Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01 - Minutes - 02-08-2005February 22, 2005 Agenda Item No. 1 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH City Council Minutes Study Session February 8, 2005 - 4:30 p.m. ROLL CALL INDEX Present: Heffernan (arrived at 4:39 p.m.), Rosansky, Webb, Ridgeway; Daigle, Nichols (arrived at 4:37 p.m.), Mayor Bromberg Absent: None CURRENT BUSINESS 1. CLARIFICATION OF ITEMS ON THE CONSENT CALENDARR, Council Member Nichols requested clarification regarding Item 5 (Balboa Village Steam Cleaning). General Services Director Niederhaus reported that this item is for a five year renewable contract for steam cleaning the Lithocrete sidewalks and sculptured roadways. He stated that this is an annual contract with a value of up to $136,000. He noted that they don't intend to spend that much money at this time, pointing out that they have allocated $100,000 in this fiscal year but have only spent $68,000. He stated that spending $136,000 equates to cleaning the sidewalks and roadways once a week, but they plan to have them cleaned in one to three week intervals (higher in the summer and lower in the winter). He reported that the reason for the delay is because they hoped that the City would be exempt from prevailing wages. However, it was determined that the contractor did have to pay prevailing wages, so they proceeded with the bid process. He reported that the contractor is presently paying between $8 and $9 per hour in prevailing wages to the two people who are doing the pressure washing and vacuuming of the debris; however, the new wage is about three times that amount and results in a $70,000 increase in the contract. Mr. Niederhaus clarified that they are paid prevailing wages because they are considered maintenance and street workers, unlike other categories that aren't subject to prevailing wages, like tree or landscape workers. 'Council Member Nichols stated that this is a lot of money for a small area and believed that this is an inefficient way to handle the paving. Regarding Item 4 (Junior Lifeguard Program Uniforms), Council Member Nichols noted that the cost of uniforms is going up and asked if this cost has been the same over the years. City Manager Bludau reported that they go out to bid every year and that, of the ten suppliers they contacted, they only received two bids. He stated that they are recommending the low bidder and noted that this is about $10.000 more than last year's bid. He added that the full cost of this will be picked up by the participants. Council Member Nichols noted that it costs about $400 to participate in the Junior Lifeguard program and suggested making sure the fee is not inhibiting participation. Council Member Ridgeway stated that scholarships are available. Regarding Item 8 (Sign Code Revisions), Council Member Heffernan asked if the uniform sign program applies in Newport Coast. Assistant City Manager Wood reported that there are two sign projects. She clarified that, at the Newport Coast Volume 57 - Page 53 City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes February 8, 2005 Advisory Committee (NCAC) meeting last night, she was talking about the wayfinding signage; however, Item 8 refers to the revision of the sign code which applies to private signs Citywide. 2. PLAN CHECK ISSUES IN BUILDING & PLANNING DEPARTMENTS. City Manager Bludau stated that he is not pleased to have to bring plan check issues to Council, but indicated that he and Council are contacted on occasion by contractors and architects about the amount of time it takes for plans to come out of plan check. He stated that staff is doing as much as they can and is working as hard as they can, but believed that the bottom line is that the City needs to look at some of its regulations because they are difficult and cumbersome ffor architects, builders, and plan checkers, and simplifying them would make life a lot easier for all customers. Building Director Elbettar utilized a PowerPoint presentation. reporting that the volume of construction activities has continued to grow steadily since the early 1990s and this year's projected valuation is about $200 million, which is 300% more than 1993. He noted that the dip in the construction valuation chart was due to September 11th and the peak in 1999 was due to the Bonita Canyon annexation. He confirmed that the City is not seeing as much commercial construction as in the past, adding that 80% of the 2onstruction activity is residential. with some commercial additions/re mode Is. Mr. Elbettar displayed a chart showing the number of plan checks submitted annually. He stated that the streamlining process began on July 1, 2002, in which the Building Department's goal was to complete the plan checks for 90% of the plans in four weeks or less. He reported that the key to meeting this goal was to have the plans reviewed concurrently by all the necessary departments, not successively. He indicated that this was possible by increasing the number of plans submitted from, in some cases, two to six, not count_ng re- submittals which can increase it to 18 plans since they also have to re- submit the old plans. He pointed out that, in 2004, the number of plans increased by about 1,000 which means they are dealing with 3,500 more plans to handle per year if you factor in the multiplier. He added that this complicates the Sling. and tracking of plans and, if the plans do not reach its destination, the reviewing department cannot conduct its review which results in a delay. Mr. Elbettar reported that the total valuation for December 2004 was $99 million and they are.already at $106 million. He displayed a chart which compares the number of plans required before and after the streamlining process occurred, and shows which departments would conduct the review. lie reiterated that, by increasing the number of plans required, they can be distributed to the different departments so reviews can be conducted concurrently. lie displayed a slide of the plan check process. Mr. Elbettar displayed photos of how the Building and Planning Departments are holding and filing plans. He reported that they switched from folding the plans to rolling them to try to expedite the lookup and search of the plans. He indicated that, when they issue a permit, the plans are scanned, digitized, and all permits are available for review via the computer in the Building Department or online. Volume 56 - Page 54 INDEX (100 -2005) City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes February 8, 2005 ►OM1 He noted that, because the number of plans have increased, the number of plans needing to be scanned has also increased. He reported that they recently started converting the historical data and are only on "D ". He believed that they have over 600,000 records to digitize and convert. He stated that this is being done using an outside consultant and anticipate that this will be completed in about three to four years. He reported that staff does the cataloging, sends the microfiche out, and enters the data in Alchemy when it comes back. He confirmed that the only thing staff does not do is convert the data since it requires expensive equipment. Mr. Elbettar noted that, with the annexation of Newport Coast in March 2003, it created additional burden to the process. He stated that the County has given the City over 1,600 files which have already been scanned, 63 tract records;-and 42 planning areas. He reported that they received eight boxes at the end of last month, noting that they did not receive anything from the County for about a year. He indicated that they expect this to continue every three weeks for the next two years until all the records are received. Mr. Elbettar reported that they received almost 1,000 files for the Santa Ana Height:Bay Knolls annexation which have already been scanned into Alchemy. He emphasized that these records are overwhelming their efforts because the records have to be organized. Mr. Elbettar stated that all these records impact the permit technicians' ability to assist customers at the counter because they sometimes spend hours searching for a plan that is misfiled due to the overwhelms number of plans. Regarding the second floor filing and scanning, he reported that the administrative staff is trying to cope with the workload which takes away from their normal duties. He stated that they feel the best solution is to have a person create and be responsible for a centralized filing system, train everyone involved in the process, and track each plan. He indicated that this person would be able to interact with the customers, let them know where the plans are, and retrieve the plans if needed. He reported that each department currently maintains its own system. He stated that Building tries to maintain a system and uses student aides to help. He believed that a full time position is needed to shepherd these plans through scanning, storage, and workflow. He noted that this will give them accountability and consistency. Mr. Elbettar reported that they worked with Human Resources and found that other cities have similar positions. Council Member Heffernan asked how the marketplace deals with this. Mr. Elbettar stated that they reviewed what the Cities of Huntington Beach, Irvine, Santa Ana, and Costa Mesa do and reported that Irvine and Santa Ana have positions that are in charge of this process. He indicated that Huntington Beach has huge bins with rolled and tagged plans, but they do not require the same number of plans. Further, Huntington Beach and Irvine deal a lot with tract developments which only entail rolls of different model plans, the model plans are reviewed, and production units are issued. He pointed out that Newport Beach issues custom permits for infill lots and demolished lots, and each project has its own plan. He stated that Newport Beach does not do any more tract houses. Council Member Heffernan indicated that he is hearing that this is more of a paper flow issue than anything else. Mr. Bludau stated that it is a paper Volume 56 - Page 55 City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes February 8, 2005 ui9'i management issue. He indicated that the City has tried to streamline the process to give faster turnaround for the first plan check; however, by doing this, the workload has been condensed which has required them to ask for more plans. He believed that Mr. Elbettar is talking about a plan coach that will manage the process, filing, and coordination. He noted that the Building Department's plan check meets the 90% return rate. He stated that he is reluctant to ask for more positions, noting that they have had difficulty filling some of the Building Department plan check positions. However, he expressed the opinion that the proposed position is essential in not losing plans. He pointed out that there are also storage problems which adds to the frustration and delay. In response to Council Member Rosansky's question, Mr. Elbettar reported that many cities do not meet the four week turnaround time or are not committed to it. He stated that some cities have a permit center where a representative froru each department is in the same location, and using the same bin and set of :p7aas. However, because of the City's backlog and physical location. they determined that they needed multiple sets. He indicated that there are many ways to address this but there are restrictions, i.e. space and backlog. He stated that they initially felt that this would be a challenge. but they wanted to test the program and then make adjustments; however, with the rise in construction activity, it overwhelmed them. Mr. Bludau clarified that the four week turnaround does not apply to commercial projects. Mr. Elbettar