Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/11/2007 - Study Session Special MeetingCITY OF NEWPORT BEACH City Council Minutes City Council Study Session - Special Meeting December 11, 2007 — 3:30 p.m. I. ROLL CALL II. Present: Mayor Pro Tern Selich, Mayor Rosansky, Council Member Daigle, Council Member Gardner Excused: Council Member Henn, Council Member Curry, Council Member Webb 1. CLARIFICATION OF ITEMS ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR. Referencing Item 9 (Oceanfront Sand Replenishment), Council Member Gardner emphasized the need to notify the oceanfront property owners and residents. 2. PROJECT MANAGEMENT AND ALTERNATIVE PROJECT DELIVERY METHODS FOR MAJOR BUILDING PROJECTS. Public Works Director Badum introduced Deputy Public Works Director Dave Webb to Council and the audience. He noted that his focus will be on capital program delivery. Public Works Director Badum utilized a PowerPoint presentation to discuss rising construction costs, cost issues, schedule issues, quality issues, and alternative methods for project delivery. He reviewed how the Program Manager at Risk proposal works and discussed a study that showed that this process usually reduced costs and could reduce construction schedules. In response to Council questions, City Manager Bludau explained how subcontractors are selected. He indicated that the incentive for the program is that the Program Manager at Risk may be hired for other projects if they do a good job and save the City money. Public Works Director Badum noted that the projects will be bonded. He stated that the Back Bay Science Center project was handled as a hybrid Project Manager at Risk project. He indicated that a disadvantage to this method is that the City needs to stay more involved to ensure it gets what it wants from the project since anything outside of the guaranteed cost is paid by the City. He concurred that there should be a lot of outreach with these types of projects. Discussion ensued relative to the architects fiduciary responsibility. Council Member Curry joined the meeting at 3:51 p.m. Council Member Henn joined the meeting at 3:52 p.m. Council Member Webb joined the meeting at 3:54 p.m Public Works Director Badum explained that the Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP) needs to be submitted after the completion of the design build. He indicated that each of the qualified firms cannot submit a GMP, but they can submit a proposal to do the work. He explained that the Program Manager at Risk acts as a City employee and the City can Volume 58 - Page 337 City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes — Special Meeting December 11, 2007 have a relationship with the architect. Council Member Curry noted that more jurisdictions are using this method and discussed some advantages. Council Member Henn believed that the City should have a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) to select the Program Manager. W.R. Dilby discussed his objection to the design build process and his concern with one of the firms being considered for the Program Manager at Risk position. He suggested following the current method. Sharon Multon, Heary International, requested that her company be considered for Project Manager at Risk. 3. GROUP RESIDENTIAL USES — DISCUSSION WITH SPECIAL COUNSEL (R.ICHARDS WATSON GERSHON) OF PROPOSED ORDINANCES. Assistant City Manager Kiff utilized a PowerPoint presentation to review the background, concepts, definitions, the current situation, and previous actions taken by the City. He stated that more information can be found on the City's website and people can contact him or the City Council by emailing, calling, or writing them. Special Legal Counsel Markman, Richards Watson & Gershon (RWG), reviewed resident concerns and the purpose of the ordinance. He utilized a PowerPoint presentation to highlight key aspects of the proposed ordinance, explain the proposed zoning for group residential uses, the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) process, and the role of the hearing officer(s). He displayed the nonstandard subdivision map. He expressed the opinion that the proposed ordinance is not facially discriminatory and reported that they looked very carefully at the regulations for six or under facilities. He discussed existing facilities, the grandfather provision, the City inventory, the timeline for the ordinance, the abatement process, and Federal Fair Housing law. Council Member Henn believed that the proposed ordinance is the broadest, most aggressive, and effective ordinance in the State and reviewed the objectives RWG were charged with. In response to Council questions, Special Counsel Markman discussed the secondhand smoke issue and remedy. He noted that the proposed ordinance is in response to problems that have been documented to exist. He explained that the list of findings had to do with proliferation and overcrowding. He reported that each case will be different, the hearing officer will make determinations and deal with revocations, and the ordinance needs to be applied in a non - discriminatory manner. He noted that the inventory is subject to amendment. He indicated that he can provide Council with American Planning Association (APA) documentation. Denys Oberman, Concerned Citizens of Newport Beach (CCNB), noted that Sober Living by the Sea is filming the meeting. She utilized a PowerPoint presentation to provide a history of the issue and the increase in residential treatment facilities since 2004, and discussed over concentration and its adverse impacts on the area, the impacted areas, why a planning -based solution is important, the zoning and lot uses of the impacted areas, the impacted areas as defined by the City, and multiple -unit residential acreage. She recommended that there be no grandfathering, that the deadline for non - conforming use begin when the ordinance goes into effect, and that that the City conduct immediate abatement of illegal uses. Michael Tidus, Jackson Demarco Tidus Petersen Peckenpaugh, attorney for Concerned Volume 58 - Page 338 City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes — Special Meeting December 11, 2007 Citizens of Newport Beach, believed that the ordinance should include a 1,000 foot standard setback/distance between residential group homes and explained how they came up with this distance. He expressed the opinion that all CUP applicants must comply with the California. Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), no unlicensed facilities should be permitted or that licensed facilities should be given preference, that the amortization period should not be open- ended, and that the hearing officer hearings should be noticed and open to the public. Eileen Taylor, Jackson Demarco Tidus Petersen Peckenpaugh, stated that she is also a certified Land Use Planner with APA and an AICP. She believed that the City should follow good planning strategies when addressing this issue and that this use is not compatible with the neighborhoods. She discussed over concentration, the uniqueness of the impacted areas, the need for the 1,000 foot separation, and reasonable accommodations. She believed that the areas qualify for an overlay zone, that variances should not be granted, the inventory should not be a prerequisite for triggering abatement or qualifying for a use permit, there should be no grandfathering, and illegal uses should be abated. She indicated that she could submit specific planning -based criteria to Council. Craig Batley took issue that Newport Beach has over 1,000 beds for residential group homes and expressed concern that the quality of the neighborhoods has dramatically changed. He noted that the City is not benefiting from this $100 million industry and pointed out that a treatment facility website lists Newport Beach as having their largest number of residential substance abuse treatment facilities in the country. In response to Lori Morris' question, Special Counsel Markman stated that the definition of two - family is from the original language that applies to the special district zone. Ms. Morris believed that Sober Living by the Sea is videotaping to intimidate the residents, but they never speak at a meeting. She noted that the facilities have the backing of the Republican leader. She expressed concern with alternative. sentencing, the over concentration in West Newport, illegal non - conforming and unlicensed facilities, grandfathering, and the abatement timeline. She believed that the residents are experiencing reverse discrimination and the taking of their neighborhoods. Cynthia Koller read portions from the Sober Living website which discusses alternative sentencing, choosing an attorney, confidentiality, expunging a sentence, and possibly getting a certificate. of rehabilitation. She believed that the ordinance should include a 1,000 foot separation, the City should not allow any unlicensed, facilities, there should be immediate abatement and no grandfathering, and the CUP process puts the burden back on the residents. Max Liskin noted that no Sober Living or CRC representative spoke tonight. He discussed how CRC needs to grow to support its debt and presented Council with CRC's 10 -Q Financial Report. Charlie Dobkin believed that spreading the facilities 1,000 feet apart still means that he would've passed five facilities on his one mile walk to City Hall. He discussed smoking, traffic, garbage, and criminal issues_ He noted that the City has allies in other cities and asked that Council remember that the residents are going through undue hardship. Bob Rush believed that the City has experienced reverse discrimination. He noted that he has 14 to 18 facilities on his street and 20 facilities within five blocks of his house, with most of them starting after 2004. He asked how he can file an anti- extension on the facilities. David Obaje, representing Newport Heights residents, stated that there are three adjacent Volume 58 - Page 339 City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes — Special Meeting December 11, 2007 properties that house 30 occupants. He believed that background checks should be conducted on the occupants. He reported that the owner of 3309 Clay Street transferred ownership, which violates the moratorium. Assistant City Manager Kiff indicated that Council took action in early October to take legal action against this owner and one other home. Robert Holly, Rosserman Real Estate, believed that the ordinance will prohibit them from making improvements to their building. Willis Longyear read an email from a friend who inspects rehabilitation businesses who believes that young adults are managing the facilities when the group home manager should be certified by the Orange County Sober Living Home Coalition. This would probably eliminate over 98% of the homes. Special Counsel Markman confirmed for Council Member Henn that the CUP requires that the facility have an operator who is certified by organizations listed in the ordinance. Laura Curran believed that the facilities should follow the parking regulations of the neighborhood they occupy and not count street parking. Further, that any application for a new use, such as a condominium, or six resident or under facility comply with the same parking regulations as someone building a new home or business. Joel Slonski took issue that the 1,000 foot separation is not included in the ordinance. Regarding speaker concerns, Special Counsel Markman explained why RWG cannot recommend the 1,000 foot separation, but the hearing officer could take one or two blocks into consideration. He noted the concern about which facility to eliminate if there were several in one block and the difficulty in setting a goal of how many beds to end up with after a certain amount of time. He pointed out that CEQA is already applied to the CUP process and more time will be added if the City wants to do a negative declaration and EIR, which means that the use will continue during that time. He reported that hearings will be noticed and open to the public, and the City will solicit information from impacted residents. He defined grandfathering and noted that the amortization wording has been in the City's ordinances for quite some time. He discussed the benefits of handling the facilities through the CUP process. In response to Council questions, Special Counsel Markman discussed possible timelines and believed that the recommended ordinance will produce the best and quickest results, and withstand the legal test. Michael Tidus clarified that they are requesting that City not restrict the hearing officer to a 1,000 foot separation, but allow the hearing officer to apply good planning principals. He recommended having the unlicensed facilities either certified by Orange County or become licensed, otherwise they have to be removed. Special Counsel Markman reported that certification is a requirement of the ordinance. He indicated that he can work with Mr. Tidus on a number for a default standard, as long as the hearing officer can deviate depending on the circumstance. However, using the word "block" in the overlay zone is not fair since the City's blocks are not all the same. He believed that these amendments would withstand the legal test and produce the results that the residents want. Council Member Henn suggested that the City look at what a standard block size is and determine a range of potential reasonable outcomes that would be defensible and Volume 58 - Page 340 City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes - Special Meeting December 11, 2007 rational, so that a default standard could also apply to non - standard areas. III. PUBLIC COMMENTS John Roth requested that the number of fire pits in Corona del Mar be reduced or eliminated. Council Member Gardner reported that there will soon be a meeting to discuss this issue but that the Coastal Commission is against doing this. IV. ADJOURNMENT - 6:35 p.m. The agenda for the Study Session was posted on December 5, 2007, at 3:55 p.m. on the City Hall Bulletin Board located outside of the City of Newport Beach Administration Building. The supplemental agenda for the Study Session was posted on December 7, 2007, at 2:20 p.m. on the City Hall Bulletin Board located outside of the City of Newport Beach Administration Building. Recor 'ng Secretary v Mayor t - 10 - &ZZ=L� City Clerk Volume 58 - Page 341