Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/08/2005 - Study SessionCITY 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 CALENDAR. 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 way£inding 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 for 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 construction activity is residential, with some commercial additions /remodels. 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 counting 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 filing 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. He reiterated that, by increasing the number of plans required, they can be distributed to the different departments so reviews can be conducted concurrently. He 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 57 - Page 54 INDEX (100 -2005) City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes February 8, 2005 110110// 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 Heights /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 overwhelming 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 57 - Page 55 City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes February 8, 2005 INDEX 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 from each department is in the same location, and using the same bin and set of plans. 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 indicated that 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 start a dialogue via email or by visiting someone's office. He stated that they are cognizant of Volume 57 - Page 56 City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes February S, 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 Tern 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 57 - 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 Webb's 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 57 - Page 58 City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes February S, 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 there 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, be 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 57 - 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 staff 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 over 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 57 - Page 60 City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes February S, 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 57 -Page 61 INDEX City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes February 8, 2005 INDEX THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK Volume 57 - Page 62