stated that large commercial projects take about six weeks, but they try to meet the four week deadline for most average sized commercial projects. Council Member Rosansky asked if it would be better to have all the departments in the same building to reduce. paper management. Mr. Elbettar believed that the ideal situation is to have everyone physically located in one area so everyone contributes to only one filing system; however, today, everyone is scattered which doesn't lend itself to that type of arrangement. Council Member Daigle asked how the different plans are reconciled in the end. Mr. Elbettar stated that the plans are currently filed by each department which takes time away from the technical staff. He believed that the proposed position, along with using student aides can do the filing for the departments. He explained that the plans are filed in the bin, the permit technician pulls the plans for the customer after the plan check is done or finds any misfiled plans, marries all the plans and correction reports, and files a copy of the correction reports in another folder. He emphasized that the challenge is when it comes back because, along with the original plans, new corrected plans will be brought in to redistribute to the other departments. Council Member Daigle asked if staff has considered doing online plans. Mr. Elbettar stated that online review represents a challenge because of the software and some technical difficulties associated with it. He indicatedthat sometimes they are mailed CDs which are mailed back after the corrections are made by the customer. He stated that they do online verification of plan check status and inspections, but sometimes the customer shows up prior to the permit technician being notified to marry the plans. Council Member Nichols asked if this means that there is no coordination between the departments getting the plans. Mr. Elbettar reported that they keep copies of the correction list either electronically or by hard copy so it is available for review. He noted that, if any department realizes there is an issue, they startt a dialogue via email or by visiting someone's office. He stated that they are cognizant of Volume 56 - Page 56 City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes February 8, 2005 INDEX overlaps, but it is their goal to make all corrections available electronically, not only to staff, but to the customer. He added that it is also their goal to link plans to the permit system so the customer has online access using their plan number. Mayor Pro Tem Webb asked what happens if General Services notices a significant tree where the customer wants to place the driveway and feels that the driveway needs to be moved, but the Building Department checked the building and left the driveway where it is. Mr. Elbettar stated that this is the drawback with using multiple sets. He indicated that General Services has delegated authority to Public Works, so they now can review not only the driveway location but can look at street trees. He stated that it was determined when they created the streamline system which authorities to delegate so multiple reviews are minimized. He noted that, in this example, Public Works would resolve the problem because they have the authority. Council Member Rosansky asked if the proposed position would need plan check experience or if it was more secretarial. Mr. Elbettar stated that Human Resources feels that the position should be at the Administrative Assistant level which makes about $35,000 to $49,000 a year, not counting benefits. He indicated that this position does not need technical knowledge because this person would probably be weaker in the filing and clerical areas if they did, plus he feels that staff has enough technical capability to assist this person.. Mr. Elbettar stated that, if Council approves this position, Building would eliminate a part time position or student aide position to offset some of the cost. He explained that a student aide does this now, but they come and go after they are trained which leaves no continuity. In response to Council Member Ridgeway's question, Mr. Elbettar believed that the City doesn't have to charge the applicant for the added position. He noted that they are revenue neutral. Planning Director Temple believed that the records specialist could benefit the Planning Department by allowing her technical staff to stay focused on their task. She added that they could also give the person routine chores that could provide a little variety, i.e. posting locations and delivering Planning Commission packets, which allows her staff to continue with their duties. Ms. Temple stated that the Planning Department's plan check issues are different than the Building Department's. She indicated that at least 90% of the complaints about the delay in plan checks is related to the Planning Department being behind. She noted that they were able to meet the 90% four week turnaround the first year; however, they are in constant failure of that the past year. She noted that Planning revisions normally require changes to the structural plans which then have to be rechecked by Building. She stated that this could cost the customer if they made their revisions without the structural plans and have to start all over. She emphasized that her staff tries very hard and has been putting in a lot of overtime the last two years to keep up with the four week goal. Ms. Temple reported that they are spending more time doing plan checks because they assumed plans would be internally consistent, and design professionals Volume 56 - Page 57 City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes February 8, 2005 INDEX would accurately and honestly convey site survey and building elevation information between architectural plans and building sections /elevations. She noted that they're also experiencing an increase in the number of office visits, client consultations, and phone calls. She added that they have been getting complaints because phone calls haven't been returned in 48 hours, so now they're also trying to return calls which takes them away from plan checking. She confirmed that they cannot accomplish the mission with the professionalism and level of accuracy Council expects. Ms. Temple noted that many procedural changes have occurred as a result of the Goetz incident and other problems related to internal inconsistencies and unequal application of the code. Ms. Temple reported that, in order to help them get back on an even keel, they are using staff that's supposed to be used for other purposes to plan check and they have retained a contract plan checker for 20 hours a week on a short -term basis. She noted that it is difficult to hire someone on a contract basis because the zoning codes vary from community to community. She reported that nearly half the department came in on Saturday, January 29 to conduct the plan checks from December 2004, stating that they completed 30 plan checks.. She indicated that they will conduct another Saturday plan check session on February 12. Ms. Temple reported that she spoke with the City Manager in September 2004 about the situation and indicated that she hesitates about adding more staff because she believed it should be dealt with in a uniform manner. She stated that the City Manager asked her what she needed if she didn't have any constraints, and she responded that, to solve this in the .long term for the Planning Department, the City may want to simplify the zoning code because it is complicated and difficult to understand for certain parts of the City. She believed that the only other solution would be to add staff. She reported that she has spoken to other Planning Directors in Orange County who are astounded about how many staff people are doing zoning compliance reviews. In response to Mayor Pro Tem WebVs question about whether the Local Coastal Plan (LCP) will complicate the zoning code interpretation, Ms. Temple believed that it won't because the extra workload will be handled by the staff that serves the Planning Commission and the Zoning Administrator, except to the extent that implementation of any of the policies in the LCP create new and additional regulations in which plans need to be reviewed for compliance, In response to Mayor Bromberg's questions, Ms. Temple stated that staff believes that zoning code reform will need to occur at some point because the zoning code has gotten difficult to administer equally and more people are sensing that it is inherently unfair. She indicated that she and Assistant City Manager Wood thought that this would be a natural outgrowth of the General Plan Update. She stated that, absent a program to evaluate the regulations, the only realistic option is to add more staff. She reported that there has not been a Council committee to meet with staff to review zoning code issues; however, when the zoning code reorganization and permit streamlining occurred in the late 1990s, there was a committee that consisted of the Economic Development Committee (EDC) and the Planning Commission. She stated that Planning is comfortable working with that, but suggested including design professionals who do a lot of work in the City. She reported that, after the review, they ended up with a lot of processing Volume 56 - Page 58 City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes February 8, 2005 INDEX streamlines since the City decided that many of the minor items could be dealt with by staff instead of going directly to the Planning Commission as long as they could be appealed to the Planning Commission and Council. She believed that this process has worked excellently. Council Member Ridgeway indicated that he was part of that process as a Commissioner and reported that the individuals that Ms. Temple suggested are perfect because Council deals more with policy. He believed that there are complexities, like property rights, in a zoning code overhaul, but expressed his support of moving forward with a zoning code modification. He stated that:.here are two issues before Council tonight — a short term solution which is to add staff and a long term solution which is to look at the zoning code. Ms. Temple reported that a lot of change will occur once they understand where the problems are, the range of solutions, and what will work best for the City. She emphasized that it is the system that they want to try to reform. Council Member Ridgeway indicated that this should not be left to the General Plan process. Ms. Temple clarified that they discussed this previously, but she and Assistant City Manager Wood have changed their opinions. She stated that, if there is a good working group, she believed that this process shouldn't take years and that there may even be paths of relief by the end of summer. Council Member Daigle expressed the opinion that this is a great idea. She stated that there are so many different areas in the City and having uniformity makes sense. She stated that she also supports Mr. Elbettar's idea for improving customer service and better utilizing staff resources since the City can get full cost recovery. Assistant City Manager Wood clarified that it is not their intent to suggest uniform zoning Citywide or to do anything to the Planned Community Text. She stated that Ms. Temple is talking about revisions to the conventional zoning in the older parts of town. In response to Council Member Rosansky's questions, Ms. Temple reported that, as of December 31, 2004, the plan check staff worked 300 hours of overtime which is paid time - and -a -half. She stated that they did not have the contract plan checker during that time, he started two weeks ago, he is still in training, and he will move simpler plan checks