Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/25/2020 - Study Session / Regular MeetingCITY OF NEWPORT BEACH City Council Minutes Study Session and Regular Meeting August 25, 2020 I. ROLL CALL - 4:00 p.m. Present: Mayor Will O'Neill, Mayor Pro Tem Brad Avery, Council Member Joy Brenner, Council Member Diane Dixon, Council Member Duffy Duffield, Council Member Jeff Herdman, Council Member Kevin Muldoon II. CURRENT BUSINESS SS1. Clarification of Items on the Consent Calendar In response to Council Member Muldoon's questions regarding Item 13 (Back Bay Landing Development — Reimbursement Agreement with Bayside Village Marina LLC for Environmental Review, Permitting and Design Services), Public Works Director Webb reported that, under the agreement, Bayside Village Marina LLC will pay for the design, environmental review, and permitting for the relocation of a major water line and easement located on its property if the City will include the work in its project to replace other water lines across the Bay. Council Member Muldoon and City Clerk Brown recused themselves from Item10 due to prior business interest conflicts and real property interest conflicts, respectively. In response to Mayor Pro Tem Avery's question regarding Item 10 (Assessment District No. 111 and Underground Utilities District No. 22 Phases 2 & 3 —Award of Contract No. 78331), Public Works Director Webb explained that the item pertains to utility undergrounding on Balboa Boulevard, from 36th Street to 21s' Street, and a residential district. SS2. Introduction of Homeless Liaison Police Officer Cynthia Carter Police Chief Lewis shared Officer Carter's background Police Officer Carter stated that she is happy to be working with the City, its residents, and visitors. Council Member Brenner noted that Officer Carter has engaged with the Ad Hoc Committee on Homeless Task Force and expressed confidence in Officer Carter's abilities. Council Member Dixon advised that she has heard excellent comments about Officer Carter's quick reactions to homeless situations, noted that with Officer Carter's involvement and leadership, the City's homeless population is being housed and receiving services, and expressed her appreciation for Officer Carter's good work. Council Member Muldoon expected that Officer Carter would bring Texas' regulation spirit to the City and wished her the best. SS3. Superior Avenue and West Coast Highway Intersection Improvements Council Member Muldoon recused himself due to business interest conflicts. Senior Engineer Tran utilized a presentation to discuss the background, purpose, and schedule for the project, approved conceptual bridge design, alternate bridge design, and renderings of the alternate design. Volume 64 - Page 491 City of Newport Beach Study Session and Regular Meeting August 25, 2020 In response to Council Member Dixon's questions, Senior Engineer Tran indicated that the alternate design can accommodate a staircase, the crosswalks will be removed only when the Superior Avenue bridge and the West Coast Highway bridge are complete, and staff assumed that spending $200,000 for a temporary staircase would not be a good idea. Council Member Dixon appreciated staffs assumption, but stated that pedestrian safety is more important. Public Works Director Webb added that staff can create an alternative bid item to build the staircase, and Council can make the decision of whether to include the staircase at the time of contract award. In response to Council Member Herdman's question, Senior Engineer Tran reported that the crosswalk on Superior Avenue is used heavily, but the crosswalks will be removed when the bridges are complete. Mayor O'Neill expressed concern that construction of the West Coast Highway bridge will take longer than 24 months to complete and believed the staircase should be included. Senior Engineer Tran continued his presentation with West Coast Highway proposed improvements. In response to Mayor Pro Tem Avery's question, Senior Engineer Tran explained that the purpose of the Intersection Capacity Enhancement (ICE) grant is to improve capacity within intersections, noted the project will add a fourth eastbound through lane, which will begin before the intersection and end about 600 feet to 700 feet past the intersection, and stated there are no plans to continue the widening. Council Member Dixon noted an elevator is not required. In response to her question, Senior Engineer Tran advised that the project will require some small adjacent right-of-way acquisitions from Hoag Hospital and Banning Ranch and noted that the new pedestrian bridge will be American with Disabilities Act (ADA) accessible. Senior Engineer Tran presented additional information regarding funding, contract amendments, and the project schedule. In response to Council Member Herdman's question, Senior Engineer Tran indicated that Council previously adopted a resolution accepting grant funds, which described the requirement