Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/26/2002 - Study SessionCITY OF NEWPORT BEACH City Council Minutes Study Session March 26, 2002 - 5:10 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Heffernan, O'Neil, Bromberg, Glover, Adams, Mayor Ridgeway Absent: Proctor (excused) CURRENT BUSINESS 1. CLARIFICATION OF ITEMS ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR. Regarding Agenda Item No. 9 (Professional Services Budgeting in the Planning Department), Council Member Heffernan requested that Assistant City Manager Wood let him know what the total budget is for the General Plan Update process. 2. TIME FRAME FOR BUILDING PERMITS. City Manager Bludau noted that Council Member Heffernan requested that this item be placed on a study session agenda last month. He stated that improving the time it takes to approve plans or return the original set of plans back to the contractor/builder for corrections is an issue that staff listed as one of its top 10 priorities this fiscal year. He indicated that he asked Building Director Elbettar to head the task force because, in order to meet this goal, it would require a lot of coordinated and concentrated effort on the part of a number of departments. He agreed that there were, and still are, problems but the City is on the right track to improving the process. Building Director Elbettar utilized a PowerPoint presentation. He reported that activity has increased over the last eight years and that the City has averaged about $220 million annually in construction valuation since 1997. He added that the number of inspections has also increased, noting that they conduct about 40,000 to 50,000 inspections a year. He stated that the permit process involves submitting plans to the Building counter, reviewing the plans, generating corrections, verifying the corrections, and issuing the permit. He noted that a project could go through many corrections, but the City can only control the time between submittal and corrections. He stated that this is the most crucial period and that they try to minimize this time period. He noted that after verification, it can take two days to a week for approval if there are no issues. He pointed out that Building, Planning, Public Works, Fire, Utilities, General Services, and Harbor Resources could all be involved in the review process and outlined their duties. In response to Mayor Ridgeway's questions, Mr. Elbettar stated that the Uniform Building Code (UBC) represents minimum requirements and that they sometimes work with the applicant to apply engineering judgment, interpretations, and sometimes alternatives. He indicated that, when Volume 55 - Page 65 INDEX Building Permits (26) City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes March 26, 2002 INDEX performance -based designs are involved, the plan checker in the Building Department has some discretion because of the non -black and white nature of the application of the rule; however, no discretion is used when the Code is clear. Council Member Adams asked if the City's participation in the project's design imposes a liability to the City. Mr. Elbettar noted that they do not participate in the design, but offer suggestions to facilitate requirements. City Attorney Burnham stated that the City would be immune from any misrepresentation made during the course of dealing with anyone at the counter. Further, the City is also immune from any liability associated with the issuance of or failure to issue a permit. Regarding landscape drawings, Mr. Elbettar confirmed that General Services handles drawings for parkways. Assistant City Manager Wood noted that the Zoning Code does not have landscaping requirements except for the parking lots in Mariner's Mile. However, Planning would look at landscape drawings if there is a use permit development, a landscape plan is shown, and the Planning Commission has a condition of approval that directs the Planning Director to review it. Mayor Ridgeway stated that he cannot imagine that the City does not require landscape plans for all developments. Council Member Glover pointed out that, when a new house is built in an old area, the trees in the public right -of -way are sometimes torn down with the houses. She noted that the City is required to ensure that new trees are planted where old trees have been removed; however, this has not been done. Mr. Bludau believed that this problem has been resolved, reporting that a process has been developed to ensure that a visual is made by staff to determine what trees are on the site before and after the project. Mayor Ridgeway suggested that they require photos as part of the application process. Mr. Elbettar reported that they have been requiring that street trees be shown on plans for any new development, and putting a note on all demolition permits to not remove street trees. Assistant City Manager Kiff stated that the City also has an ordinance regarding water conservation landscaping. He indicated that, across the State, regional boards and others are getting more interested about what types of runoffs would result from irrigation, especially in areas of special biological significance. Mr. Elbettar reported that, in July 2001, the management team developed its top 10 priorities. He indicated that one of the priorities was to improve the plan check and permit issuance process. He stated that the measure of success is when 90% of the plan checks are completed within four weeks of being submitted by the customers. He displayed charts of the plan check turnaround time for single - family dwellings and samples of actual plan check timelines. He noted that one of the reasons the Building Department was able to meet the four week goal was because of the use of offsite consultants for overflow work. He confirmed that the Building Department still reviews the work of the outside consultant and that there is additional time involved with this. He indicated that the current process for a new custom home is that the Building Department receives two sets of plans (one goes to the Building Department and the other to the Planning Department). He stated that Planning determines if Public Works needs to Volume 55 - Page 66 City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes March 26, 2002 INDEX get involved; and Public Works determines if Utilities and General Services need to get involved. He indicated that it could take 13 to 16 weeks for the corrections to be released to the applicant. He believed that the problem is that the review is not done concurrently by the other departments. Mayor Ridgeway noted that there is an inherent conflict between Planning and Public Works, noting that a previous project was not allowed to have street access; however, a set of plans was approved which allowed street access. He stated that no one took responsibility for it and asked how this will be