in and out of the office quickly. She noted that, of the 30 plans checked on Saturday, she did ten of them. Mr. Bludau emphasized that staff can only work so much overtime and they're still behind. Council Member Rosansky believed that it's not healthy to have that kind of overtime. Referencing the staff report, Ms. Temple stated that, in the first alternative, they would be coming back with a budget amendment to increase the professional services account to hire a consultant to embark upon a zoning code reform project and increase their ability to use contractors. She indicated that she would speak to the contract plan checker's principal to find out how long he thinks the contractor will want to keep the assignment. She stated that, if the contractor does not want to stay for long, they will seek appropriately trained people. However, she pointed out that doing zoning compliance plan checks is kind of a dead -end professionally. She indicated that they don't have a cost for the consultant but would prepare an outline of the scope and ask two or three Volume 56 - Page 59 City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes February 8, 2005 INDEX planning firms to submit something so they have an idea of how they would proceed. She stated that she doesn't want to hire someone, go through a zoning code reform, and then have to lay off the person. Council Member Rosansky noted that the City invests a lot of time bringing a contract planner up to speed. Ms. Temple noted that the Planning staff has plenty of other work that is not getting done, but emphasized that the purpose of this is not to bulk up staff in other areas. She stated that they're trying to address the short and long term problems. Mr. Bludau pointed out that City Hall also has a problem with where to put staff. Council Member Heffernan asked if there is a way to expedite this and do it in a calendar year. Ms. Temple stated that it depends on priority, funding, and the level of commitment from the decision makers to make the changes. Mr. Bludau believed that there are areas in the code that will be relatively simple to fix; however, there are some areas that will be a lot more difficult and controversial. Regarding priority, he stated that he feels this is the biggest priority in the organization in terms of not really serving the customers' needs. He acknowledged that time is money, especially in this community. Council Member Heffernan noted that all these plans have to go through the City and not any other city, and agreed that this deals with real money. He stated that, at some point, the City is going to need to fix this unless it's just going to build a huge City Hall for the Planning Department. Council Member Ridgeway stated that, of the $200 million project valuation, 80% is for residential projects. He believed that a majority of the design professionals in the City are residential architects. He suggested that staff bring back at the next meeting a staff report establishing an ad hoc committee consisting of Planning Commissioners and design professionals to make suggestions about a consultant, discuss how to move forward, and make suggestions about what the scope of the change should be. He believed that, with staf.' input, the information required can be moved rapidly. Council Member Nichols believed that this is very important because the City needs equality in how it looks at the zoning code. He stated that this has to be addressed so people feel they're getting the same answer no matter when they bring in their plans or who they talk to. Further, uniform handling needs to occur. Bill Angel stated that he is a designer that primarily does residential remodeling in the City_ He reported that he currently has nine projects in the Building Department and probably brings in about 20 to 30 plans a year. He stated that he is aware of the system and how it works and doesn't work. He indicated that staff generally has been very efficient and able to do their job effectively, but are just bogged down by the amount of work. He suggested that individuals like him who are in the Building Department two or three times a week meet with Building and Planning to brainstorm how staff can more effectively move this system through. Mr. Angel stated that he has projects in the Building Department for 55 sq. feet, one wall room additions, but they will sit for eight weeks before he receives a building permit. He reported that this would be done ove* the counter in about 45 minutes in almost any other city in the County. He believed that, for small projects, counter staff needs to be given more authority to make approvals and keep things moving. He added that this would relieve technical staff to work on Volume 56 - Page 60 City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes February 8, 2005 larger projects that have to be more thoroughly checked. further, he suggested not having as many extra sets of plans. Mr. Angel volunteered his time, at no cost to the City, to help unravel this. He stated that many others will volunteer also. Mayor Bromberg directed staff to bring back something to accommodate the Building and Planning Departments' needs. PUBLIC COMMENTS - None. ADJOURNMENT - at 6:00 p.m to Closed Session to meet with the City's labor negotiator. The agenda for the Study Session was posted on February 2, 2005, at 2:45 p.m. on the City Hall Bulletin Board located outside of the City of Newport Beach Administration Building. City Clerk Recording Secretary Mayor Volume 56 - Page 61 INDEX City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes February 8, 2005 INDEX THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK Volume 56 - Page 62 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH City Council Minutes OpAd Regular Meeting rr February 8, 2005 - 7:00 p.m. INDEX STUDY SESSION - 4:30 p.m CLOSED SESSION - 6:00 p.m A. RECESSED AND RECONVENED AT 7:00 P.M. FOR REGULAR MEETING B. ROLL CALL Present: Heffernan, Rosansky, Webb, Ridgeway, Daigle, Nichols, Mayor Bromberg Absent: None C. CLOSED SESSION REPORT - None D. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Council Member Daigle E. INVOCATION - Pastor Chris Lagerlof, Mariners Church F. PRESENTATIONS Presentation by the Corona del Mar High School Tsunami Relief Fund Committee. Zan Marigoles stated that a coalition of student leaders at Corona del Mar High School are coordinating a tsunami relief benefit that will be held on March 6, 2005, from 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. at Corona del Mar High School. Ryan Ratfield announced that they are seeking the support of high school bands and are also in need of a public address system. Amanda Knuppel noted that funds will be received through the sale of tickets for the event, as well as the sale of tsunami relief wristbands that are for available for purchase. Ms. Marigoles stated that anyone interested in helping with the event or providing funds can contact Denise Weiland. Corona del Mar High School Community Services Director, at 949 - 515 -6000. Checks should be made out to the Associated Student Body (ASB) of Corona del Mar High School and a notation made that the donation is for the tsunami relief fund. Presentation by the American Cancer Society Relay for Life. Anna Lisa Biason, Chair of the Newport Beach Relay for Life, introduced David Schapira, American Cancer Society staff partner, and acknowledged Mayor Bromberg and City Manager Bludau who are serving on the Newport Beach Relay for Life committee. Mr. Schapira stated that the money that is raised at the Relay for Life event will be used for the society's four major components, which are research, education, advocacy and service. He stated that information about the American Cancer Society can be obtained on their website at www.cancenore or by calling 800- ACS -2345. Information on the Newport Beach Relay for Life can be obtained at www.acsevente .ore /relay /ca /newuortbeach. Ms. Biason announced that this Volume 57 - Page 63 City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes February 8, 2005 INDEX year's event will be held from 6:00 p.m. on May 13th to 6:00 p.m. on May 14th. A kickoff rally will take place on February 27, 2005, from 3:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. at the Newport Rib Company in Costa Mesa, and a fundraising event, entitled Cruise for a Cure. will take place on the yacht Endeavor on March 6, 2005, from 2:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. Additional information on both events can be obtained by contacting Mr. Schapira at 949- 567 -0635. G. NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC H. CITY COUNCIL ANNOUNCEMENTS OR MATTERS WHICH COUNCIL MEMBERS WOULD LIKE PLACED ON A FUTURE AGENDA FOR DISCUSSION, ACTION OR REPORT (NON- DISCUSSION ITEM): • Mayor Bromberg announced that the 18t Battalion, 18t Marines are on their way to Iraq. The wives and families are going to have an Easter egg hunt at Camp Pendleton and are looking for gift certificates to raffle off at the event. Mayor Bromberg stated that anyone that would like to provide a gift certificate or a check can send it to him ar, City Hall and he will deliver it as a part of the Newport Beach 1/1 Marine Adoption. I. CONSENT CALENDAR READING OF MINUTESJORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS 1. Item removed from the Consent Calendar by a member of the audience. 2. READING OF ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS. Waive reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions under consideration, and direct City Clerk to read by title only. CONTRACTS AND AGREEMENTS 3. LEASE AGREEMENT FOR MANAGEMENT OF BEACON BAY C -3751 COMMON AREAS WITH BEACON BAY COMMUNITY Beacon Bay ASSOCIATION. Approve the lease agreement. (38/100 -2005) 4. PURCHASE OF 2005 JUNIOR LIFEGUARD PROGRAM C -3752 UNIFORMS. Award the 2005 City of Newport Beach Junior Lifeguard Junior Lifeguard Program uniform contract to Generic Youth or the total cost of Uniforms $141,432.65 (including tax). (38/100 -2005) 5. AWARD OF BALBOA VILLAGE STEAM CLEANING CONTRACT. C -3753 Approve a five year maintenance contract with RecoverX Industries to Balboa Village provide steam cleaning services in the Balboa Village area at an annual Steam Cleaning cost of up to $136,203. (38 /100 -2005) 6. CITYWIDE TOPOGRAPHY — APPROVAL OF PROFESSIONAL C -3754 SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH MERRICK & COMPANY. Item Topography continued. (38 /100 -2005) 7. Item removed from the Consent Calendar by a member of the audience. Volume 57 - Page 64 City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes February 8, 2005 INDEX S. Item removed from the Consent Calendar by Council Member Nichols. 9. APPROVAL OF CONTRACT WITH COMPUTER DEDUCTIONS, C- 3692(A) INC. FOR THE ORANGE COUNTY INTEGRATED LAW AND Orange County JUSTICE PROJECT. 1) Approve the contract with Computer Integrated Law Deductions Incorporated (CDI) in the amount of $54,236 from COPS and Justice Technology 2002 Grant Account #7017 -C 1820747 to improve and enhance Project the Orange County Integrated Law and Justice (OCILJ) Automated (38/100 -2005) Subpoena Processing Application; and 2) authorize the City Manager to sign the contract with CDI. 10. APPROVAL OF CONTRACT WITH DELOITTE CONSULTING FOR C- 3692(B) THE ORANGE COUNTY INTEGRATED LAW AND JUSTICE Orange County PROJECT. 