Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/22/2011 - Study Session�" City Council Minutes City Council Study Session November 22, 2011 — 3:30 p.m. I. ROLL CALL Present: Council Member Hill, Mayor Pro Tem Gardner, Mayor Henn, Council Member Selich, Council Member Curry, Council Member Daigle Excused: Council Member Rosansky Council Member Rosansky arrived at 3:35 p.m. II. CURRENT BUSINESS 1. CLARIFICATION OF ITEMS ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR. Council Member Hill noted that on Item 5, Program 2 (Funding Applications to the OCTA for Funding Under the Comprehensive Transportation Funding Program) deals with Newport Boulevard along the Lido Village area. Since the City Council is studying the area, he emphasized the importance of having this done in concert with the revitalization efforts. Mayor Pro Tem Gardner also suggested that any opportunity that arises for bike safety be kept in mind. Mayor Henn commented on Item 10 (Procurement of an Enterprise Content Management System) where four bids were received but there was no mention of the bid amounts. Assistant to the City Manager Houston noted the range was between $190,000 and $420,000, and the low bidder was selected. 2. OVERVIEW OF ZONING CODE CHAPTER 20.64 APPEAL PROCESS AND FEES. City Manager Kiff reported that Council requested that staff review the way items are called up either from Zoning Administrator decisions to the Planning Commission, or to the City Council from the Planning Commission. Deputy Community Development Director Wisneski provided a PowerPoint presentation to discuss the process, other jurisdiction fees, and next steps. She reported on the current appeal process and decision hierarchy, filing requirements, appeal fees, and results of a survey. She noted that Item 23 (Approval of Master Fee Schedule and Change In Subsidies) deals with the increase of appeal fees, among other fees. Mayor Pro Tem Gardner expressed concern with keeping the process fair and believed that the fees are high compared to other jurisdictions. She suggested making a distinction between residential and non - residential projects. Council Member Rosansky believed that the fees are too high and should be made comparable to other cities. Council Member Curry commented on the assumptions on which the fees are based and the time taken by staff to process an appeal. He referenced a previous fee recovery study Volume 60 - Page 290 City of Newport Beach City Council Study Session November 22, 2011 and indicated that the fee should be recalculated based on the actual time spent on preparing an appeal. He believed that the current fee is no longer appropriate for the service provided. Council Member Selich agreed with lowering the fees, commented on the process and number of appeals being conducted, and indicated that people are aware that contacting the City Council for appeals is an option. He did not agree with making a distinction between residential and non - residential projects. Mayor Henn indicated that he would be in favor of a fee reduction, as long as there is justification for the reduced fee. Regarding the process, he stated that he has turned residents down who have requested a no -fee appeal depending on whether the issue is a policy issue or a contentious issue for a large number of people. He suggested that any appeal that is brought forward on a no -fee basis require either two Planning Commissioners or two Council Members to agree to proceed. Council Member Hill emphasized that the issue is whether or not a project has merit. He stated that a screening mechanism could be created by having a lower fee. He indicated support for lowering the fee, as long as it continues to screen frivolous appeals, but expressed opposition to distinguishing between residential and non - residential projects. Regarding Mayor Henn's suggestion, he indicated that he would support the requirement of needing two Planning Commissioners or two Council Members to bring a no -fee appeal forward. Council Member Daigle voiced her support for having two Planning Commissioners or two Council Members agree to proceed with a no -fee appeal. Mayor Pro Tern Gardner also expressed support of the two - member rule. Council Member Selich expressed disagreement with the two- member rule. Council Member Rosansky also expressed opposition, stating his preference of seeing how lower the fee affects the number of appeals that come forward. Community Development Director Brandt noted that the City Council will be reviewing the master fee schedule at the regular agenda and that appeal fees will be under consideration, including a new appeal fee of the City Manager's approval /non - approval of a special event to the City Council, Further, appeal fees currently in place will be adjusted by the CPI. She suggested consideration of a 25% recovery fee for all appeals fees for consistency in the assumption. In response to City Council questions, Community Development Director Brandt addressed the Building and Fire Board of Appeals fee and reported that there has been only one appeal to date. She pointed out that the labor assumptions when first established included a 50% recovery. She indicated a desire to look carefully at the issue. Council Member Rosansky commented on the 25% recovery on special events and wondered whether those should be balanced. Jim Mosher commended the City Council for considering lowering the fees. He expressed concern over individual Planning Commissioners or Council Members calling items up for appeal. He believed that under the City Charter, Council Members must act collectively and do not have the power to act as individuals to waive fees for themselves or others. George Schroeder agreed that the fees are high and felt that there should be a distinction Volume 60 - Page 291 City of Newport Beach City Council Study Session November 22, 2011 between residential and non - residential projects. Discussion ensued regarding a recommended fee amount, the two - member rule, and distinguishing between non - residential and residential projects. It was the consensus of Council to consider the feasibility of having a $2,500 appeal fee, only requiring one Planning Commissioner or one Council Member able to call -up an appeal, and making no distinctions between residential and non - residential projects. 3. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT UPDATE AND RECOMMENDATIONS. Assistant City Manager Smith discussed the disbanding of the Economic Development Division and hiring of a consultant, Cindy Nelson, who has Economic Development experience. She reported that a three - pronged approach was developed which would improve the infrastructure and maintenance of the City's infrastructure to encourage private investments; improve permitting and customer service; and enhance business relationships. She addressed revitalization goals established by the City Council, commercial area investments, and Mariner's Mile revitalization efforts. Assistant City Manager Smith addressed the review and improvement of processes including establishing new businesses in the City, committing staff to help small businesses complete the permit process, and reviewing the business license process. She addressed enhancing relationships with the business sector, facilitating communication between the City and the various business sectors, and creating a formal way to create rapport. She referenced meetings with major sales tax providers and suggested setting