prevented. He stated that he wants to ensure that one is not relying on the other. He believed that they need to cross - reference the same issues and emphasized that they both need to be responsible. Mr. Elbettar reported that they visited several cities to determine how they handle this process. He stated that the cities that were able to come up with a reasonable backlog conduct concurrent reviews, rather than successive reviews. Using a new custom home as an example, he indicated that they are proposing to receive four sets of plans for Building, Planning, Harbor Resources, and one for Public Works, General Services, and Utilities. He believed that everyone will be able to meet the four week goal with this type of arrangement. Mr. Elbettar reported that tenant improvements generally take one to two weeks. Council Member Glover noted that there are several 1970s strip shopping centers in her district in which a developer has created wonderful facades over the past 15 years. She stated that the developer has told her that he will not do anything more in the City because he encountered too many problems with the Building Department. She believed that this is a loss for the City since he generates revenue without a lot of traffic. Council Member Adams asked if it is the customer's responsibility to resolve conflicts between the various departments. Mr. Elbettar stated that they are proposing that the release of the corrections be centralized, explaining that departments currently keep their own corrections and no one can review other corrections. He indicated that, with the proposed changes, each department will have responsibility for their area of review. He stated that, in the interim, they want a filing system in which each department forwards a copy of their corrections for the project file. Norther, all the corrections will be released together with a transmittal letter to the applicant with instructions. He added that Public Works is currently able to electronically link their corrections to the permit system and expressed hope that all departments will be able to do this so the applicant will be able to trigger a request and receive all the corrections via email or fax. Mr. Elbettar stated that their approach to streamlining looks at efficiency and process changes, timely delivery of services, dissemination of information/requirements clearly and concisely, and having no surprises. He indicated that they try to state the requirements early in the process. He reported that, in November 2000, a committee consisting of Building, Planning, and Public Works was formed. He stated that changes they developed include sign -in logs at each counter; improved signage to include a summary of services offered by each department; improved plan filing system and plan storage bins; and coordination and improvement of Volume 55 - Page 67 City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes March 26, 2002 INDEX customer notification when plans are ready for Mr. Elbettar reported that the Building Department enhancements include internet access to the permit system for inspection requests and plan check status; cell phone communication with inspectors; use of handheld computers and portable printers to generate inspection reports in the field; the development of a Building Department web page to disseminate information; an inspector call -back program to inform customers of the estimated times of arrival; two public self -help computers for status checks, review of historical permit information, and City codes; development of a policy manual at the counter for public review; development of a database of frequent mailers and notifications to customers; the use of outside consultants for overflow plan reviews; development of permit -ready standard plans for simple permits; the consolidation of certain inspections to minimize the number of trips; combined commercial inspections for certain commercial projects; and the eventual use of the interactive voice response system. He further showed examples of the Building Department's online services and inspection reports. Mr. Elbettar stated that the contract for the Teleworks Voice Response (T.V.R) System was awarded in February 2001. He indicated that the system allows customers to request inspections via the phone or email which transfers directly to the permit plus system. He noted that this would also provide customers with 24 -hours a day, 7 days a week, of interactive access to the system via phone or online. Mr. Elbettar summarized by stating that the proposed measures include having a single point of intake for all plans; requiring multiple sets of plans; having each department commit to meeting the target dates; having concurrent reviews; delegating certain department reviews to others; tracking the target date; coordinating with other departments; returning a single packet of City requirements to customers; and notifying them via telephone or email. He added that they began scanning permit documents and plans a year ago, instead of microfilming, and expressed hope that people who are interested in accessing permit histories will do it online. He stated that they hope to scan all the permit documents, noting that there are currently 600,000 of them. He reported that the Building Department sees between 1,500 to 2,000 customers a month and has been trying very hard to decrease the number of customers that wait more than 30 minutes. He stated that the multiple logs and the addition of a Permit Technician has helped. Mayor Ridgeway indicated that he has seen tremendous improvements and commended Mr. Elbettar on what the department has done so far. Mr. Bludau stated that one of the requests the committee had in order to ensure that coordination takes place was to have a person oversee this process. However, he indicated that he told them that this will not happen because he was given direction from Council not to add staff. He stated that the City will do its best to deal with the new process using the current staff. Mayor Ridgeway stated that, when the City takes on all of Newport Coast's reviews, the previous directive might be unrealistic. Andrew Goetz, 250 Newport Center Drive, stated that he is an architect and that the efforts of the City to get projects done in a faster manner is on Volume 55 - Page 68 City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes March 26, 2002 IW1a7�1:1 track. He believed that the Building Department has conducted themselves in a professional manner; however, levels of scrutiny have now gone beyond reasonable. He believed that part of the backlog is contingent on which plan checker or consultant you get, what the issues are, how they respond to the issues, and whether you are allowed to communicate with them. He added that there is room for improvement and that some interpretations even differ. Utilizing fire sprinklers as an