the workload for the Planning Commission and Council will increase. Mayor Bromberg believed that there is room for improvement. He agreed with the wording on page 5 and the 300 foot radius notification. He suggested that staff bring something back to Council. Council Member Webb noted that page 5 states that more strict findings could result in fewer modification requests and more houses designed to meet code requirements. He added that the City should consider adopting the first variance requirement for setback modifications. 3. RECYCLING OPTIONS. Recycling (44) City Manager Bludau reported that this was discussed at a study session on September 26, 2002, and staff indicated that they would look at options on how to increase the percentage of residential recycling recovery. General Services Director Niederhaus stated that the Vice President of CR &R and Chairman of the California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB), Paul Relis, is in attendance. He distributed an amended PowerPoint handout, noting that they added a "City Web Site" page. He utilized the PowerPoint presentation and reviewed the chronology of the AB939 compliance /recycling efforts from 1990 and the City's residential solid waste stream flow. He reported that the City creates about 235,000 tons of solid waste a year. Assistant City Manager Kiff indicated that, when this was discussed before, they were asked what would happen if the City wanted to increase the amount of tonnage it recycles residentially. He stated that it was believed that this would be good so it could help teach environmental stewardship. He noted that the City currently relies on demolition to reach the 50% diversion rate and asked what if something happened to that industry. However, arguments could be made that it is not broken, so why try to fix it. He added that they also talked about how to help residents dispose of household hazardous waste (HHW). Mr. Kiff stated that the City's options include paying more money to the material recovery facility (MRF) to sort more trash; seeing if any neighborhood or homeowners association was interested in curbside recycling on a trial basis and at their expense; starting a Blue Bag Program in which you can throw recyclables in the trash in a separate bag; and increasing public education. He reported that it would cost $3.44 per household /month if the MRF sorted 35% of the trash and $4.91 per household /month if it sorted 50 %. He stated that doing this would increase the diversion rate, especially if demolition or construction activities slowed down; however, it is costly and does not help with the stewardship issue. Regarding the neighborhood trial basis, Mr. Kiff stated that it would take about 500 volunteer homes to make the program viable and would cost $12 to $15 a month, in addition to the current $2.46 recycling surcharge. Further, if a contracted waste hauler did this, it would cost at least $15 a month. He stated that this program would help with the stewardship issue for those that want to participate; however, it is costly to the resident, the City would need more staff unless it contracted out this service, and curbside sorting does Volume 56 - Page 92 City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes April 22, 2003 INDEX not always result in high diversion rates. Mr. Kiff stated that the Blue Bag Program would help with the stewardship issue and help keep more recyclables cleaner when it gets to the MRF. However, scavenging has occurred in other cities, the bags can break, it is uncertain how many residents would use the system, there may be extra costs and additional refuse truck traffic, and the program may jeopardize the current CR &R recycling contract. Regarding public education, Mr. Kiff stated that this would entail using direct mailers and the internet. He added that the City has an in -house brochure that talks about HHWs, the collection schedule, FAQs, and provides phone numbers. Further, the website provides addresses and maps for HIIW sites, used oil collection sites, and redemption centers. Mr. Kiff stated that they are recommending not changing anything now with regard to the MRF, but improve the quality and quantity of the City's public information related to recycling, including having the Public Information Officer do a video on how residents can improve the quality of recoverable recyclables. Further, they recommend adding recycling pages to the website and information in the Navigator and municipal services statement. Mr. Kiff stated that, worst case scenario, people put paint, batteries, cleaning material, etc. into the trash stream which can potentially harm the refuse workers by exposing them to these materials. Further, he noted that people sometimes pour these materials into the storm drain which goes to the bay or ocean. He reported that there are a couple of companies that provide bags for HHWs and are picked up for about $99, paid by the person requesting the service. He noted that people can also go to collection centers. Mr. Kiff reported that they are discussing having a collection day for batteries, oil, and paint which would cost about $75 per load and possibly have the City match a portion of the fee to encourage proper disposal. He added that this contractor can also work with businesses on a fee for service basis. Mayor Pro Tem Ridgeway stated that his family separates cans and glasses, and puts them in separate plastic bags. He indicated that he was told that, if the MRF reaches its 25% quota, they let the rest go through. Mr. Niederhaus stated that beverage containers are the cash -crop of the trash, especially aluminum. He added that the County is getting ready to provide HHW service for disabled residents and the elderly for free. Stephanie Barger, Executive Director of Earth Resource Foundation, thanked Mr. Niederhaus