1) Approve the contract with Deloitte Consulting in the Integrated Law amount of $220,000 from the ILJ UASI Grant Funds Account #7017- and Justice C1820802 for implementation services in connection with the Orange Project County Integrated Law and Justice (OCILJ) Records Management/Case (38/100 -2005) Management data - sharing project previously approved by Council on January 11, 2005; and 2) authorize the City Manager to sign the contract with Deloitte Consulting. MISCELLANEOUS ACTIONS 11. APPOINTMENT OF COUNCIL MEMBER DAIGLE AS THE (100 -2005) ALTERNATE MEMBER ON THE ORANGE COUNTY COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS (OCCOG) AND THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS (SCAG). Confirm the appointment of Council Member Leslie Daigle as the alternate member on the Orange County Council of Governments (OCCOG) and the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). 12. Item removed from the Consent Calendar by Council Member Nichols. Motion by Mavor Pro Tern Webb to approve the Consent Calendar, except for those items removed (1, 7, 8 and 12); and noting the continuation of Item No. 6. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Heffernan, Rosansky, Webb, Ridgeway, Daigle, Nichols, Mayor Bromberg Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: None J. PUBLIC HEARINGS 13. MEDICAL AND DENTAL OFFICE PARKING — CODE (100 -2005) AMENDMENT NO. 2004 -001 (PA2004 -007) — CODE AMENDMENT TO INCREASE THE NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES REQUIRED FOR MEDICAL AND DENTAL OFFICE USES FROM 1 PER EACH Volume 57 - Page 65 City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes February 8, 2005 INDEX 250 GROSS SQUARE FEET TO 1 PER EACH 200 GROSS SQUARE FEET (contd. from 1125105). Planning Director Temple stated that the Planning Commission reviewed the City's medical and dental office parking requirements and are recommending that the rate be increased from four spaces per 1,000 square feet to five spaces per 1,000 square feet. She added that staff is making a second recommendation to allow projects that are currently in plan check to proceed under the old rules, as well as any discretionary applications received and deemed complete prior to the adoption of the ordinance. This second recommendation is included in the staff report as Alternate B. In response to Mayor Bromberg's question, Planning Director Temple stated that there is one such project in the Santa Ana Heights area. In response to Council Member Nichols' question, Planning Director Temple stated that the current parking requirement is one parking space for every 250 square feet of gross floor area or four per 1,000 square feet. Referring to the staff report, Council Member Heffernan asked how the project that is in process and is "struggling to meet the current 1/250 parking requirement' will be able to meet the City's requirements. Planning Director Temple stated that they are looking at a variety of approaches. In response to Council Member Heffernan's additional question, Planning Director Temple stated that t.-ie current requirement for general office is four per 1,000 net floor area and for medical is four per 1,000 gross floor area. Council Member Daigle asked how long the existing standards have been in place. Planning Director Temple stated that the commercial parking requirements were first enacted in the late 1940'x, and she was unaware of any amendments. Council Member Nichols asked how gross and net generally correspond. Planning Director Temple stated that it varies from project to project, but is usually a five to ten percent differential. Mayor Bromberg opened the public hearing. Carol Hoffman, Government Solutions, expressed her support for the proposed ordinance and, specifically, Alternate B. She stated that, overall; the City is headed in the right direction and that Alternate B is equitable. Hearing no further testimony, Mayor Bromberg closed the public hearing. Council Member Daigle expressed her support for Alternate B, but stated that the project in process should be required to comply with the existing requirements. Motion by Council Member Daigle to introduce Ordinance No. 2005 -1 (.9lternate B) amending the medical and dental office parking requirement . and pass to second reading on February 22, 2005. Volume 57 - Page 66 City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes February 8, 2005 The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Heffernan, Rosansky, Webb, Ridgeway, Daigle, Nichols, Mayor Bromberg Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: None 14. CIRCLE RESIDENCE - 3415 OCEAN BOULEVARD - VARIANCE NO. 2003 -001 AND MODIFICATION PERMIT NO. 2003 -004 (PA2003 -006). Associate Planner Ramirez stated that the proposed amendment is to a previously- approved, and still valid, variance to exceed the height limit and a modification permit for a subterranean portion of the proposed residence to encroach ten feet into the ten -foot front yard setback. The existing approval allows for a four - level, 6,100- square foot residence with a roof deck that exceeds the height limit on the bluff side and portions of three subterranean floors that encroach ten feet into the ten -foot front yard setback. The applicant's proposal is for a three- level, 4,873- square foot residence with no roof deck, also exceeding the height limit on the bluff side of the property. The application also requests approval for a portion of one floor to encroach ten feet into the required ten -foot front yard setback. Associate Planner Ramirez stated that both the existing approval and the proposed plan do not exceed the Ocean Boulevard top of curb height limit. The Planning Commission reviewed the project and believed that the findings for approval could be made, and approved the project as requested with two modifications. These modifications included that the depth of the first floor deck, which is within the height limit, had to be reduced by two feet and the depth of the second floor deck, which exceeds the height limit, had to be reduced by four feet. In regard to the stringline concept, Associate Planner Ramirez clarified that the City currently does not have any regulations that limit development based on structure location of adjoining properties. The Coastal Commission has been known to use the stringhne concept as an analytical tool, but they also do not have any written regulations, guidelines or policies on the concept. Mayor Bromberg confirmed with Associate Planner Ramirez that the application involves a height variance and that the City does have a policy addressing height variances. Additionally, Mayor Bromberg confirmed that the residence next door, the Halfacre residence, also had a variance approved for height. Mayor Bromberg asked how the Circle application comports with the proposed Local Coastal Plan (LCP) provision that has been submitted to the Coastal Commission for review. Planning Director Temple stated that the City has a tentative policy addressing development on bluffs and the terminology refers to a limitation based on the predominant line of development. She stated that staff is considering several alternatives but currently, the language is relatively vague and there is no precise implementation proposal. Council Member Nichols stated that if the City's proposal before the Volume 57 - Page 67 INDEX (100 -2005) City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes February 8, 2005 INDEX Coastal Commission is to follow the stringline concept, the City should be adhering to the policy in the interim, as a show of good faith. Planning Director Temple stated that the City does not use the term "stringline ". Council Member Nichols stated that whether it is called stringline or not. it has been the determining factor on bluff development. Referring to the drawings in the staff report, Mayor Pro Tem Webb stated that it appears that the Tabak residence is above the 24 -foot height limit. He asked if it required a variance. Planning Director Temple confirmed that other residences on Ocean Boulevard, including the Halfacre residence, have had variances approved for height. Planning Director Temple added that variances have also been approved for development above the Ocean Boulevard top of curb height limit.. Associate Planner Ramirez displayed several photos from various angles of the Circle residence and the surrounding residences. Assistant City Manager Wood noted that the photos are of the existing homes, and not what have been approved for Tabak or Halfacre. In response to Council Member Nichols' question. Associate Planner Ramirez stated that, without the decks, the proposed Circle residence would line up fairly well with the existing homes. Council Member Daigle asked what staffs perspective is on the proposed development and how it differs from the existing variance. Associate Planner Ramirez displayed the proposed plans and noted various features. He stated the line of sight from Ocean Boulevard would be similar for both plans, but that the existing plans include a rooftop deck and the features on it could possibly cause distractions. Associate Planner Ramirez displayed a photo with a line added to it that represented the furthest extent of the applicant's deck, as originally submitted. Council Member Heffernan referred to the aerial photos of the residences shown earlier and confirmed that the proposed development would extend out nine feet beyond current development. He stated that there are no rules and asked what the Planning Commission used. Associate Planner Ramirez stated that the Planning Commission used the current development regulations and the required findings for a variance, as well as their discretion when looking at the project as a whole. Council Member Heffernan expressed his dissatisfaction that there are no rules. Mayor Bromberg asked if the City Council upheld the decision of the Planning Commission at the current meeting and at some point in the future, someone wanted to redevelop the Butterfield residence, for example, and extend it out further than the Circle residence, would they be allowed to do so. Associate Planner Ramirez stated that it would be allowed under the existing regulations, as long as the proposed development did not exceed the height limit. 1-le noted that Coastal Commission approval would also be needed, but. that bluff encroachments do not require approval from the City. Mayor Bromberg additionally confirmed that if the hypothetical development did exceed the height Volume 57 - Page 68 City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes February 8, 2005 INDEX limit, the applicant would need to apply for a variance through the Planning Commission. In regard to Council Member Heffernan's previous comments, Assistant City Manager Wood stated that even with set standards, there will always be the opportunity for an applicant to apply for some type of relief. These appeals are left to the judgment of the decision - making bodies to determine if the circumstances support the findings necessary to grant a variance. She stated that rules cannot be written that will apply properly to every individual case. Assistant City Manager Wood added that the variance being requested by the Circles is not for the extension of the deck, but for the height of the development. Council Member Ridgeway stated that it is important to keep the required findings in mind. He referred to Section 20.91.035(B) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code (NBMC) and listed the four components of the findings that have to be made. He stated that equity is also a factor. Council Member Rosansky confirmed that the Planning Commission required that the depth of the second level deck be reduced by approximately four feet. Associate Planner Ramirez explained that the Planning Commission felt that it was prudent to move the second level deck back so that it was in line with the other properties. Council Member Nichols stated that under current City regulations, residences can be built all the way down the bluff. It's the Coastal Commission that enforces the stringline concept and doesn't allow this to