Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/22/2005 - Study SessionCITY OF NEWPORT BEACH City Council Minutes Study Session February 22, 2005 - 4:30 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Heffernan, Rosansky, Webb, Daigle, Nichols, Mayor Bromberg Absent: Ridgeway (excused) CURRENT BUSINESS 1. CLARIFICATION OF ITEMS ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR. Council Member Nichols referred to Item Nos. 8, S17, S18 and S19, all dealing with the City's insurance policies. He asked for a clarification on the City's philosophy regarding insurance coverage and how the competitive bid process works. Risk Manager Farley explained that the City uses an exclusive broker, Mark Zahoryin of Brown & Brown, who obtains competitive bids from all of the available carriers that are authorized to underwrite insurance in California. City Manager Bludau added that the City Council authorized the selection of Brown & Brown and Mark Zahoryin as the City's broker approximately one and one -half years ago. Council Member Nichols asked if Mark Zahoryin represents specific companies. Risk Manager Farley responded in the negative, and stated that he is independent. He acts as a consultant by assisting the City in making its insurance company selections. Council Member Nichols asked if the insurance companies are rated. Risk Manager Farley responded in the affirmative and stated that the City Council adopted the City's standard, which is to select only companies with a rating of A -VII or higher. Mr. Zahoryin explained that the alphabet designation is the overall running of the company and the roman numeral represents its financial size. Mr. Zahoryin added that the City's liability carrier is rated A + +XXV, the excess workers compensation carrier is rated AXV, the property carrier A +VIX and pollution legal liability carrier A +XV. Council Member Nichols asked how the City determines its needs for the various coverages. City Manager Bludau stated that the budget committee has addressed this in the past. Risk Manager Farley added that the staff report for Item No. S19, Excess General Liability Insurance Renewal, includes a history of the City's coverage since 1994, and that a comprehensive review is conducted to make sure that the City is fully protected. Council Member Nichols asked how coverage for the rental of City facilities is handled. Risk Manager Farley stated that the City's special events program includes the requirement that the renter provide proof of insurance or purchase coverage available through the City. 2. OVERVIEW ON THE NEED TO AMEND FIRE AND BUILDING CODES OF THE NEWPORT BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE. Building Director Elbettar stated that the Fire and Building Codes are amended when necessary to keep up with changes in the community; new industry advances, and new requirements from the State. Using a PowerPoint Volume 57 - Page 87 INDEX (100 -2005) City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes February 22, 2005 INDEX presentation, Building Director Elbettar displayed the six codes that staff is proposing be amended and explained that there are two types of amendments. The local amendments are to the City's codes and the model code amendments are to the codes adopted by the State, which the City must follow. Continuing with the PowerPoint presentation, Fire Marshal Lockard stated that a couple of the amendments to the Fire Code are the result of some of the unique buildings that are being constructed in the City and the need to reach them with fire protection equipment. He explained that some of these new buildings actually go below Fire Department access, rather than above, and the proposed amendments address requirements for fire sprinklers and standpipes. After a brief discussion, Fire Marshal Lockard explained that the amendments would apply to new buildings that go forty feet below grade. He stated that the Fire Department is concerned that these buildings, under the current codes, would not have adequate fire protection. City Manager Bludau confirmed with Fire Marshal Lockard that this would not apply to Newport Coast because the City does not yet have the authority to regulate such construction. Fire Marshal Lockard stated that two other proposed amendments to the Fire Code deal with fire alarm requirements for high rise buildings and enforcement of fuel modification zones. Council Member Heffernan asked if the City has the authority to regulate remodels in Newport Coast. Fire Marshal Lockard stated that there's a process that the City and the County agreed to. He explained that Newport Coast consists of 25 planning areas. As a planning area is completed, it is turned over to the City. Currently, nine areas have been completed. In response to City Manager Bludau's question, Fire Marshal Lockard stated that single -family dwellings would be exempted from the proposed amendments for sprinklers and standpipes. Building Director Elbettar added that it would not, however, exempt single- family dwellings from the sprinkler system requirements that already exist for dwellings of 5,000 square feet or greater. Fire Marshal Lockard displayed the last amendment being proposed to the Fire Code, which deals with additions to the wildland side of structures and what fire protection features need to be installed. Building Director Elbettar