Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/11/2007 - Study SessionCITY OF NEWPORT BEACH City Council Minutes Study Session September 11, 2007 — 4:00 p.m. I. ROLL. CALL Present: Council Member Henn, Council Member Curry, Mayor Pro Tem Selich, Mayor Rosansky, Council Member Webb, Council Member Gardner Excused: Council Member Daigle H. OU _RR ENT.BU SINES S 1. CLARIFICATION OF ITEMS ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR. In response to questions by Council Member Henn pertaining to Item No. 7 (Back Bay Science Center) and the additonal cost of the change orders, City Manager Bludau stated that the overage will not be funded by the City. Public Works. Director Badum added that additional funding (approximately $800,000) was obtained from the Department of Fish and Game for the teaching lab. Council Member Henn questioned why only one bid was received for Item No. 11 (Rivo Alto Coping Replacement), which is 39% above the engineer's estimate, and whether the project should proceed. Public Works Director Badum stated this is a specialty item. Further there are not many local contractors that do bulkhead work; this a relatively small job for the bigger companies; and John S. Meek is typically the sole bidder. He added that they have a very good track record in the City; staff feels their bid is competitive; and, if the project were re -bid, the result would not be different. Council Member Webb added that, in 25 years of working in the City, John S. Meek has been an excellent contractor and is one of the few contractors that does these specialty marine - related projects. Regarding Item No. 15 (Marine 111 Battalion Memorial Sculpture), Council Member Curry advised that the artist is here from South Dakota and will do a presentation on the memorial design. Council Member Gardner noted that Tim Paone's name was mispelled in the minutes. Council Member Daigle joined the meeting at 4:10 p.m. 2. STATUS OF. IMPROVEMENTS TO DEVELOPMENT REVIEW, PLAN CHECK AND PERMITTING PROCESS. (contd. from 8/14/07) (100 -2007 Assistant City Manager Wood provided the staff report. She asked Council to focus on the recommendations, particularly the short -term recommendations, that will require additional resources to make further improvements (i.e., public counter area, entry doors, reconfiguration of staff work stations behind the public counter, continue to develop and update public information as handouts and on the website, and more training programs). Volume 58 — Page 255 City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes September 11, 2007 Assistant City Manager Wood stated that the Hogle- Ireland report included a recommendation to explore a project manager concept, however, they don't see how it can be done with the current staff and workload. Proposed short -term recommendations include looking at possibly formalizing the Development Review Committee, establishing a new Application Intake Coordinator position (estimated to cost $80,000 annually) to assist less experienced customers and to screen project applications, possibly closing City Hall offices every other Friday so the 9/80 work schedule for staff can be maintained and to eliminate confusion for the customers, and simplifying the zoning code. Assistant City Manager Wood added that some long -term recommendations are to make additional improvements tq the GIS system and convert to electronic submittals and review of plans; however, this would require a big investment in hardware, software, and training. Assistant City Manager' Wood reviewed the Plan Check Monitoring Reports compiled for the last two months. She stated that staff is doing well in meeting the goal of a four -week turnaround for initial plan checks; there are a smaller number of cases where staff is not doing as well, and they are continuing to look at improving those situations; and, staff is looking for direction on the short -term recommendations. Mayor Rosansky requested a report to show the turnaround time on re- submitted plans. Building Director Elbettar stated that this type of report can be provided, however, it may not reflect what each department's performance is. He added that staff would need to know what criteria (i.e., those over 30 or 60 days) Council would like to see in order to narrow down the volume of data and reports. Further, at any given time, there could be up to 2,000 active plan checks. Mayor Rosansky stated that he is looking for an indication of whether staff is improving the re- submittal turnaround time and whether the number of turnarounds is improving. Public Works Director Badum added that a lot of it has to do -with the quality of plans submitted. Mayor Rosansky stated that his concern is whether or not the actions being taken will get us where we want to be insofar as reducing the plan check turnaround time. Building Director Elbettar concurred with comments made by Public Works Director Badum on the quality and completeness of submitted plans. While other jurisdictions screen plans at submittal and refuse them if incomplete, City staff takes all plans as submitted.. Mayor Rosansky suggested that the City also screen and refuse incomplete plans at submittal. Assistant City Manager Wood added that this is why the Application Intake Coordinator position is being recommended. Council Member Daigle stated that she is supportive of the recommendations to improve the plan check process. She feels that the task forces with