and Mr. Kiff for all their research. She stated that recycling is important for the reduction of source materials. She indicated that it is discrediting for the children who are learning to recycle at school, but cannot recycle at home. She stated that it is important for everyone to visit recycling facilities. She expressed her hope that, if the City does source recycling, the residents still sort through the mixed material. She asked what would happen if an independent company wanted to pick up the recycling for free. She noted that Orange Coast College has a good recycling program but is restricted from coming into neighborhoods. Further, Foothill High School has a very successful recycling program, and picks up the recycling at businesses and homes. She stated that she would like to look at more alternatives. She expressed her support of the Blue Bag Program and the pilot neighborhood program. Volume 56 - Page 93 City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes April 22, 2003 Nancy Skinner believed that the City should have goals it should strive for, like doing recycling in such a way that is educational to children and adults, make it a reasonable price, and meet the requirements. She noted that Newport Coast is doing single - stream recycling and asked what it costs them. She stated that, if it is cost effective, she would like to see the City use this system. Regarding the stewardship issue, she indicated that the public, City Hall, schools, and libraries could possibly have a recycling area for people to bring their recyclables. She asked if the City has a policy about buying recycled products because one of the things that drives recycling prices is the marketing for what they can be used for. Dolores Otting stated that the entire residential waste stream is currently processed through a MRF and asked why the City does not get the credit for the extra recyclable materials. She reported that Newport Beach is one of the few cities that has reached the 50% quota. Ms. Otting stated that people can go to the HHW facilities in Irvine and Huntington Beach Tuesday through Saturday from 9 a.m. to 1 p.m. for free. She distributed handouts and noted that there are used oil grants available, but the last time the City applied for a grant was in 1995 for $232,926. She referenced the list of cities that have applied for this grant and reported that the CIWMB gives out $3 million a year and the deadline to apply is May 27. Council Member Adams took issue that not enough time was scheduled for discussion, noting that this was brought up at the last study session. He reported that this issue was short - changed the first time this came before Council and is being short - changed again. City Manager Bludau noted that the meeting started late and the next three study sessions will be dedicated to budget review. He stated that, if Council wants extra time, closed session will probably only take 20 minutes. Mayor Bromberg emphasized that public comments need to be factored into the time and study sessions can be started earlier if needed. 4. ALARM MANAGEMENT SYSTEM. City Manager Bludau reported that this issue came before him last year during staff level budget discussions. He indicated that the City has some money this year that is above and beyond anticipated revenues, so there is an opportunity at a future Council meeting to spend the money to upgrade the alarm management system (AMS). Police Chief McDonell reported that, in the last five years, the AMS has contributed about $1.9 million in revenue. He stated that the infrastructure that supports the existing system is no longer capable of serving the needs of potential users in the community, and the system's data management is not very accurate or consistent. He indicated that, as a responsible monitoring service that charges account holders for violations, they feel they need a system that provides redundancy of receipt of any alarm signal, accommodates the advanced technology that some of the newer systems have, and allows them to take advantage of the City's new Master ID Program that consolidates billing for a lot of City services. He stated that they also want the ability to obtain current maintenance and support for the system, and be in a position to offset additional costs for the upgrade by improving the public's understanding of what they can offer. Volume 56 - Page 94 INDEX Alarm Management System (70) City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes April 22, 2003 INDEX Chief McDonell reported that they need the upgrade because there is currently no redundancy in the hardware used, so if there is a malfunction, they may not realize it in time to respond. He noted that they cannot attract new system users based on the system's inability to read the more sophisticated technology. He stated that they do not have the software to track false alarms, charge the individuals, or interface with the City's billing data. He indicated that the current tracking software has limitations, is prone to error, and causes billing mistakes. He reported that, without the upgrade, they do not have the ability to improve the revenue stream, plus they do not have the overall support for the system. Chief McDonell reported that the Police Department has been doing direct monitoring since the early 1970s, overhauled the municipal code in 1994, updated the false alarm and permit renewal billing formulas in 1997, and modified the municipal code in 1999- He pointed out that there are over 4,900 homes and 1,300 business in the City that have alarm systems, but this only represents about 11.8% of all the residential units and 18% of the businesses. He described what a central station system is and stated that the advantage of this type of system is that it can sometimes filter out false alarms. However, the downfall is that