displayed an amendment to the Administrative Code being proposed for fences higher than three feet. Be explained that a building permit was required for such fences, but it is being proposed that it only apply to fences of concrete or masonry construction, which are the fences that might provide a hazard during such events as an earthquake. Council Member Rosansky asked how fences that are a combination of materials would be handled. Building Director Elbettar stated that if the masonry portion of the fence exceeds three feet, it would require a building permit. Council Member Daigle asked what the Zoning Code permits. Planning Director Temple stated that the City tvpically limits side property line fences in conventional zoning districts to a height of six feet. In residential planned communities, it's typically eight feet and within any front yard setback, the limit is three feet. Volume 57 - Page SS City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes February 22, 2005 INDEX In response to Council Member Rosansky's question, Building Director Elbettar stated that,glass fences would be considered light material, like wrought iron and wood, and would be exempted. Council Member Rosansky suggested that requiring building permits for glass fences be considered. Council Member Daigle asked if a building permit should be considered for fences that are limited to three feet by the Zoning Code. Building Director Elbettar stated that there are many provisions in the Zoning Code that do not require building permits. He stated that the intent of the proposed amendment is to simplify the process for people who are building wood fences greater than three feet in height. Building Director Elbettar displayed additional proposed amendments to the Building Code and stated that the amendments will correlate the Building Code to provisions in the Fire Code. Mayor Pro Tem Webb asked for a clarification on the difference between Model Code, Building Code and National Building Code. Building Director Elbettar displayed the 2001 California Building Code and stated that it represents the Model Code, which is adopted by the State. He stated that Newport Beach is mandated to follow it and that it, along with the City's local amendments, comprise the Newport Beach Building Code. He added that there is no longer a National Code. Council Member Nichols asked if the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) codes are being followed by the City. Building Director Elbettar responded in the affirmative. Fire Chief Riley explained further that the model Fire Code is the Uniform Fire Code and that all of the NFPA standards are adopted in the uniform Fire Code by reference, and are requirements of the City. Building Director Elbettar displayed a proposed amendment to the Building Code dealing with construction standards in high fire hazard areas. He displayed an illustration showing acceptable eave construction, and a photo of a burning home that did not have eaves constructed to standard. Building Director Elbettar displayed additional amendments to the Building Code that correlate it with the Fire Code provisions. In response to Council Member Rosansky's question, Building Director Elbettar stated that R -3 in the Building Code represents single- family dwellings. Building Director Elbettar displayed a table summarizing the proposed amendments to the City's roofing requirements. In response to Mayor Pro Tem Webb's question, Building Director Elbettar stated that wood shakes do not meet Class A requirements. Certain types of wood shingles do, but they are not time tested and are not appropriate for use at this time. Building Director Elbettar displayed the two amendments being proposed for the Residential Building Records (RBR's) process. The first is to change the responsibility of the delivery of the report from the seller to the escrow holder. He explained that sellers don't normally have contact with the buyers, and the escrow company is already dealing with the paperwork. Secondly, it is being proposed to Volume 57 - Page 89 City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes February 22, 2005 INDEX take away the exemption currently in the code for first sale of condominium conversions. He explained that this would make sure that the proper permit is obtained to complete the condominium conversion and that the parcel map is recorded correctly. Council Member Rosansky stated that typically its the seller, or the seller's agent; that orders the RBR report. The escrow holder might not even be aware of the City's requirement for such a report. Additionally, he stated that the escrow holder doesn't normally handle the disclosure documents. Council Member Rosansky expressed his opposition to requiring the escrow holder to deliver the report. City Attorney Clauson stated that she can work with staff on a process that would require the seller to make sure that the RBR is disclosed to the buyer through the escrow process. She added that the City of Los Angeles has such a requirement. Building Director Elbettar displayed the proposed amendments to the flood damage prevention ordinance, and stated that the intent of the changes is to update the City's code and keep it in line with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) requirements and definitions. He displayed the last amendment being proposed and