for matching funds. Senior Engineer Tran reviewed staffs recommendations for the two projects. In response to Mayor O'Neill's questions, Public Works Director Webb reported that a pedestrian could utilize the staircase rather than the crosswalk to access the parking lot, agreed that construction could exceed two years, stated that adding a staircase will not affect Item 12 (Superior Avenue and West Coast Highway Intersection Improvements), and added that staff is asking Council to remove the staircase from Phase 1. Jim Mosher asked about the total anticipated cost of the arched design, a comparison of traffic disruption during construction, the length of construction for the truss, span, and arch designs, and noted both projects will need Coastal Development Permits, which can be appealed to the California Coastal Commission: Charles Klobe believed it would be nearly impossible to stop pedestrians and cyclists from crossing on the ground at the Pacific Coast Highway. Volume 64 - Page 492 City of Newport Beach Study Session and Regular Meeting August 25, 2020 Senior Engineer Tran reported the project cost for the Superior Avenue bridge is $8.8 million, stated a truss bridge could be faster to install, affirmed that the concrete bridge would take 2 to 4 months longer, noted that staff recommended the concrete bridge due to its longevity and the maintenance -free aspect, and added that the estimated construction time for the span and arch bridges is 14 to 16 months. Mayor O'Neill agreed that pole removal is a good idea. Council Member Dixon thanked staff for the new and improved design and for securing grant funds, stated she is pleased to see this move forward, and expressed support for constructing one bridge at a time. Mayor Pro Tem Avery believed the project has many positives and would contribute to an efficient busy intersection. In response to his question, Senior Engineer Tran advised that staff considered an underpass, but the terrain of the area does not lend itself to an underpass. Mayor O'Neill noted the staircase cost of $200,000 would come out of Facilities Financial Plan (FFP) funds for parks, not the general fund, believed this would ease pedestrian traffic walking over from the Peninsula, and justified the cost for a construction period of twoyears or more. With Council Member Muldoon recusing himself, there was a 6-0 straw vote to include the staircase in the West Coast Highway bridge project. SS4. Parking Meter Replacement Council Member Muldoon recused himself due to business interest conflicts. Finance Director Matusiewicz shared a presentation to provide an overview relative to parking, parking meters, pay stations, and pay by phone, discuss parking revenue by equipment type, parking infrastructure evolution, and aging single-space parking meter issues. In response to Mayor O'Neill's question, Finance Director Matusiewicz explained that motorists do not pay for parking if the meter is inoperable and staff estimates the City may be losing $500,000 per year due to inoperable meters. Finance Director Matusiewicz continued his presentation with a photo of a smart meter's housing and coin canister. In response to Council Member Dixon's questions, Finance Director Matusiewicz indicated motorists can pay via the ParkMobile app at any City parking space. If a meter is not operable, motorists do not have to pay. Finance Director Matusiewicz further presented a map of single-space meters, options to replace infrastructure, the pros, cons and costs of Option 1, and the costs involved with Options 2A and 2B. In response to Mayor O'Neill's questions, Finance Director Matusiewicz advised that motorists pay via the app for parking spaces along the median on Balboa Boulevard, stated that the program has been successful, and added that motorists might find paying via the app frustrating if they have not downloaded the app and set up their accounts prior to parking. In response to Council Member Brenner's questions, Finance Director Matusiewicz indicated the recurring costs for the three options are comparable, noted a third option is to pay using only the app which would be the least expensive option, stated that the costs assume perpetual replacement, noted the overall costs of Options 2A and 2B will be lower than Option 1, and COVID-19 has advanced the acceptance of e-commerce. Volume 64 - Page 493 City of Newport Beach Study Session and Regular Meeting August 25, 2020 In response to Council Member Herdman's questions, Finance Director Matusiewicz explained that the chart provided ten years of monthly fees by type of equipment, pay station fees go to the provider to maintain the infrastructure that communicates with the network and provides reports, a separate service provider handles maintenance, and the sign cost is largely a one-time expenditure, depending on the durability of the signage. In response to Council Member Dixon's questions, Finance Director Matusiewicz stated that pay stations