happen. He stated that the Tabak residence had modifications approved, after the fact. Council Member Ridgeway clarified that the Coastal Commission will not allow a bluff residence to be built below 33 feet above mean high tide. Council Member Daigle agreed that the issue is complex and that one of the functions of the Planning Commission is to sort through such complexities and technicalities. In response to her question, Associate Planner Ramirez stated that there is less bluff alteration with the proposed plan than with the previously- approved plan. At the request of Mayor Pro Tem Webb, Associate Planner Ramirez displayed the proposed plans again. Mayor Pro Tem Webb confirmed that the second level deck is approximately 2'L feet beyond the 40 -foot property line. Mayor Bromberg opened the public hearing. Tom Allen, representing the appellants, Mr. & Ms. Butterfield, stated that the main concern of the Butterfields is that their down coast view will be impaired by approximately 20 degrees by the proposed development. He stated that there is also an invasion of privacy issue. Mr. Allen displayed photos and drawings to illustrate his points. He stated that currently all of the residents on the bluff have a 180- degree peripheral view, and that the side view is the valuable view. Volume 57 - Page 69 City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes February 8, 2005 INDEX Mayor Bromberg reminded Mr. Allen that it is not the policy of the City to protect private views. Mr. Allen expressed his understanding of this. He referred to the illustrations on display and stated that the five homes in the immediate vicinity of the Circle's residence have a predominant line of development. The proposed development alters this predominant line of development and violates the proposal submitted by the City to the Coastal Commission. He stated that the Coastal Commission uses the stringline concept and it works well. Mr. Allen stated that ultimately, the City will most likely establish one line for building development and one line for decks. Bryan Fletcher, architect, speaking on behalf of the Butterfields, displayed an aerial photo and graphics, and stated that for approximately fifty years, the residents in the immediate area have lived in harmony and consistently observed a predominate line of development. He stated that the proposed structure severely alters the existing bluff top massing. Mr. Fletcher displayed additional illustrations showing the existing building and deck lines, the proposed development lines and the affected sight lines, and stated that the proposed development would block most direct views from the Butterfield residence to the south and southeast. Mr. Fletcher stated that the proposed development can be redesigned to successfully address both the demands of the site and the neighborhood. He noted that the Butterfields went to great effort to make sure that their residence was responsibly designed without the need for special approvals and did not negatively impact any of their neighbors. Sherman Stacey, lawyer, speaking on behalf of the Circles, stated that over 30 years ago. the residences built in the area were approximately 2500 square feet. At today's prices, new owners desire to redevelop with substantially greater homes. He stated that this is a natural result of property values increasing. Mr. Stacey stated that he represented the Halfacres when their proposed development went before the Coastal Commission. He reported that the Coastal Commission approved their request, and he read from the findings that were made. He specifically noted that the Coastal Commission did not use the stringline method. Additionally, Mr. Stacey noted that the issue before the City Council is not the extent of the development, but the height variance and the front yard setback. He also pointed out that the predominant line of development is changing and, except for the Butterfields, the homeowners in the area recognize this. He acknowledged that the But:erfield's view will be affected. In closing, Mr. Stacey stated that there are alternatives to using the stringline method, such as the topographical boundary- used by the Coastal Commission. which respects the shape of the bluff and treats everyone with some form of equity. Mayor Bromberg asked Mr. Stacey if he felt ':hat the development approved by the Planning Commission would result in a privacy- issue for the Butterfields. Mr. Stacey responded in the negative. Mayor Bromberg asked if there would be a privacy issue if the variance were not approved. Mayor Bromberg stated that he asks the questions because if there is not a privacy issue without the variance, the findings for not granting the variance could possibly be made. Volume 57 - Page 70 City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes February 8, 2005 INDEX Council Member Heffernan stated that he understood that the Tabak residence was partly approved because it tucked into the corner of the slope and didn't impair any views, yet it became the new development standard for the Coastal Commission. He stated that with the expense of the properties in the area, each new homeowner will desire to extend their residence out further to create a dominant view and that there will be no limit as to how far out they can go because the City doesn't have any rules. In disagreement with previous comments, he stated that it is a privacy issue. Mr. Stacey stated that the City could develop policies to prevent this from happening, as he mentioned earlier. City Attorney Clauson stated that it is up to the City Council to look at the findings and the various factors, and determine if the factors provide substantial evidence to make a finding to support the variance. Council Member Heffernan pointed out that if there wasn't a variance, there wouldn't be an offending obstruction. Brion Jeannette, architect for the Circle residence, responded to Mayor Bromberg's earlier question by stating that the variance is for the second level and if that deck were removed, there would be no privacy issue on that level. He stated, however, that the issue is the first level deck, which is currently six feet from the Butterfield deck. Mr. Jeannette stated that with his design, the decks will be substantially further from one another, with the point of the Circle's deck that extends out the farthest being 40 feet from the Butterfield property, due to the arching character of the deck design. In regard to the possibility of a rooftop deck being constructed in the future, Mr. Jeannette stated that an additional variance would be required, but noted that there is no intent by the Circles to do this. Mr. Jeannette stated another important issue is that the Butterfields previously extended their deck further than the residences on either side of them. He also noted that they have a screen on the end of their deck, which also affects the Circle's view. Mr. Jeannette displayed photos of the Circle's residence and the surrounding neighborhood, taken at various angles. He pointed out the neighbors in support of the Circle's proposed development and the pattern of development in the area. He also displayed the plans for the proposed development, noted several features and aspects of the design, and pointed out the differences between the original proposal and the development approved by the Planning Commission. Mr. Jeannette displayed several additional drawings, which also illustrated various heights and lines of the proposed development. Lastly, he displayed a photo that was in the Daily Pilot of Ms. Butterfield on the deck of her home and pointed out how her views would be affected, which differed from the depiction given by the Butterfields and the story poles that they had erected. Council Member Nichols agreed that the proposed development doesn't destroy the bluff, but stated that if the stringline method is used, it should be from the building area and not the deck area. Council Member Nichols received a clarification from Mr. Jeannette on the location and depths of the decks, and their relationship to the other residences in the area. In response to Mayor Bromberg's question, Mr. Jeannette explained how the story poles are deceiving, although their depth may be accurate. By Volume 57 - Page 71 City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes February 8, 2005 INDEX placing his hand against the side of his face and then moving it away, he illustrated how an obstruction's impact on peripheral view is diminished as the distance increases. Council Member Daigle asked how the slope and topography of the property drives the design of the development. Mr. Jeannette stated that 80 of the 120 feet of depth on the property is rear yard setback, so the development is set to retreat up the bluff. In response to Mayor Pro Tem Webb's follow -up question, Mr. Jeannette clarified that the City's required rear yard setback is ten feet. Mr. Jeannette stated that he couldn't answer a hypothetical question by Council Member Nichols on how the Circles would react if the Butterfields decided to build farther out. Mayor Pro Tem Webb clarified that the 40 -foot line spoken of earlier is the line that is parallel to the front property line and 40 feet out towards the ocean. Additionally, he confirmed with Mr. Jeannette that the proposed development extends 42% feet from the property line. Mayor Pro Tem Webb asked Mr. Jeannette if the depth of the Circle's second level deck were reduced by 2' /i feet, if it would impair their enjoyment of that deck. Mr. Jeannette responded in the negative. Robert Walchh stated that the public views on Ocean Boulevard must be protected and it is the responsibility of the City to uphold the rights of the public. Mr. Walchli displayed a drawing illustrating how the public's view will be impacted by the proposed development, and noted that one million residents and visitors from around the world use Ocean Boulevard each year. Mr. Walchli stated that the stringline method and the curb height requirement were designed primarily for the homes farther down the bluff which are built right nest to the sidewalk. Additionally, Mr. Walchli stated that the resident's view across the street from the Circle's should also be considered. Mr. Walchli requested that the City deny the variance and consider an ordinance that restricts development on the bluff side of Ocean Boulevard to one story above grade. Bill Cote, real estate broker and appraiser, speaking on behalf of the Butterfields, stated that allowing a deck to go out beyond the But.terfield's deck is an encroachment on the Butterfields and anyone else that may own the property in the future. He stated that not only is there a privacy issue, there is also a diminution in value issue. He stated that the property rights of the Butterfields is as significant as the property rights of the Circles. Mr. Cote' stated that the Circles should be required to redesign their home to stay within the existing stringline. Council Member Nichols stated that the City bas adopted the stringline concept in the LCP submitted to the State. He asked Mr. Cote' what message the City is sending by not complying with the concept while it's being reviewed by the Coastal Commission. Mr. Cote stated that not complying with it now will have an impact later. He added that there should be rules to address the issues. Volume 57 - Page 72 City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes February 8, 2005 INDEX Don Kazarian agreed that some rules are needed for the area. He stated that there was a promise by the homeowner at the time that the rooftop deck was approved, the Ensign's, not to put anything on it that exceeded curb height. He objected to how the approved development and the proposed