stated that it would require construction site fencing and screening. He noted that a similar proposal was not approved by the City Council in March of 2000, but that the Building Code Board of Appeals has recommended that the proposal be brought to the City Council again. He noted that this would be for major remodels and new construction only. He displayed a list of the benefits of requiring the fencing, and photos illustrating some of the problems with maintaining the public right -of -way during construction without fencing. Council Member Heffernan asked why the City Council did not approve the amendment in 2000. Building Director Elbettar recalled that the issue was cost and that the requirement would add $1,000 to $1,500 to a project's total cost. Building Director Elbettar stated that it would likely cost half of that, but would depend upon whether the entire project is being fenced or just the street front. He stated that fencing would only be required on the public right -of -way sides of the property. Council Member Nichols stated that the fencing could hide various activities, such as Illegal tree removals and unapproved curb cuts, and that he couldn't support it. He added that he could see a reason for the fencing if it were to prevent a safety hazard. Referring to the amendment which would not require a building permit for certain fences, Council Member Daigle asked how the zoning standards would be administered in the absence of a building inspection. Building Director Elbettar stated that the purpose of the Building Code is to protect life and safety. Other methods, such as code enforcement, administer the zoning provisions. In response to Council Member Nichols' question, Building Director Elbettar stated that all of the City's codes are posted on the City's website, and are also available for purchase. He added that when amendments are made, notices are sent to the builders, architects and engineers in the Building Department's database. Volume 57 - Page 90 City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes February 22, 2005 INDEX In response to Council Member Daigle's earlier comments regarding fencing, Planning Director Temple stated that she would work with the Building Director on how to accomplish the amendment without losing the ability to make sure fences comply with the Zoning Code. She stated that the Public Works Director might have similar input with regard to the City's sight distance requirements. Lastly, Planning Director Temple stated that some of the amendments proposed for the flood ordinance will also require parallel changes to some of the sections in the Zoning Code. Council Member Daigle agreed that the Building Department should integrate any concerns of the Planning and Public Works departments. Mayor Bromberg received a general consensus from the council members that staff should proceed with placing the proposed amendments on a future City Council agenda, after addressing the concerns that were raised. 3. LA -3 DISPOSAL SITE. (100 -2005) Using a PowerPoint presentation, Harbor Resources Manager Rossmiller stated that the LA -3 disposal site is an ocean disposal site for sediments that are dredged out of the harbors. He stated that LA -3 has historically been used for dredging projects in upper and lower Newport Bay and Dana Point Harbor, and that the City is currently working with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Army Corps of Engineers and the County to designate LA -3 as a permanent site. It has been used as an interim site for a number of years, but lost its interim designation in January of 2003. Harbor Resources Manager Rossmiller displayed a map showing the location of LA -3, which is about four and a half miles off the Newport Harbor entrance, and LA -2, which is about six miles off the coast of Point Fermin in the Los Angeles area. He stated that it is unique for a region to have two dump sites. He also noted the water depths illustrated on the map. Harbor Resources Manager Rossmiller stated that the EPA is the lead agency for the designation of ocean disposal sites and that the process is very involved. He displayed a graph showing the process and the status of the current designation, which is at the stage where comments to the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) are being received. Harbor Resources Manager Rossmiller displayed a list of the criteria considered by the EPA when designating a site, as well as a list of the reasons why the LA -3 site is needed. Harbor Resources Manager Rossmiller stated that the EIS evaluated four alternatives. The first alternative is a "no action" alternative, which would not designate the LA -3 site as a permanent site and would use the LA -2 site without a specific annual volume limit. The second alternative is maximum use of LA -2, which would not designate LA -3 as a permanent site, but would set an annual volume limit for LA -2. The third alternative is local use of both LA -2 and LA -3. which is the preferred alternative and the one supported by the City. The fourth alternative is maximum use of LA -3. Harbor Resources Manager Rossmiller displayed the major points of concern noted from the initial public hearings held on the EIS. In response to the concerns related to onshore pollution, he displayed a slide showing the ocean floor topography and explained that current