are a bridge to the ultimate solution, noted that if pay stations were removed, the City's costs would only be for signage and the removal of meter poles, added that the City's cost for ParkMobile is $.15 per transaction, but the City does not pay for the infrastructure, $2 million will facilitate the transition to a product that is already obsolete, other companies provide the same service as ParkMobile, emerging technology offers the ability to host multiple service providers, the service delivery tradeoff is accommodating motorists who do not want to walk to a pay station, do not have a smartphone, or are unwilling to use an app, noted that residents can purchase an annual parking permit or a master parking permit, stated that parking fees help offset the cost of tourism and encourages parking turnover in business districts, affirmed that parking meters are available at Corona del Mar State Beach and in the lot behind Sherman Gardens. Council Member Dixon noted that parking fees also fund improvements in the Balboa Village business district. Council Member Brenner added that Corona del Mar residents have been very resistant to having parking meters because they want to keep the feel of the village, noted that during the pandemic, social media posts have heightened the awareness about free parking in Corona del Mar and added that, at the upcoming District 6 Town Hall, Corona del Mar residents will be discussing locating paid parking in significant places without parking meters cluttering views. In response to Mayor O'Neill's questions, Finance Director Matusiewicz reported that certain areas along Pacific Coast Highway and in West Newport have low concentrations of parking and little demand for parking, and solely using ParkMobile in those areas would be the logical choice. Mayor O'Neill believed people have figured out the app and pay stations; therefore, he preferred the least costly option, Option 2A. In response to Council Member Herdman's question, Finance Director Matusiewicz indicated the third option is to use a phone app only, which could be done now, but he was trying a gentler approach and noted that some cities have removed parking meters and pay stations altogether. Council Member Herdman referred to budget cuts due to COVID-19 and believed Option 3 could be implemented and would save a significant amount of money. Finance Director Matusiewicz continued the presentation with the pros and cons of Options 2A and 2B, parking infrastructure options, funding, and a cost comparison of options. Jim Mosher discussed coastal access, equity, and smartphone ownership, and suggested an opportunity for those who do not own a smartphone to purchase a day parking permit with cash. Mayor O'Neill noted concerns about the WiFi signal being too weak to access ParkMobile on his smartphone, cell phone infrastructure may not be adequate for Option 3, and not everyone owns a smartphone. He stated his support for Option 2A. In response to Council Member Dixon's questions, Finance Director Matusiewicz advised that the anticipated life span of pay stations is 7 to 10 years, 29 of the existing 84 pay stations would need to be replaced in the next 3 to 5 years, 54 pay stations would replace single-space meters, and the transition away from single-space meters is underway, but the transition could be more aggressive. Anthony Alannouf, AmeriPark Municipal Parking, explained the calculation to determine the number of pay stations needed to replace single-space meters. Council Member Dixon indicated a more aggressive transition to a parking app would be fiscally prudent, and the City can do more to educate the public about the transition. Volume 64 - Page 494 City of Newport Beach Study Session and Regular Meeting August 25, 2020 Council Member Duffield shared his experience with a parking app in Ogden, Utah, advised that his initial frustration disappeared with the use of the app, and stated that the app is free and easy to use. In response to Council Member Brenner's questions, Finance Director Matusiewicz indicated that the City's GIS contains the location for each parking space and pay station, but the public needs to be educated, suggested the City offer clinics for seniors on how to download apps, tourists could be issued a warning for a first parking offense and a ticket for subsequent offenses, and stated that staff could contact Google Maps about including parking information, but he would have to confer with IT. Mayor O'Neill expressed concerns about strictly using the ParkMobile app because wireless infrastructure does not adequately cover the City, especially on high traffic days, agreed with comments about cost, and stated that Option 2A is probably the best choice with a caveat for staff to ensure that 54 pay stations is the correct amount needed. With Council Member Muldoon recusing himself, there was a 6-0 straw vote in opposition to implementing Option 1. With Council Member Muldoon recusing himself