mid - junior level employees are very good since they're doing the work, and the Application Intake Coordinater position is a good idea. She added that she spoke with the person who conducted the evaluation and one idea they had was to sort projects by complexity. Assistant City Manager Wood stated that Attachment 5 (Plan Check Tracks) to the August 14, 2007, staff report outlines the turnaround times for the various types of plan . checks offered. Additionally for some time now, the Deputy Building Official has reviewed and sorted through the plans (within one week of submittal) to process the easier plans more quickly. The Planning Department has also started doing this. Volume 58 - Page 256 City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes September 11, 2007 Council Member Daigle stated that, with the Building Department database, staff has made a lot of headway with their reporting. She added that she would also be interested in knowing how long it takes each department to review the second, third, and fourth round of plan submittals. Building Director Elbettar stated that, since staff does not screen plans at submittal, the likelihood of having a set of plans come into the system that needs a second round review is great. Every plan taken in will at least have a first and second round review, unless it is approved over the counter. It is best if plans can, be approved on either the fast or second round, as subsequent submittals are very time consuming. Council Member Daigle stated that she had attended a League of California Cities panel discussion on CIP benchmarking and standards, and questioned whether it would be possible to get a report to look at all the tasks (i.e., drawing up plans, bidding, etc.) within the CIP. Public Works Director Badum responded that Council already has those tools at its disposal in the schedule included in the CIP budget document. This schedule is also posted on the City's website, so it can be seen in real time as it changes. Staff intends to give Council a quarterly report regarding the scheduling and how things might have changed and the issues involved. Council Member Daigle stated that she is not only looking at project status but is also interested in the standards. She stated that other councils receive regular reports so they can establish standards; however, the City doesn't have standards, and that it is Council's intent to have standards. Council Member Webb expressed concern that Council Member Daigle is requesting that the CIP be part of the Planning and Building issues.. He explained that these are databases, but they are completely separate operations. He questioned how much time is. needed to compile the reports. Assistant City Manager Wood responded that, to get it started will be a big investment of time, but once the program is up and running, it should not be a big investment of staff time. It is also a good management tool for department directors so they can track the status of plans. Mayor Pro Tem Selich indicated that he has two concerns: 1) formalization of the Development Review Committee, which could complicate the process and discourage people; and 2) closure of the offices every other Friday, which he does not support. He believed that it is incumbent upon the applicants to track when their staff member is available. Council Member Curry concurred with Mayor Pro Tem Selich's concerns about closing on Fridays and suggested that employees put their work schedule on their business cards. In response to a question by Council Member Curry, Assistant City Manager Wood stated that it is not a quantitative goal, as the projects vary so much amongst themselves. Perhaps there could be a goal of reducing the turnaround time on subsequent submittals or reducing the number of resubmittals. She does not think the process should ever be over, as there are always new ways of doing things that should be explored. In response to a question by Council Member Webb regarding enclosing the breezeway to improve the counter area, Building Director Elbettar stated that Volume 58 - Page 257 City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes September 11, 2007 these ideas were explored but put on hold in lieu of a new City Hall. Council Member Webb stated that a new City Hall is two to three years away and perhaps we should look at making these improvements, if the .cost were $25,000 - $50,000. Council Member Henn concurred with Council Member Webb, as long as staff returns to Council to let them know what the cost will be. He also agreed with comments made pertaining to closing City Hall every other Friday. City Manager Bludau stated that, of all the recommedations, the Application Intake Coordinator position has the most potential for improving turnaround times and questioned whether Council would consider creating this new position. Council Member Webb suggested filling this position with one of the experienced plan processers and then backfill the vacated position, as he can't imagine hiring someone without significant knowledge of the City and other departments. Assistant City Manager Wood stated that the thought is to add the position and have people rotate into this function since back -up for the position will,be needed. Council Member Daigle expressed concern that this position may become a bottleneck that would delay the process. In response to Council questions, Assistant City Manager Wood stated that it is envisioned -that the Application Intake Coordinator is the first person someone would see. Building Director Elbettar stated that it would take approximately 10 -15 minutes to do an initial review of the plans to ensure all required information is included to allow staff to do a complete and substantial review. Assistant City Manager Wood added that not everyone coming into the office will need the services of the Coordinator. Mayor Rosansky stated that this appears to be intended as a time saver and questioned whether a new position is necessary or whether an existing employee could be assigned to do the work. His concern is that the City is having trouble filling vacant positions, and he would prefer to do a one -month experiment with existing staff to see how well the process works. Assistant City Manager Wood responded that, during the trial period, plan checks -may slow down which could initially lead to complaints. Building Director Elbettar added that there is an indirect benefit to having this position, whether it's an existing or additional employee, in that they will provide information and guidance to the public and facilitate plan processing. He added that, over time, the quality of plans being submitted may improve, thereby reducing the backlog and need to review plans three and four times. This will enhance service overall. Mayor Rosansky expressed hope that the trial period will be successful and will force people to submit complete plans. Dolores Otting commended Building Director Elbettar and the Planning and Building Departments and expressed her support for adding the position. 8. TSUNAMI WARNING SYSTEM. Fire Chief Lewis thanked everyone for attending the grand opening and dedication of Fire Station #7 (Santa Ana Heights). Using a PowerPoint presentation, Chief Lewis provided the staff report and noted that, although the sirens are being considered as a tsunami warning system, they could be used for all hazards such as gas releases, etc. He added that Huntington Beach has a list of instances of when they use their sirens and the last tsunami in Orange County was in 1964, which resulted in minimal damage to the City. Volume 58 - Page 258 City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes September 11, 2007 Council Member Gardner stated that tsunamis were 11th on the list of hazards and questioned, of the other 10 hazards, which ones the sirens would be used for and if they could be used for wildfires or flooding. Chief Lewis responded that the siren could be used for the failure of Prado Dam, although it may not allow enough time to do anything. He reported that he sees it more as a warning system to get everyone's attention all at once and to advise them to turn on their radios or .televisions for more information. Further, it could potentially be used for wildfires, but most people would already be tuned into their televisions. Council Member Webb stated that Prado Dam is not a significant item, as they have also built a dam upstream to take the pressure off of Prado Dam, and there would have to be a total failure of the dam in order to worry about flooding. Regarding flooding, there are some low areas along the Santa Ana River that could flood, but the City is well off as far as storms. Chief Lewis stated that the probability of a tsunami is low and, if sirens are desired to cover the entire City, the $200,000 cost would increase. City Manager Bludau stated that the issue won't go away until we have some type of warning system and then the question is whether to go Citywide. Council Member Webb added that the telephone message technology projected for 2008 would be more effective. Council Member Henn stated that visitors to the Peninsula would not receive the message since they do not reside in the area. He stated that disasters happen in all sorts of ways that are completely unpredictable; it is not useful to speculate about the nature of disasters; he is a strong proponent of this; and it is a one -time cost that buys peace of mind and real value in the event of a disaster. He believed that this should be looked at as a broad -based hazard warning system. Council Member Curry concurred with Council Member Henn. In response to questions by Mayor Pro Tem Selich, Chief Lewis stated that the other local coastal beach cities with siren systems are Huntington Beach,.San Onofre /San Clemente, and Seal Beach. Mayor Rosansky suggested having cell companies wishing to install cell towers in the City,front the cost of the poles, and the City could lease the space to install the sirens. Council Member Daigle stated that residents /vistors need to know what to do when the sirens go off. Chief Lewis stated that police and fire units will be working the streets to advise people on what to do. Dolores Otting thanked Council Member Henn for pursuing this. She statedthat there are all types of emergencies and $200,000 is a minimal expenditure that will provide safety to the residents and visitors. 4. REVIEW OF PROGRAMS AND GRANTS DEALING WITH WATER QUALITY. (contd. from 7/10/07) - Continued. III. PUBLIC COMMENTS. - None. IV. ADJOURNMENT. - 5:50 p.m. The agenda for the Study Session was posted on September 7, 2007, at 1:50 p.m. on the City Hall Bulletin Board located outside of the City of Newport Beach Administration Building. Volume 58 - Page 259 City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes September 11, 2007 L lr Recording Secre4y - City Clerk Volume 58 - Page 260