development were compared earlier. Lastly, Mr. Kazarian stated that he is neutral on the subject and not in favor of it as indicated earlier by Mr. Jeannette. Mayor Pro Tem Webb asked Mr. Kazarian how he would compare the approved design with the proposed design. Mr. Kazarian stated that it's difficult to get a true idea of what's happening. Mayor Bromberg reminded everyone that the City does have rules, and noted that the rule in this situation is the height limitation. He stated that the bigger issue for him is the degradation of the bluffs, and that this is being addressed in the LCP. Steve Krom asked if the deck exceeds the height limit. Assistant City Manager Wood stated that the second level deck exceeds the height limit, but by less than it did after the Planning Commission's requirement that the depth be reduced. Associate Planner Ramirez stated that it exceeded the height limit by approximately 9'/ feet prior to the depth reduction. Council Member Rosansky asked what the angle of the slope is on the property. Associate Planner Ramirez guessed that it's probably close to 2:1, and clarified that it's two out and one down. Mr. Jeannette responded to the earlier question by Mr. Krom by stating that the top of the handrail on the second level deck, as approved by the Planning Commission, exceeds the 24 -foot height limit by approximately six inches at the center point, and probably varies from zero to twelve inches across the deck. The actual structure exceeds the height limit by three to five feet, based on the natural grade and not the existing grade. Mr. Krom stated that six inches is not a major issue to him and it appears that the view corridor is being maintained. Council Member Nichols pointed out that the City has determined the grade line that will be used. Mr. Krom stated that his only concern is that the house be in compliance with the grade that has been established. George McNamee stated that everyone on the bluff, except the Butterfields, support the proposed property. He noted that the Butterfield's home is the prettiest home in the area and the proposed residence will also improve the area. Pam Whitesides stated that there is a public view issue, not only from Ocean Boulevard, but also from the beach and Inspiration Point. Additionally, she stated that when the development was previously approved, it was conditioned on the Ensigns not building out beyond the stringline. Dr. Elmer Drews stated that if the Butterfields would have had the Volume 57 - Page 73 City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes February 8, 2005 INDEX opportunity to build a bigger home, they would have but instead they followed the existing rules. He expressed his opposition to granting the variance, because it would harm the Butterfields and those that enjoy the views from Ocean Boulevard, Sharlee McNamee stated that when the City get=. involved with decisions that a property owner might make in order to utilize his property to his full advantage, it infringes on the very concept of property rights. She stated that an individual who owns property should be able to use and dispose of it as they see fit. Ms. McNamee stated that Ms. Butterfield has insisted in several instances that she have the ability to declare her rights. Ms. McNamee agreed with this, but stated that no one has the right to say that others must provide them with an unobstructed view. Doug Circle, owner of the subject property, stated that he and his wife are seeking a fact -based decision from the City Council. at the current meeting. He stated that he has learned much about the process, and has tried to accommodate the Butterfield's privacy with the design of the home. Mr. Circle stated that the two variances being : .-equested were already approved in the Ensign plan, and the new plan encroaches less into the bluff, which he thought would be an important aspect to the plans. He asked the City Council to uphold the decision of the Planning Commission. Rick Julian expressed his concern for the Butterfield's petition and the deception that may have been caused by the story poles the Butterfield's had erected. Lynn Butterfield stated that the bluff has r>mained in a similar configuration since the 1950's. In 1976, the Coastal Commission took over, but it was the City that controlled development prior to that. Ms. Butterfield stated that the Ensign's plans went down and not out. Additionally, she stated that the stringline methoe.. is supposed to use the nearest adjacent corner of structure, which is not what the Circle's are using. She acknowledged that the Circle's plans may be for a smaller structure, but stated that they are encroaching where no one else has encroached before. She stated that the Tabak's and Halfacre's plans are also for development down the bluff. Hearing no further testimony, Mayor Bromberg closed the public hearing. Mayor Bromberg recessed the meeting at 9:48 p.m and reconvened the meeting at 10:07 p.m. with all council members present. City Attorney Clausen stated that the options before the City Council at the current meeting include modifying the dec:sion of the Planning Commission, referring the application back to the Planning Commission with instructions on what they should review, or denying the appeal and, therefore, upholding the decision of the Planning Commission. She added that a fourth option would be to deny the variance, which would require that findings be made to support the denial. Council Member Nichols stated that he did not support the Ensign plans because they did not preserve the bluff in a proper fashion. The plans Volume 57 - Page 74 City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes February 8, 2005 INDEX were eventually approved. In regard to the Tabak plans, Council Member Nichols stated that he supported granting an additional two feet to allow for a room behind the garage, but that it was denied because it extended the structure out beyond the stringline. Council Member Nichols stated that with the Circle's plans, the stringline is not being enforced. He expressed his opposition to this. Council Member Daigle stated that when acting in the public's interests, she is looking at two things. These include preservation of the bluffs, which she felt was being accomplished with the Circle plans, and more so than it did with the Ensign plans. Secondly, she stated that she is also considering public views, which she also felt was being protected more so with the Circle's plans. She stated that she supports upholding the decision of the Planning Commission. Mayor Pro Tem Webb also agreed that the new plans are far superior than the previously- approved plans, and that the character of the building has been improved significantly. He stated, however, that it appears that the predominant building line is 40 feet out from the property line, and felt that this line should be preserved for the parts of the structure that are above the height limit. Mayor Pro Tem Webb stated that the second level deck is 2',4 feet out beyond the 40 -foot line and if it were pulled back, there would still be eight to nine feet of deck. Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Webb to uphold the decision of the Planning Commission to approve Amendment No. 1 to the applications to allow portions of a new single - family residence to exceed the 24 -foot height limit and allow a subterranean portion of the residence to encroach 10 feet into the required 10 -foot front yard setback, as modified to increase the setback of the upper level deck to the 40 -foot predominant building line. Council Member Ridgeway stated that the rules for a variance are in place, and he is satisfied that the findings to grant the variance can be made. He stated that the proposed deck on the first level will not obstruct the Butterfield's view of Inspiration Point and there is no diminution in value. He added that the screen that the Butterfields have installed on their deck is inappropriate. Additionally, he felt that the integrity of the LCP is being maintained. Referring to the motion made by Mayor Pro Tem Webb, Council Member Ridgeway stated that the second level deck is not in question and does not impact the Butterfields at all. He stated that the issue is not the height of the structure, it's the extension of the first level deck. Substitute motion by Council Member Ridgeway to uphold the decision of the Planning Commission to approve Amendment No. 1 to the applications to allow portions of a new single - family residence to exceed the 24 -foot height limit and allow a subterranean portion of the residence to encroach 10 feet into the required 10 -foot front yard setback. Council Member Rosansky stated that it's unfortunate that there's not better guidance in the planning and zoning codes, and he regrets that prior City Council's have not addressed this. Council Member Rosansky expressed his support for Mayor Pro Tem Webb's motion. Volume 57 - Page 75 City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes February 8, 2005 INDEX Council Member Heffernan stated that the rules are in place and the limit is 24 feet from existing slope. He stated that it seems that anybody can get a variance. He stated that the rules should either be changed or upheld, and that he can't support either motion. Substitute - substitute motion by Council Member Heffernan to deny the variance and establish rules that will not be disregarded. The motion died for lack of a second. Mayor Bromberg stated that the issue is about property rights, which includes a balance with the neighbors and the environment. In listening to all of the comments throughout the current meeting, Mayor Bromberg stated that he changed his opinion several times. In response to some of them, he stated that the public views from Ocean Boulevard will not be impacted with the proposed development. He explained that the current home is quite a bit lower, but the proposed plains are not significantly different than the previously- approved plans. He expressed his confidence in the Coastal Commission enforcing any violatiDns of the Coastal Act. Mayor Bromberg stated that Mayor Pro Tem WebU s motion is interesting, but he. wasn't sure if the second level deck was an issue. He stated that he could support the motion, however. Council Member Nichols stated that he would like to see a policy adopted, but could also support Mayor Pro Tem Webb's motion. Mayor Bromberg stated that it might not be appropriate to delay a decision on the current application while a new policy is being considered. Council Member Heffernan stated that the findings to grant the variance included the unusual sloping condition of the property. Council Member Heffernan argued that. this is not unusual and is similar to the conditions on the nearbv properties. Mayor Bromberg stated that possibly a separate height limit rule for the bluffs should be established. Council Member Nichols stated that it makes sense to establish a rule. Third substitute motion by Council Member Nichols to send the issue back to the Planning Commission, with direction to establish a rule for the area. which includes upholding the setback and preserving the views on the property. Mayor Piro Tem Webb expressed his concern for Council Member Nichols motion. He explained that it could delay a decision on the current application for an indefinite period of time. Assistant City Manager Wood also expressed he.