and Mayor O'Neill, Mayor Pro Tem Avery, and Council Member Brenner noting the affirmative, there was a 3-3 straw vote to implement Option 2A. With Council Member Muldoon recusing himself, there was a 6-0 straw vote in opposition to implementing Option 2B. With Council Member Muldoon recusing himself and Council Members Dixon, Herdman and Duffield noting the affirmative, there was a 3-3 straw vote to implement Option 3. Mayor O'Neill recommended that staff return with a discussion about Options 2A and 3, including a comparison of the options, GIS locations, California Coastal Commission approval, adequacy of wireless coverage across the City, the experiences of other coastal cities, and potential cost reductions for Option 2A. Finance Director Matusiewicz reported that State law prohibits the removal of all pay stations and requires a payment option. Hoiyin Ip hoped Council would support Option 2A for parking due to internet access and believed pay stations should remain until internet access is no longer a problem. III. PUBLIC COMMENTS Jim Mosher was pleased with the decision not to schedule a Closed Session for tonight, noted the Board of Supervisors was scheduled to meet in Closed Session to discuss rent amounts under the General Aviation Improvement Program (GRIP), believed the true purpose of the Closed Session was to discuss a response to the City's request for operational restrictions on any of the leases, and felt the City should raise concerns with the Board of Supervisors. Chad Kroeger described the City's dumping of sand in the skate park as an act of war against the youth and stated that skateboarders need restitution from the City. JT Parr suggested that City officials dance with the youth to show that they hear them, asked Mayor O'Neill to attend the San Clemente skate park bowl on September 4, 2020, which is the day Tony Hawk Pro Skater is released, to demonstrate that skateboarders can trust him. Mayor O'Neill noted that the City did not pour sand in any skate park Volume 64 - Page 495 City of Newport Beach Study Session and Regular Meeting August 25, 2020 IV. RECESSED - 5:50 p.m. V. RECONVENED AT 6:12 P.M. FOR REGULAR MEETING VI. ROLL CALL Present: Mayor Will O'Neill, Mayor Pro Tem Brad Avery, Council Member Joy Brenner, Council Member Diane Dixon, Council Member Duffy Duffield, Council Member Jeff Herdman, Council Member Kevin Muldoon VII. INVOCATION — Dr. Jim Turrell, Center for Spiritual Living Newport Mesa VIII. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE — Mayor O'Neill IX. NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC X. CITY COUNCIL ANNOUNCEMENTS AND ORAL REPORTS FROM CITY COUNCIL ON COMMITTEE ACTIVITIES Mayor O'Neill and Council Member Dixon jointly requested Council consider a future item to oppose Proposition 15. Council Member Herdman: • Reported extensive work over the past few weeks regarding the General Aviation Improvement Program (GAIP) • Attended a Balboa Island Improvement Association board meeting and learned of its intention to form an assessment district for the completion of undergrounding; the monthly Orange County Mosquito and Vector Control meeting; along with Council Member Dixon, a Board of Supervisors meeting last month regarding GAIP; and a technical departure subcommittee meeting • Chaired the monthly Aviation Committee meeting Council Member Brenner: • Attended the Corona del Mar Residents' Association (CdMRA) board meeting and an Ad Hoc Committee on Short Term Lodging meeting • Met with the solid waste recycling subcommittee along with Mayor O'Neill and Council Member Dixon; Public Works and the Police Department regarding parking strategies for old Corona del Mar; Craig Batley and Scott McFetters; and the Planning Department and Goldenrod residents regarding construction traffic • Shared a flyer announcing a Town Hall meeting for District 6 on August 27, 2020, at 5:30 p.m. to discuss traffic issues in Corona del Mar and noted registration is available at newportbeachca.gov/ district6townhall • Displayed a photo from the groundbreaking ceremony for the Grant Howald Park rehabilitation project and announced information about the project is available at newportbeachca.gov/ granthowaldpark Council Member Dixon: • Requested a future agenda item to consider ways to expand the Newport Beach Municipal Code and code enforcement program to address code violations, including short-term lodging, noise complaints, and a study on Municipal Code citation fees • Announced that Sheriff Barnes held a virtual meeting to discuss cybersecurity • Reported extensive work on aviation, airport, and general aviation issues • Addressed the Board of Supervisors during their August 11, 2020 meeting, along with Council Member Herdman • Attended an Aviation Committee meeting on August 24, 2020 and an Ad Hoc Committee on Short Term Lodging meeting Volume 64 - Page 496 City of Newport Beach Study Session and Regular Meeting August 25, 2020 Council Member