velocity, current direction and bathymetry all support use of the I A -3 site. City Manager Bludau asked how the site is Volume 57 - Page 91 City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes February 22, 2005 It►1170/1 marked so that people know where it is legal to dump. Harbor Resources Manager Rossmiller stated that the site is marked by a Global Positioning System (CPS) location at its center. He then displayed a graph showing the historical uses of the LA -3 site. Another concern noted at the public hearings was that the site would receive a lot of material from the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. He displayed a table showing the dredging plans for the ports for the next 25 years. Council Member Daigle asked how the dredging plans of the ports compare to the dredging plans for Upper Newport Bay. Harbor Resources Manager Rossmiller stated that the project that the City is currently trying to get funding for would involve 2.1 million cubic yards of material, and that additional dredging shouldn't be needed for another 20 years. This compares to the ports where approximately 16 million cubic yards are expected to be dredged. He noted, however, that the ports expect to use all but 263,000 cubic yards on -site. Harbor Resources Manager Rossmiller displayed the results of a study done on the radii of economically feasible disposal zones from different locations. He noted that it is unlikely that material from the ports would be transported to the LA -3 site. The LA -3 site would be used primarily by Newport and Dana Point. The LA -2 site would be able to accommodate the needs of the ports. He noted that San Diego County uses the LA -5 disposal site off of Point Loma. Lastly, Harbor Resources Manager Rossmiller stated that a Site ?Management and Monitoring Plan (SMMP) has been developed to ensure that the impacts of using the LA -3 site are minimized. Harbor Resources Manager Rossmiller stated that the EIS is available for review at all City of Newport Beach libraries and can also be accessed on the EPA website at www.ei)a.gov/region9/waterlia3/la3deis web .1)d Comments on the EIS can be e- mailed to R9- LA3- DEISPepa.gov or mailed to Allan Ota, USEPA Region 9 (WTR -S), 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California, 94105. Comments will be accepted until March 7, 2005. Mayor Pro Tern Webb asked if opponents to the LA -3 site had been contacted and provided with additional information on the science that was used to make the determination that the site will not cause onshore pollution problems. Harbor Resources Manager Rossmiller responded in the affirmative and stated that the outreach is continuing. Mayor Pro Tern Webb asked if there is any indication that the Coastal Commission will oppose designation of the site. Harbor Resources Manager Rossmiller responded in the negative. Mayor Pro Tern Webb stressed how important the designation is to the City and the efforts to dredge Upper Newport Bay. He stated that if the upper bay is not dredged, it will become a meadow. Council Member Heffernan asked why the upper bay is being considered for dredging first instead of the lower bay where people live and have property and boats. Harbor Resources Manager Rossmiller stated that both are actually being pursued concurrently. He explained that there are a series; of sediment trapping facilities in the San Diego Creek and the watershed. These are effective in trapping the course sediments, but the fine grain sediments don't get trapped until they hit saltwater and slow down in velocity. He stated that the upper basins need to be dredged first to catch all of the fine grain sediments from the watershed. Dredging the upper bay helps the lower bay. Volume 57 - Page 92 City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes February 22, 2005 Council ?Member Nichols asked for a more detailed description of the LA -3 site. Harbor Resources Manager Rossmiller described it as a very large bowl that slopes down from the shoreline to open water. Council Member Nichols expressed his support for the site and the preferred alternative in the EIS. Council Member Daigle asked if dredging had ever been considered as a mitigation measure with the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. Harbor Resources Manager Rossmiller stated that money has been received in the past from the Port of Long Beach to do some of the dredging in Upper Newport Bay as a mitigation project for some of their port projects, and that this opportunity will be pursued again in the future. He added that the ports are also being asked to take some of the sediments from the lower bay. He explained that some of the sediments are not suitable for disposal at LA -3 and the EPA is asking the ports to think regionally. Council Member Nichols stated that he wouldn't mind the upper bay becoming a meadow and that it would help trap the silt. PUBLIC COMMENTS - None. ADJOURNMENT - at 6:00 p.m. to Closed Session. The agenda for the Study Session was posted on February 16, 2005, at 1:45 p.m. on the City Hall Bulletin Board located outside of the City of Newport Beach Administration Building. �r City Clerk Recording Secretary Volume 57 - Page 93 INDEX City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes February 22, 2005 INDEX THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK Volume 57 - Page 94