opportunities to meet with major business sectors. In addition, she encouraged support of small businesses and Business Improvement Districts (BIDs). She proposed creating a BID Administrator who would help with agendas, noticing, and the managing of sub- contractors and ancillary contracts, in order to relieve the burden on the BIDS, to make them freer to carry on the work that is important in the communities. She reported that budget numbers are yet to be developed. Council Member Hill felt the City's focus on Economic Development is an extremely important activity and noted that the revitalization of non - performing areas in the City is a winning opportunity. He agreed that strong leadership in the area of centralizing the BID process is needed. He added that he would like to see attention paid to helping small businesses in the community, filling office spaces, and filling retail space with the same integrity and velocity as tourism, restaurants, and retail. Council Member Daigle congratulated the Community Development Department for winning the Orange County Business Council's Turning Red Tape to Red Carpet Award. She inquired about the activities that merited such an award. Community Development Director Brandt felt it was a reflection of the departments' attitude toward customer service and providing it at an excellent level. She addressed the City's qualified staff and found that 80% of plan reviews can be completed over the counter. In response to Council Member Daigle's inquiry, Assistant City Manager Smith addressed BIDs and noted that they market their businesses within the community. Council Member Curry emphasized that BIDs are groups of businesses who volunteered to work together and assess themselves for purposes of advancing the common good. They are only as effective as the number of businesses /people who stay active within the group. He asked if the establishment of a BID Administrator is something the BIDs have asked for. Mayor Pro Tem Gardner pointed out that she is the liaison to two BIDs and one of its Volume 60 - Page 292 City of Newport Beach City Council Study Session November 22, 2011 members has tried to create more synergy because of the many opportunities to work together. She felt the creation of a BID Administrator would serve to help create a consistent look in their marketing efforts and make them more effective. Council Member Selich stated the benefits of having a centralized BID Administrator, including centralizing the development of a website. Council Member Hill noted that when the Economic Development staff was disbanded, the main entities that complained were the BIDs. One of the commitments made was that as Council pursued identifying what the Economic Development model looked like for the City, that it would keep the BIDs as a high priority. Council Member Daigle felt that there are a lot of other businesses that would appreciate website assistance and believed that the City should also look at those businesses. Council Member Hill noted that those individual businesses have the option of organizing. Mayor Henn stated that he is in favor of staffs recommendations and added that it is important that the City do a better job in integrating and supporting all of the various parts of the City that are messaging to consumers or residents. He favored an integrated, strategic approach, and addressed the challenge of continuity faced by BIDs. He felt it would be helpful to have professional continuity. He indicated that he would like to find a way to rationalize funding for the BIDs and increase the funding so they can do more to help and benefit the areas they serve, especially in circumstances where there are funding sources associated with those areas. Scott Palme_, representing Business Improvement Districts, reported that there are about a thousand businesses within the City's BIDs that are assessed and many are covered by other types of communal marketing charges. He spoke positively about having a centralized representation for the BIDs and asked for more details about the BID Administrator. Jim Mosher expressed confusion regarding the BID Administrator since he was under the impression that the City pays Scott Palmer to perform those activities. He believed that the BIDs are supposed to be self - funding through their levies and that they represent only a small portion of the businesses in the City. He took exception with spending taxpayer money to fund the BIDs. Denys Oberman commended staff for the concept of having an integrated regional study relative to Mariner's Mile, noting it represents an area that is under - leveraged for the City and is a very challenging area. She requested additional information regarding the study, felt there is a high potential for an economic base, and recommended a concerted outreach to private developers. She suggested reaching out in a global level for some new ideas that could help the area. III. PUBLIC COMMENTS Jim Mosher addressed a change in the format of meetings for many City boards, commissions, and committees, especially as it relates to public comments. He believed that the public should be given the opportunity to comment on individual items, not just during the public comment section of a meeting. He expressed the opinion that the City Attorney should not make these types of decisions, but rather it should be made by the City Council. City Attorney Harp reported that Mr. Mosher brought to the attention of the City Attorney's office the fact that some of the board, commission, and committee agendas were not in compliance with Volume 60 - Page 293 City of Newport Beach City Council Study Session November 22, 2011 the Brown Act. To address his concerns, the City Attorney's Office developed a form which provides for a single public comment period. He emphasized that having a single comment period for agenda and non - agenda items is in compliance with the Brown Act. He added that after the form agenda was presented, Mr. Mosher complained that there should be two comment periods, so his office developed a second form agenda that has separate comment periods for agenda items and non - agenda items. He emphasized that it is up to the boards, commissions, and committees as to how they would like to operate their meetings and which agenda they prefer to use. Mayor Pro Tem Gardner reiterated that there is nothing to prevent any board, commission, and committee from opening public comments as they wish. Council Member Rosansky believed that the public should be allowed to comment on each agenda item. In response to Council Member Daigle's questions, City Attorney Harp reported that the biggest concern was that some of the board, commission, and committee agendas were not in compliance with the Brown Act. He reiterated that his office wanted to develop form agendas that do comply with the Brown Act, but if any board, commission, and committee wanted to have a different process for public comments, his office would assist in modifying the form accordingly. Following discussion, Council Member Rosansky indicated that he will be requesting a future staff report during the evening meeting to review this issue further. IV. ADJOURNMENT - 4:45 p.m. The agenda for the Regular Meeting was posted on November 17, 2011, at 4:25 p.m. on the City Hall Bulletin Board located outside of the City of Newport Beach Administration Building. 6&J9, Z km City Clerk �- C�Lytn. �C• TP D W � Recording Se etary Mayor Volume 60 - Page 294