Muldoon: • Requested Council consider a future item in support of Proposition 20 Mayor Pro Tem Avery: • Displayed slides to discuss the East Jetty Revetment Project and the Entrance Channel Dredging Project Mayor O'Neill: • Attended the Newport Beach Foundation meeting where Newport -Mesa Unified School District Board Member Barto spoke, the Association of California Cities - Orange County event with Sheriff Barnes, the ribbon cutting ceremony for UC Irvine's new clinic in Newport Beach, and the groundbreaking ceremony for Grant Howald Park • Announced Sheriff Barnes and Police Chief Lewis appeared on Speak Up Newport, Orange County Mayors created a Public Service Announcement (PSA) that will be run through the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and received a mask with the City's logo, school started yesterday, Sherman Gardens' annual soiree will be held on August 29, 2020, and Restaurant Month begins September 1, 2020 0 Reported the Housing Element Update Advisory Committee (HEUAC) will meet on September 2, 2020, at 6:00 p.m. M. MATTERS WHICH COUNCIL MEMBERS HAVE ASKED TO BE PLACED ON A FUTURE AGENDA • Consideration of an emergency ordinance to enforce State guidance on face coverings by administrative citation [Brenner] Mayor Pro Tem Avery, Council Member Brenner, and Council Member Herdman concurred to bring this item back to a future meeting. • Consideration of implementing a "one person one seat" rule for establishments with a walk-up bar [Brenner] Mayor Pro Tem Avery, Council Member Brenner, Council Member Dixon, and Council Member Herdman concurred to bring this item back at a future meeting. XII. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON CONSENT CALENDAR - None XIII. CONSENT CALENDAR READING OF MINUTES AND ORDINANCES 1. Minutes for the July 28, 2020 City Council Regular Meeting [100-20201 Waive reading of subject minutes, approve as amended, and order filed. 2. Reading of Ordinances Waive reading in full of all ordinances under consideration, and direct the City Clerk to read by title only. ORDINANCES FOR ADOPTION 3. Ordinance No. 2020-18: Adoption of an Ordinance Amending a Development Agreement for Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian (PA2020-065) (C-7719-1) [381100-20201 a) Find all significant environmental concerns for the proposed project have been addressed in a previously certified Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and Supplemental EIR, and that the City of Newport Beach intends to use said document for the above noted project, and further that there are no additional reasonable alternative or mitigation measures that should be considered in conjunction with said project; and Volume 64 - Page 497 City of Newport Beach Study Session and Regular Meeting August 25, 2020 b) Conduct a second reading and adopt Ordinance No. 2020-18, An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach, California, Amending a Development Agreement between the City of Newport Beach and Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian (Development Agreement Amendment No. DA2020-003). 4. Ordinance No. 2020-19: Adoption of an Ordinance Amending the Planning & Zoning Code (PA2019-055)) [100-20201 a) Find this project statutorily exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 21065 of CEQA and State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15060(c)(2), 15060(c)(3) and 15378. The proposed action is also exempt pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) because it has no potential to have a significant effect on the environment; and b) Conduct second reading and adopt Ordinance No. 2020-19, An Ordinance of the City Council of the City Newport Beach, California, Adopting Code Amendment No. CA2019-001 to Amend Title 20 (Planning and Zoning) of the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code Correcting and Clarifying Provisions Related to Overlays and Public Hearing Notice Requirements (PA2019- 055). RESOLUTIONS FOR ADOPTION 5. Removed from the Consent Calendar 6. Resolution No. 2020-75: Approval of Release of Certain Assets Securing the City's 2010 Certificates of Participation [100-20201 a) Determine this action is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Sections 15060(c)(2) and 15060(c)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines because this action will not result in a physical change to the environment, directly or indirectly; and b) Adopt Resolution No. 2020-75, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach, California, Approving Supplement No. 1 to Lease/Purchase Agreement dated November 1, 2010 and First Amendment to the Site Lease and Authorizing Certain Actions in Connection Therewith. CONTRACTS AND AGREEMENTS 7. City Corporation Yard Re -Roofing Project - Notice of Completion for Contract No. 7719- 1 (20F02) [38/100-2020] a) Accept the completed work and authorize the City Clerk to file a Notice of Completion for the project; b) Authorize the City Clerk to release the Labor and Materials Bond 65 days after Notice of Completion has been recorded in accordance with applicable portions of the Civil Code; and c) Release the Faithful Performance Bond one year after acceptance by the City Council. 