example, he noted that there is a code that states that sprinklers need to be installed if a structure is over 5,000 square feet. He asked if the square feet is building area defined by the code or by the Planning Department. He indicated that he has also had projects in which a carport is considered building area and, under strict definition, put the building over the allowable square footage. Mr. Goetz reported that, in the brief time that he heard there was going to be a discussion on this, he wrote a summary letter of the issues and got it signed by over ten architects in the community. He presented the letters to the City Manager. Kevin Weeds, 429 30th Street, thanked Council for approving his project (Cannery Lofts) at the last meeting. He indicated that he really does not want to speak about the negative things in the Building Department because he works with them on a daily basis and does not want to create any animosity or ill -will. However, in a developer's point of view, the process has become increasingly difficult over the past few years. He indicated that plan checks used to take three to four weeks, but now it takes about two to four months. He added that his project on Lido Island took four months and it was a straight- forward project. Mr. Weeds believed that the City does have some professional and high quality employees, but expressed concern about the philosophy and inconsistency in all the departments. He believed that this even transcends to the field inspectors. He noted that the City has also lost some of its quality employees over the past few years. He added that, even with the increased levels of scrutiny, problems arise mid - construction which cause costly redesigns. He indicated that developers would like to see these inconsistencies cleared up and stated that they are willing to help with the process. Mr. Weeds stated that interpretation is also a serious problem for developers. He stated that he does not feel like the Building Department uses the minimum standards of the Universal Building Code (UBC), but rather the maximum standards. He emphasized that they do enjoy the relationships they have established with the City, want to continue them, and don't want to alienate anyone. He believed that most of the suggested changes are good and added that he would like to see them implemented. Kurt Donat, 503 32nd Street, indicated that he has three residential projects that are in various stages of development and that one of the projects was in plan check the day before the new sprinkler system policy came out. He noted that the policy includes how to calculate building square footage; and that this meant that the project which had previously complied was now going to need sprinklers. He indicated that he had a meeting with Faisal Jurdi to inform him that the project had been in plan check before he was given notice that the policy was going to change. He emphasized that the policy is contrary to the UBC building area calculation and questioned why a building official would change the method of calculation. He indicated that he was led to believe that this was done because the building official wanted consistency between Planning and Building; however, there still is no Volume 55 - Page 69 City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes March 26, 2002 consistency as Building is being more restrictive than Planning in this area. Mr. Donat stated that he has never had a residential project plan check take less than six weeks. He indicated that he talked to general contractors who continually complain about the process and how much more difficult it is because of the scrutiny. He stated that he cannot understand why there is such a high level of scrutiny when the architect is ultimately responsible for the project and the City has no legal responsibility. He indicated that he felt that the City was relatively easy to work with until three years ago and now there is no sense of comradery between the design professional and the Building Department. He pointed out that it is not as bad as other cities, but Newport Beach prides itself on being a small town. He believed that people who reside in the City and have been doing business with the City for a period of time should have some consideration given to them as being the types of professionals the City wants. Mr. Bludau clarified that it is not staffs intention to have the turnaround within four weeks except for the first time it is returned for corrections. He stated that, after that, it is dependent on a number of factors, including the number of corrections and how fast the design team turns their plans around. He indicated that the City is not looking to do the turnaround and permit issuance within four weeks. Mayor Ridgeway requested that, if a policy change occurs after a set of drawings are submitted, staff take this into consideration. He asked that staff look into this. Mr. Donat clarified that his situation was granted and recognized. Mayor Pro Tern Bromberg stated that he is pleased to see the changes that are going to be implemented and commended the public speakers. He expressed concern about what he has heard from them and that he has received at least 11 concerns since he has been on Council that this is an adversarial process and that the Building Department is not user - friendly. He noted that the people expressing the concerns about the inconsistencies, level of scrutiny, and adversarial process are building professionals. He believed that the Building Director should put half the effort into also changing this. He indicated that he will be following through on this issue. Mayor Ridgeway stated that Mr. Elbettar has talked with him numerous times, but agreed that the plan check/interpretation is being used as a weapon and needs to be eliminated. He added that the City also used to work things out in the field years ago without compromising safety. He noted that the City Manager, Planning Department, and Building Department are working on this, but emphasized that today's comments need to be taken seriously. He expressed hope that he will see improvements and that a study session a year from now will show that the improvements worked. 3. WATER QUALITY EDUCATION UPDATE. Not discussed. PUBLIC COMMENTS —None. Volume 55 - Page 70 INDEX Water Quality Education Update (51) City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes March 26, 2002 ADJOURNMENT - 6:10 p.m. INDEX The agenda for the Study Session was posted on March 20, 2002, at 3:00 p.m. on the City Hall Bulletin Board located outside of the City of Newport Beach Administration Building. The supplemental agenda for the Study Session was posted on March 22, 2002, at 2:30 p.m. on the City Hall Bulletin Board located outside of the City of Newport Beach Administration Building. d City Clerk &Av�, -�. �gmfy-' Recording Secretary Mayor` Volume 55 - Page 71