� concern for Council Member Nichols' motion and what. it could do to the current application. She explained that the application could be referred back to the Planning Commission with direction on the application, but to tie the application to Volume 57 - Page 76 City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes February 8, 2005 INDEX a change to the City's code would be unfair to the applicant. Council Member Heffernan stated that the City Council sets the rules, not the Planning Commission. The third substitute motion failed by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Nichols Noes: Heffernan, Rosansky, Webb, Ridgeway, Daigle, Mayor Bromberg Abstain: None Absent: None The substitute motion failed by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Ridgeway, Daigle Noes: Heffernan, Rosansky, Webb, Nichols, Mayor Bromberg Abstain: None Absent: None The main motion carried by the following roll call vote Ayes: Rosansky, Webb, Ridgeway, Daigle. Nichols, Mayor Bromberg Noes: Heffernan Abstain: None Absent: None K. PUBLIC COMMENTS Robert Walchli stated that the City needs to take a serious look at public bluff issues, establish some rules and policies, and stop granting variances. He cited some examples of where views have been obstructed by homes in Corona del Mar. Mr. Walchli stated that property rights are not unlimited and explained that its the responsibility of government to restrict property rights when necessary to protect the general rights of the public. Jim Hildreth stated that when Balboa Island was developed in 1931, the Grand Canal and the moorings within it were left as they were. After the Long Beach earthquake, it was decided that a bulkhead should be installed. In 1968, as a result of the City not turning the Grand Canal into a parking structure, the State classified the Grand Canal as a waterway. In 1976, the City started collecting revenue for access into the Grand Canal. Mr. Hildreth explained that the City does not collect revenue for the moorings in the canal, but the access to those moorings. Don Kazarian stated that if the height limit along Ocean Boulevard is going to be addressed, rooftop decks should also be looked at. L. ORAL REPORTS FROM CITY COUNCIL ON COMMITTEE ACTIVITIES Status report — Ad Hoc General Plan Update Committee (GPUC). No report. Volume 57 - Page 77 City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes February 8, 2005 Status report - Local Coastal Program Certification Committee. Council Member Ridgeway stated that the committee met to discuss the implementation plan and will meet again on February 16, 2005, at 3:00 p.m. The public is invited. Status report - Newport Coast Advisory Committee. Council Member Heffernan stated that the committee addressed the community center and what would be there, as well as the parking requirements at the proposed site. He stated that it is important that the parking issue be resolved as soon as possible. He reported that the committee also discussed landscaping and monument signing along Newport Coast Drive from the toll road. Status report - Mariners Joint Use Library Ad Hoc Steering Committee. Mayor Pro Tem Webb announced that construction is scheduled to begin on February 14, 2005. Status report - City Centennial 2006 Committee. Mayor Pro Tem Webb displayed the website address that the public can access to volunteer for the centennial. It is www.newportbeach100.com. Status report - City CouncillCitizens Ad Hoc Committee for Marinapark Planning. Mayor Bromberg announced that Assistant City Manager Tuff has been assigned as the staff liaison to the committee, and that he has been working with him on the agenda for the committee's first meeting, which should take place in February or March. Status report - City Council Ad Hoc Marinapark Advisory Committee. No report. Status report - Santa Ana River Flood Protection Agency. Council Member Nichols gave a brief report on the Prado Dam and what occurred during the recent storms. M. CONTINUED BUSINESS 15. AMENDMENT TO SALES TAX SHARING AGREEMENT WITH DAVID WILSON. Motion by Mayor Bromberg to continue the item. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Heffernan, Rosansky, Webb, Ridgeway. Daigle, Nichols. Mayor Bromberg Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: None 16. CITY HALL FACILITIES SCHEMATIC DESIGN - REAFFIRMATION OF APPROVAL OF' PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH GRIFFIN STRUCTURES, INCORPORATED. City Manager Bludau reported that in June of 2003, the City Council Volume 57 - Page 78 INDEX C -3709 Sales Tax Sharing Agreement/ Lexus Dealership (38 /100 -2005) C -3502 City Hall Facilities Schematic Design (38 /100 -2005) City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes February 8, 2005 INDEX approved a professional services agreement with Griffin Structures Incorporated for a cost not to exceed $578,185. The purpose of the contract was to provide administration and management, architectural and engineering design services, and completion of a schematic design. The contract was never signed because a conflict of interest issue arose. In January of 2005, the Building Ad Hoc Committee, which is comprised of Mayor Bromberg and Council Members Ridgeway and Heffernan, met to discuss the agreement. City Manager Bludau stated that since the conflict of interest no longer exists, the committee recommended that the agreement be brought back to the City Council for reaffirmation. Mayor Bromberg confirmed with City Manager Bludau that the agreement under consideration at the current meeting is the same agreement that was previously approved. Mayor Bromberg also noted that Council Members Rosansky and Daigle were not on the City Council when the agreement was approved in June of 2003. Roger Torriero, Griffin, introduced Dan Heinfeld of LPA Architects. Using a PowerPoint presentation, he displayed the project's timeline from January of 2002 to June of 2003. Mr. Torriero stated that the first thing that was done by Griffin was a building assessment of the fire station and the existing City Hall structures. He listed the problems that were discovered, and stated that the full report can be found in the Building Assessment Report. Secondly, a space utilization assessment was done and a Space Utilization Assessment Report was prepared. He displayed a graph showing how the existing City Hall compares with the planned City Hall, as well as other cities' city halls, and noted that even the planned City Hall for Newport Beach, at 276 square feet per employee, is below the average. Looking at the graph, Council Member Rosansky asked why the staff count changed from 189 employees for the existing City Hall to 225 employees for the planned City Hall, Bob Hall, Griffin, stated that the 189 number actually represented the number of workstations. In addition, the employee count was increased to account for the increased demand due to the annexation of Newport Coast and Santa Ana Heights. In response to Council Member Rosansky's additional question, City Manager Bludau stated that there are approximately 195 employees at City Hall currently, Council Member Daigle asked if the comparisons were to fairly new city halls. Mr. Torriero stated that the comparisons are to either newly constructed city halls, or to those currently in design and planning. Additionally, he noted that the average is derived from the Building Owners and Managers Association (SOMA) experience report, which looks at comparable use and office space. He noted, however, that the report didn't take into account specialized functions such as the one -stop shop, which exists at City Hall and differs from a conventional office facility. Mr. Torriero stated that space requirements were also looked at and a Space Requirements Report was prepared. At the City Council meeting of April S. 2003. Griffin presented master plan concepts, all reports, site concepts and conceptual project budgets, and the City Council responded with a series of questions. Mr. Torriero stated that Griffin was then asked Volume 57 - Page 79 City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes February 8, 2005 INDEX to prepare a "white paper ", which was a comparison of the continued occupancy of the existing City Hall versus the effective costs of occupancy in a replacement City Hall. He displayed a summary of the report and stated that a new facility will be far less costly to operate over its lifespan. He additionally noted that the City Hall facility affects approximately 3,500 public visitors per week, or 182,000 per year. At the City Council meeting of June 10, 2003, Griffin made another presentation to the City Council, Mr. Torriero displayed the project conceptual plan and work flow diagram, and noted the work that has been done to date, the work that will be completed in the next phase, and the four opportunities for public input and community outreach. Mr, Torriero emphasized the importance of the public input opportunities, and explained that Griffin has no preconceptions and is not biased in any way. He stated that Griffin's job is to deliver the best information possible so that the City can make a decision on a facility that will serve the community in the most efficient manner, is cost effective and meets the budget and schedule. Continuing with the PowerPoint presentation, Mr. Heinfeld discussed the public workshops. Council Member Heffernan asked if Griffin always does the public outreach. Mr. Heinfeld responded in the affirmative. He then displayed four site plan concepts and stated that they are not intended to be proposals, but do show that there are several ways to look at what can be built at City Hall. He stated that these will also be a part of the public workshops and will be a way to get input from the community. Council Member Heffernan asked if the public outreach will find out if the public wants to spend the money on a new facility. Mr. Heinfeld stated that they will discuss priorities with the public, but the =xact cost of a facility wouldn't be known. Council Member Heffernan confirmed that the public workshops would focus more on what the facility would offer and how it would look. Mr. Torriero displayed a map showing the proposed land swap with the adjacent property owners. He stated that there are some obvious advantages to doing a land swap and noted that it :aas been considered for years. He stated that the land swap is an equal exchange of .39 acres and could be accomplished quickly, and added that it would be beneficial to know the boundaries of the City Hall site as soon as possible. Mr. Torriero listed the action that was approved by the City Council on June 10, 2003. He then displayed the schematic design schedule if the recommended action is approved at the current meeting, and noted that it would result in a comprehensive report available :..or presentation to the City Council in August of 2005. Jim Hildreth stated that the current Harbor Resources office is not handicapped accessible and he hoped that they wou:.d be moved to the new City Hall, so that the employees could be reached by the handicapped. John Loper. Vice President of the Fritz Duda Company, managers of the Volume 57 - Page 80 City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes February 8, 2005 INDEX adjacent property, stated that the Fritz Duda Company supports the proposal to work with City staff on looking at the concept of a land swap. He stated that they are also interested in continuing to pursue ways to provide more efficient parking, and better vehicular and pedestrian access for both properties. Council Member Ridgeway and Mayor Bromberg provided Mr. Loper with copies of the reports that have been prepared by Griffin, and mentioned earlier in the meeting. Bob McCaffrey expressed his surprise that there weren't more people in the audience to discuss the proposed action and the spending of such a large amount of money. He stated that he is not aware of any interest by the public to build a new City Hall and he didn't believe that the $500,000 should be spent. Mayor Bromberg reminded Mr. McCaffrey that part