8. Water Well Rehabilitation (Tamura Deep Well) - Notice of Completion for Contract No. 7427-2 (19W04) [381100-20201 a) Accept the completed work and authorize the City Clerk to file a Notice of Completion for the project; b) Authorize the City Clerk to release the Labor and Materials Bond 65 days after the Notice of Completion has been recorded in accordance with applicable portions of Civil Code; and c) Release Faithful Performance Bond one year after acceptance by the City Council. 9. Bison Avenue, San Joaquin Hills Road and San Nicolas Drive Pavement Rehabilitation - Notice of Completion for Contract No. 7433-2 (191121) [381100-2020] a) Accept the completed work and authorize the City Clerk to file a Notice of Completion for the project; b) Authorize the City Clerk to release the Labor and Materials Bond 65 days after the Notice of Completion has been recorded in accordance with applicable portions of the Civil Code; and Volume 64 - Page 498 City of Newport Beach Study Session and Regular Meeting August 25, 2020 c) Release the Faithful Performance Bond one year after acceptance by the City Council. Council Member Muldoon recused himself on Item 9 due to previous business interest conflicts. 10. Assessment District No. 111 and Underground Utilities District No. 22 Phases 2 & 3 — Award of Contract No. 7833-1 (21A11) [381100-20201 a) Approve the project plans and specifications; b) Declare the bid packages submitted by Teichert Energy & Utilities Group, Inc of Sacramento as non-responsive; c) Award Contract No. 7833-1 to Asplundh Construction Corp. for the bid amount of $6,969,777.79 for Underground Utility Assessment District No. 111 and Underground Utility District No. 22 — Phase 2 and optional Phase 3, and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the contract; d) Establish a $700,000 (approximately 10 percent) contingency amount to cover the cost of unforeseen work not included in the original contract; e) Authorize the City Manager to execute reimbursement agreements (C-7833-2) with utility companies for the Underground Utilities District No. 22 - Phase 2 & optional Phase 3 portion of the project on an agreement approved as to form by the City Attorney; f) Approve Amendment to Professional Services Agreement No. 7572-3 with NV5 of Irvine, CA for an additional not -to -exceed fee of $236,807 for Construction Administration and Residential Permit Support Services; g) Approve Memorandums of Understanding (MOU) with the Cities of Monrovia (C-7833-3), Mission Viejo (C-7833-4) and Laguna Woods (C-7898-1) documenting details of the transaction for the Rule 20A credit acquisition and authorize the City Manager and City Clerk to execute the MOUs; h) Authorize staff to process Rule 20A credit transfers between the City of Newport Beach and the Cities of Monrovia, Mission Viejo and Laguna Woods with SCE; and i) Approve Budget Amendment No. 21-007 recognizing $5,195,419.59 in contribution revenue funding from multiple utility companies in Account No. 13501-561007-21A11; appropriating $5,195,419.59 in increased expenditures in Account No. 13501-980000-21Al l; and appropriating $204,512.35 in increased expenditures from the Neighborhood Enhancement unappropriated fund balance to SCE Rule 20A Credit Purchase Account No. 53601-980000- 20M03. Council Member Muldoon recused himself on Item 10 due to previous business interest conflicts and City Clerk Brown recused herself on Item 10 due to real property interest conflicts. 11. Approval of Amendments to Maintenance Repair Service Agreements with GCI Construction (C-8501-1) and Tight Quarters (C-8500-1) for On -Call Beach Maintenance Services [38/100-2020] a) Determine this action is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Sections 15060(c)(2) and 15060(c)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines because this action will not result in a physical change to the environment, directly or indirectly; b) Approve Amendment No. 2 to the Maintenance Repair Services Agreement with GCI Construction to add $350,000 to the current contract for a total not -to -exceed amount of $725,000; c) Approve Amendment No. 2 to the Maintenance Repair Services Agreement with Tight Quarters, Inc. to add $155,000 to the current contract for a total not -to -exceed amount of $530,000; and d) Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the amendments. 