there is the potential for a delay. Chief McDonell indicated that they currently direct monitor only about 6% of the alarms. He stated that the benefit is that the intermediary is cut out and ensures there is no delay. However, he noted that a multitude of alarm calls can come in at once, causing a delay. He reported that a permit holder that has more than two false alarms in any 12 month period is subject to a fine. He stated that they receive thousands of calls for service, but about 6,000 of those calls are related to alarms and represent a significant portion of their workload. He noted that over 99% of the alarm calls are false and about 23% of the fire activations are false. He reported that the false alarm fines are predicated on a two unit response so they recover the costs when someone is not responsible in managing their alarm. Chief McDonell stated that the fine and revocation collection process entails determining when an activation occurs and the number of activations that have occurred in a period of time, sending letters to the alarm users to let them know an activation has occurred, and developing bills for the fines. He added that another portion of the system deals with the collection process. He stated that, if someone fails to pay the fine, it goes to a collection agency to attempt to recover the fine. He indicated that, after this, the matter goes into revocation. He added that there is a reinstatement fee attached to the process. He reported that the number of false alarm responses over the last five years has been reduced by about 34 %, in spite of the fact that the number of actual police alarm permits have increased by about 11 %. Chief McDonell reported that the Fire Department is also impacted by false alarms. He noted that they have seen a steady decline in the amount of false alarms fines in five years which is consistent with the decline in the number of false alarm responses. He indicated that their goal is to respond to only valid alarms. Chief McDonell expressed concern that they are seeing an 18% decline in direct monitoring services due to the lack of sophisticated equipment. He believed that, without the upgrade, they will not be able to attract new users. He believed that there is no real good reason to eliminate direct monitoring and that more people would sign up for it if they had the capability. He indicated that, even if they were to stop direct monitoring, their ability to manage the Volume 56 - Page 95 City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes April 22, 2003 permits and tracking process needs to be addressed. Chief McDonell stated that they should create an information /outreach program. He indicated that they have not done this yet because they do not want to attract someone to a service they feel is substandard. He stated that the program could inform people of their expanded options. Chief McDonell reported that the total revenue over the last five years has been about $1.9 million, which is only a 6.5% increase in the annual figures over this period. He feels there is potential to improve this trend by following the recommendations in the report. However, without the proposed upgrades, they are confident that there will be a further erosion of the revenue. He reported that they also provide the yard signs and window decals that serve as good deterrents to someone who is trying to select which house to burglarize. Chief McDonell concluded by reiterating that the AMS warrants the modest upgrade in order to maintain their investment and revenue stream. Council Member Heffernan stated that he assumes the City has gotten into this business for civic purposes and to fill the public need perceived from the police enforcement side. He believed that this creates the assumption that they will receive a quicker response than a household without an alarm. He asked what standard the City has since it created the reliance and has subscribers. He stated that, since the City has gone into this business, it needs to keep it up to speed like it does all its other equipment, so it can match the quality that the residents expect. He asked if the changes put the City in par with other cities that touch Newport Beach's borders. Chief McDonell stated that this service puts the City ahead of the game because some cities do not directly monitor alarm systems; however, other cities are thinking about going into this business. In response to Mayor Pro Tem Ridgeway's question, Chief McDonell stated that they are requesting about $130,000 to upgrade the system. He confirmed that the $1.9 million revenue stream over five years also includes the fines. Chief McDonell confirmed for Council Member Webb that all the money made from this service supplements the general fund. Council Member Webb asked if money can just be set aside this year and then use revenue the following year to pay for this. City Manager Bludau stated that he does not recommend doing that and believed that the City cannot wait another year. Chief McDonell noted that the revenue numbers are in the budget every year. Mayor Bromberg directed staff to bring the matter back for formal action on the May 13, 2003, Council agenda. 