of the money would be used towards public outreach. Council Member Heffernan expressed his concern that so much time has passed with nothing being done. He suggested that a Request for Proposals (RFP) be done and other architects heard from. Mayor Bromberg stated that he's comfortable working with Griffin, and noted that the City is already working with them on the Mariners Library. In response to Mayor Bromberg's question, City Manager Bludau stated that there is no requirement for the City to go out with an RFP. He added that State law doesn't allow the City to request that proposals for professional consulting services include cost. The City is required to first select the firm that it feels is the most qualified and then negotiate the price, which is the process that the City went through when selecting Griffin. In response to Mayor Pro Tem Webb's question, Public Works Director Badum stated that at least five firms were considered during the RFP process that resulted in the selection of Griffin. He added that there was a panel that conducted an extensive interview process and reviewed the qualifications of the firms. Council Member Heffernan asked how the conflict of interest issue was missed. City Manager Bludau explained that the conflict arose later. Council Member Heffernan asked if Griffin had the obligation to disclose it. Mayor Bromberg stated that when it was determined that there might be a conflict of interest, the City ceased working with Griffin. He stated that he's satisfied that the conflict that existed, no longer exists. Council Member Heffernan stated his concern that the City discovered the conflict and that if it hadn't done so, the contract would have been entered into. Mayor Bromberg stated that, if this had been the case, the City would have had the grounds to terminate the contract, or it could have asked Griffin to remediate the conflict. City Attorney Clauson stated that under Volume 57 - Page 81 City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes February 8, 2005 INDEX the City's conflict of interest code, certain consultants are required to disclose conflicts. Council Member Rosansky asked if this prevents them from entering into an agreement subsequent to entering into the agreement with the City. City Attorney Clauson stated that Griffin would have to disclose this and the City would then determine if Griffin should be disqualified. Council Member Rosansky confirmed that a condition could be added to the City's contract to prevent Griffin from entering into such contracts. Council Member Daigle asked how extra work would be billed in the contract. Mr. Torriero stated that it's a fixed fee professional services contract and there will be no extra costs. Council Member Daigle expressed her support for the public outreach that will be conducted, but felt that it should also include finding out if the community wants to commit $30 to $40 million on a new City Hall facility. Council Member Rosansky asked what work was done with regard to looking at other potential properties. Mayor Bromberg stated that the Building Ad Hoc Committee did look at other sites, but it always seemed to come back to the current site. Council Member Nichols stated that the General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC) also asked about the potential of other sites, and suggested maybe it should be looked at again. Motion by Council Member Rid¢eway to 1) reaffirm approval to execute a Professional Services Agreement with Griffin Structures Incorporated for the not to exceed price of $578,185, as amended to require that Griffin Structures Incorporated not be involved in any development processes with any properties located within 1,000 feet of City Hall; 2) direct staff to conduct a 30 -dav review regarding the viability of a lot line adjustment with the owner of the adjacent a Lido Plaza center, and if such efforts are inconclusive, then proceed with Schematic Design within the boundaries of the existing city owned site; 3) direct staff to schedule a series of community workshops regarding the planning and design of the project; and 4) reaffirm the current site as the future site for a new City Hall. Mayor Pro Tem Webb expressed his support for looking at other options and, specifically, the option to keep a part of the existing City Hall. rather than replacing the entire facility. He stated that this would provide a fair assessment of the alternatives for the public to roview. He stated that City Hall is short on space and the process to receive public input needs to begin. Council Member Ridgeway reminded Mayor Pro Tem Webb that the project includes three components: a fire station, a parking structure and City Hall. He stated that a new fore station and parking structure are needed, even if City Hall is not redone. Mayor Bromberg invited the public to tour City Hell. He suggested that Volume 57 -Page 82 City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes February 8, 2005 anyone that is interested, contact the Uity Ulerk "s oihce and someone would be found to conduct the tour. Mayor Pro Tem Webb stated that if he were to conduct the tour, it would show that some of the current working areas are adequate. Council Member Heffernan requested that the final reports and the information needed to make a decision be presented to the City by September of 2005. He stated that, with the money that is being spent and the money that could be spent, the reports should be delivered to the City Council in a timely manner and the process should not be delayed further. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Heffernan, Rosansky, Webb, Ridgeway, Daigle, Mayor Bromberg Noes: Nichols Abstain: None Absent: None Noting that it was 11:45 p.m., Mayor Bromberg asked the council members if they wanted to continue with the remaining items on the agenda. Motion by Council Member Ridgeway to address Item Nos. 1, 17 and 18 at the current meeting, and continue the remaining items to a future meeting. Substitute motion by Council Member Rosansky to address the remainder of the agenda at the current meeting. The substitute motion carried by the following roll call vote Ayes: Heffernan, Rosansky, Webb, Ridgeway, Daigle, Nichols, Mayor Bromberg Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: None 17, RESOLUTION EXTENDING THE BUILDING AD HOC COMMITTEE. Motion by Council Member Ridgeway to adopt Resolution No. 2005 -9 approving the extension of the term of the Building Ad Hoc Committee. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Heffernan, Rosansky, Webb, Ridgeway, Daigle, Mayor Bromberg ?Noes: None Abstain: Nichols Absent: None 18. UNSCHEDULED VACANCY ON THE CITY ARTS COMMISSION. Mayor Bromberg announced that the Ad Hoc Appointments Committee, which is comprised of himself, Mayor Pro Tem Webb and Council Member Volume 57 - Page 83 INDEX 1 (100 -2005) (100 -2005) City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes February 8, 2005 Ridgeway, is recommending that Gerald Allison and Gilbert Laskey be nominated to serve on the City Arts Commission. Motion by Mayor Bromberg to confirm the nomination of Gerald Allison and Gilbert Laskey to fill the unscheduled vacancy on the City Arts Commission as a result of the resignation of David Colley. Council Member Nichols asked if the council members would have the opportunity to evaluate the other applicants. Mayor Bromberg explained that the process is for the Ad Hoc Appointments Committee to review the applications, interview selected applicants and make a recommendation to the City Council. He added that council members can add names at the current meeting, if desired. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Heffernan, Rosansky, Webb, Ridgeway, Daigle, Mayor Bromberg Noes: None Abstain: Nichols Absent: None N. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR 1. MINUTES OF THE ADJOURNED REGULAR AND REGULAR MEETING OF JANUARY 25, 2005. Jim Hildreth referred to page 52 of the regular meeting minutes. and stated that his comments were not correctly recoried. He asked that they be changed. Motion by Mavor Pro Tem Webb to waive reading of subject minutes, approve as written and order filed. The motion carried by the following roll call vote Ayes: Heffernan, Rosansky, Webb, Ridgeway, Daigle, Nichols. Mayor Bromberg Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: hone 7. UNDERGROUND ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 103 - AUTHORIZATION OF AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH HALL & FOREMAN, INC. Jim Hildreth reminded those desiring underground utilities that they have failed on Little Balboa Island. Motion by Council Member Ridgeway to s.uthorize the Mayor to execute Amendment No. 1 to Professional Services Agreement with Hall & Foreman, Inc. for Underground Utilities Assessment District No. 103 Formation in the not to exceed amount of $30,940 and transfer all Volume 57 - Page 84 INDEX Underground Assessment District No. 103 (89/100 -2005) City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes February 8, 2005 previous appropriations and expenditures from Assessment District No. 95 to Assessment District No. 103 by approving a budget amendment (05BA- 040). The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Heffernan, Rosansky, Webb, Ridgeway, Daigle, Nichols, Mayor Bromberg Noes; None Abstain: None Absent: None 8. BUDGET AMENDMENT AND AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT WITH RBF CONSULTING TO EXPAND SCOPE OF WORK FOR SIGN CODE REVISIONS. Council Member Nichols stated that the public needs to see the signs that are being proposed. He learned from Assistant City Manager Wood that the contract is for the City's sign regulations, which are a part of the zoning code, and not for directional signs. She added that the budget amendment will provide the resources to do additional public outreach. Motion by Mavor Pro Tern Webb to 1) approve a budget amendment (05BA -039) appropriating $28,000 from the General Fund Unappropriated Fund Balance to account 2710 -8261 for the additional costs; and 2) approve First Amendment to Agreement with RBF Consulting, providing for an additional public workshop, study sessions, and a citywide sign survey. The motion carried by the following roll call vote Ayes: Heffernan, Rosansky, Webb. Ridgeway, Daigle, Nichols, Mayor Bromberg Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: None 12. BUDGET AMENDMENT — WATER QUALITY PROGRAMS & STUDIES. Council Member Nichols stated that the budget amendment is for some of the studies that are required for back bay programs. He stated that these programs gradually trap Newport Beach into policing what other cities are doing, and that he has spoken with several environmentalists and they don't understand the program. Council Member Nichols stated that more public outreach is needed and he doesn't think the program is good for Newport Beach. Motion by Mavor Pro Tern Webb to approve a budget amendment (05BA -041) appropriating $162,000 from tidelands funds for water quality programs and studies. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Volume 57 - Page 85 INDEX C -3623 Sign Code Revisions (38/100 -2005) (100 -2005) City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes February 8, 2005 Ayes: Heffernan, Rosansky, Webb, Ridgeway, Daigle, Mayor Bromberg Noes: Nichols Abstain None Absent: None O. MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION - None P. ADJOURNMENT at 11:56 p.m. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** The agenda for the Regular Meeting was posted on February 2, 2005, at 2:45 p.m. on the City Hall Bulletin Board located outside of the City of Newport Beach Administration Building. City Clerk Recording Secretary Mayor Volume 57 - Page 86 INDEX