5. PROPOSED REVISION TO CITY COUNCIL POLICY B -9 — NAMING OF CITY PARKS. Recreation Services Director Knight stated that the Parks, Beaches & Recreation Commission (PB &R) received letters and requests asking that the City name an upcoming park or future park after someone in the community. She indicated that PB &R expanded that discussion to whether the City should name any park after anyone. She reported that the concern was that there are a lot of individuals in the community who have done great things and continue to contribute to the community in many ways, and there are very few parks and naming opportunities to honor these individuals. She noted that PB &R's Volume 56 - Page 96 INDEX Policy B -9/ Naming of City Parks (69) City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes April 22, 2003 INDEX recommendation is that the l7ty eliminate the ability to name a park after an individual. Further, staff feels that this should be expanded to all City facilities. She stated that people have the opportunity to have memorial benches, trees, and rooms named within a facility in honor of individuals. Mayor Bromberg stated that this is an emotional issue. He agreed that the City does not have enough parks or facilities to name after deserving people. He believed that it would be alright to name rooms or ball fields after someone, but who is to say that someone is more deserving than someone else to name a park after them. He stated that he agrees with PB &R's and staffs recommendation. Council Member Adams concurred, noting that there were initially two parks being discussed and he did not feel it was appropriate. However, when he thinks about Bob Henry Park, he realizes that there are extraordinary circumstances where naming a park after someone is warranted. He pointed out that this policy does not take these situations into consideration. He stated that there are things that happen in the City's history and the country's history in which it is truly appropriate. He expressed his support, but feels there should be a provision that deals with extraordinary situations. Mayor Bromberg agreed that there are extraordinary circumstances but these should be dealt with as they come along and, since this would be a Council policy, Council is not bound to follow it to the letter. City Manager Bludau stated that the Mayor's comments are exactly what staff was thinking. He indicated that, if there is an out - clause in the policy, people can come to Council asking them to exercise the out - clause. He reported that, since this is a policy and not an ordinance, Council is not completely bound by it and, if Council feels there is a situation in which they want to deviate from Council policy, it is their prerogative. He added that it would have to be extraordinary to happen. Council Member Heffernan stated that he would like to revisit the naming of the new branch library at Mariners Park since this sets a procedure for public facilities. Ms. Knight reported that the naming of the branch library did not go through this process or PB &R because the original policy only talks about parks, not public facilities. She noted that public facilities are being added as a staff recommendation. Mr. Bludau stated that naming the library after the Creans did not violate any policy, but he does not believe that Council or staff gave its approval and the question was never raised to Council or staff. He believed that, once the fundraising activity started, the naming became a part of it. Council Member Heffernan stated that, the next time there will be a private /public partnership, the City will have this policy. Ms. Knight confirmed that the policy would incorporate facilities and agreed that generally, in a capital campaign, naming rights are outlined in advance. Council Member Heffernan added that, because something has been done, he does not want the City to be backed into a corner, so the more this can be done in advance, the better it is. Council Member Adams stated that he is not sure he agrees with naming rooms or fields after someone because this may be just as problematic and people can also get carried away with this. He believed that, as a general policy, the City should stay away from naming anything after anybody unless there are extraordinary circumstances. Volume 56 - Page 97 City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes April 22, 2003 Nancy Skinner stated that she is adamantly against naming things after people. She indicated that there was a Council Member who suggested having one place in the City to honor everyone. She stated that there are a lot of people who are deserving of this, but this is not something the City should do. She added that she is not sure why the City is stuck with naming the library after the Creans since Council has not had a say in it. Janie Arnold, representing her son Rick John, stated that her son appreciates that Council and PB &R reviewed this matter. She noted that there are a lot of good people who could have parks named after them. Claudia Owen agreed with PB &R and staff. She stated that you cannot do this for everyone even when someone does a lot for the City and they pass away. She indicated that not being able to name anything after someone would be the better way to handle this. Mayor Bromberg noted that the City was incorporated in 1906 and most people would not recognize any of the names of those who founded the City. He stated that Los Angeles is now naming streets after people but has expressed concern about doing this. He emphasized that Newport Beach is an exceptional City with a lot of exceptional people. Mayor Pro Tem Ridgeway stated that his children asked him who John Wayne was. Council Member Proctor stated that he just got back from Atlanta, Georgia and reported that almost every off -ramp, mile of freeway, and building on the college campus was named after someone. He expressed the opinion that this is a bad idea. He suggested that this item come back at a regular meeting for action. Mr. Bludau stated that staff understands what direction Council is going, but asked for clarification about naming rooms. PUBLIC COMMENTS — None. ADJOURNMENT — at 5:55 p.m. to Closed Session to discuss an issue with the City's real property negotiator. The agenda for the Study Session was posted on April 16, 2003, at 2:35 p.m. on the City Hall Bulletin Board located outside of the City of Newport Beach Administration Building. Recording Secretary City Clerk 1 Volume 56 - Page 98 INDEX