12. Superior Avenue and West Coast Highway Intersection Improvements — Approval of Amendment No. 2 with Chambers Group, Inc. (C-8020-4) and Amendment No. 1 with Dokken Engineering (C-8020-5) and Updated Pedestrian Bridge Conceptual Design (15T09) [38/100-2020] Volume 64 - Page 499 City of Newport Beach Study Session and Regular Meeting August 25, 2020 a) Determine this action is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Sections 15060(c)(2) and 15060(c)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines because this action will not result in a physical change to the environment, directly or indirectly; b) Approve Amendment No. 2 in the amount of $227,821.00 to the Professional Services Agreement with Chambers Group, Inc. for environmental review services at a new not -to -exceed total price of $389,038.00 and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the Amendment; c) Approve Amendment No. 1 in the amount of $970,000.00 to the Professional Services Agreement with Dokken Engineering for professional engineering design services at a new not -to -exceed total price of $1,889,890.00 and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the Amendment; and d) Approve a revision to the Conceptual Design related to the Superior Avenue pedestrian bridge structure. Council Member Muldoon recused himself on Item 12 due to previous business interest conflicts. 13. Back Bay Landing Development — Reimbursement Agreement with Bayside Village Marina LLC for Environmental Review, Permitting and Design Services (C-8487-4) [38/100-2020] a) Determine this action is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15262 (Feasibility and Planning) of the CEQA Guidelines because this action involves executing a Reimbursement Agreement to undertake future environmental review, permitting and design services; b) Approve a Reimbursement Agreement with Bayside Village Marina LLC and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the Agreement; and c) Approve Budget Amendment No. 21-005 recognizing $450,000 in increased contributions in Account No. 13501-561005-16W12; recognizing $22,500 in increased revenue in account 01080801-521380; and appropriating $450,000 in increased expenditures in Account No. 13501- 980000-16W12 for the Bay/Channel Crossings Water Main Replacement (16W12) project. MISCELLANEOUS 14. Planning Commission Agenda for the August 20, 2020 Meeting [100-2020] Receive and file. Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Avery, seconded by Council Member Muldoon, to approve the Consent Calendar, except for Item 5; and noting Council Member Muldoon's recusals on Items 9, 10 and 12, and the amendments to Item 1. The motion carried unanimously. XIV. ITEM REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR 5. Resolution No. 2020-74: Resolution in Support of the Newport Beach Police Department [100-2020] Council Member Dixon read a proclamation supporting the Newport Beach Police Department, noted residents' access to Police Chief Lewis at all hours of the day and night, thanked Chief Lewis for his leadership and commitment to keeping the City safe, shared call and response statistics, believed the Newport Beach Police Department exemplifies the best in community policing, thanked the 148 sworn officers, 84 non -sworn officers, 27 part-time personnel, and 53 volunteers for providing 87,000 residents and 10 million visitors with world-class service. Council Member Brenner related that the Police Department's service has been more far-reaching than just protests this year, added that police officers have risen to each occasion and treated everyone with respect and dignity, and noted that the Police Department truly practices community policing and has set the bar. Volume 64 - Page 500 City of Newport Beach Study Session and Regular Meeting August 25, 2020 Council Member Muldoon appreciated the calm and professional demeanor of the police officers and the Police Chiefs approachable philosophy during recent protests because they elevated the City of Newport Beach and showed that the City has law, order, and compassion. Mayor Pro Tem Avery indicated he is continually impressed with the Police Department's professionalism and intelligence in dealing with people and de-escalating situations and was honored to serve on a Council with a police force such as the Newport Beach Police Department. Mayor O'Neill noted his disappointment with the cancellation of the Police Appreciation Breakfast and noted that the community has shown its support for the Police Department with newspaper ads and signs. Motion by Council Member Dixon, seconded by Council Member Muldoon, to a) determine this action is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Sections 15060(c)(2) and 15060(c)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines because this action will not result in a physical change to the environment, directly or indirectly; and b) adopt Resolution No. 2020-74, AResolution of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach, California, Supporting the Newport Beach Police Department. , The motion carried unanimously. XV. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON AGENDA ITEMS Chad Kroeger repeated his comments made during the study session. Mayor O'Neill reiterated that Newport Beach does not have a skate park and the City did not put sand anywhere. He pointed out that the picture that was displayed is from a different city. JT Parr suggested the Mayor can serve as an ambassador for the rider and city official community, and asked the Mayor to attend the San Clemente skate park bowl on September 4, 2020. Jim Mosher noted the appeal history of an application to build a private parking structure at the intersection of Avon Street and Riverside Avenue, stated that decision -makers rely on staff to be neutral and unbiased in evaluating proposals, noted that City staff submitted an unsolicited letter to the Coastal Commission advocating for the applicant, and believed the public has difficulty thinking of and viewing staff as neutral when they take a side. An unidentified speaker discussed an August 12, 2020 decision from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals regarding Federal Communications Commission (FCC) 18-123, wireless facility radiation as a matter of public safety, and opposition to small cell facilities in residential areas. Scott Carpenter, iTrip Vacations, wanted Council to review the emergency ordinance for short-term lodging and consider lifting the moratorium on new short-term lodging permits now that Orange County has been removed from the State's Coronavirus watch list of counties monitored for the virus. XVI. PUBLIC HEARINGS 15. Ordinance No. 2020-20: Non -Exclusive Commercial Solid Waste Franchises [73/100-20201 Mayor O'Neill opened the public hearing. Hearing no testimony, he closed the public hearing. Motion by Mayor O'Neill, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Avery, to a) determine this action is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Sections 15060(c)(2) and 15060(c)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines because this action will not result in a physical change to the. environment, directly or indirectly; and b) waive full reading, direct the City Clerk to read by Volume 64 - Page 501 City of Newport Beach Study Session and Regular Meeting August 25, 2020 title only, introduce Ordinance No. 2020-20, An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach, California, Granting the 2020 Non -Exclusive Franchise Agreements for Commercial Solid Waste and Divertible Materials Handling Services within the City of Newport Beach to the 15 so named companies, and pass to second reading on September 8, 2020. The motion carried unanimously. 16. Ordinance No. 2020-21: Zoning Code Amendment to Allow Wine Tasting Room Uses within the Industrial Zoning District (PA2020-042) [100-20201 In response to Mayor O'Neill's questions, Community Development Director Jurjis indicated that in order to limit the amendment as much as possible staff proposed wine tasting only, provided a map depicting the 500 -foot exclusion zone, and noted that, to staffs knowledge, no schools are located within the Costa Mesa portion of the exclusion zone. City Attorney Harp advised that the proposed Code amendment cannot be further amended during the meeting to include beer tasting. In response to Council Member Dixon's questions, Community Development Director Jurjis explained that the map shows the buildings where the use would be allowed and this use has not been considered in a General Plan process, noted that Council has considered but not supported an alcohol use in the Industrial Zone in the past, stated that the community has not provided input regarding uses for the area, noted that the Orange County Winery is currently operating as a retail establishment when it should be operating as a manufacturing establishment, related that staff has been aware of Orange County Winery's noncompliance for approximately a year and a half and has suspended an enforcement action pending Council action on the Code amendment, and added that if Council approves the Code amendment, Orange Coast Winery would apply for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP), otherwise, staff will pursue Code enforcement action. Council Member Dixon stated when she visited the site approximately a year and a half ago, the tenant understood he was operating without a permit and was hoping for a favorable disposition from the City. At the time, she recommended leniency while the tenant searched for another location. Community Development Director Jurjis believed the tenant has found a location in Costa Mesa but is awaiting Council's action, stated that this item and alcohol service in the Industrial Zone have not been discussed in the General Plan Update process, and the community has not provided input on the issues, noted that public comment on the item has been supportive, and added that the Police Department has not considered the project. Council Member Dixon indicated she would not support the proposed Code amendment without a study and community input, and recommended Council defer the item until the General Plan committee could review it. Mayor Pro Tem Avery noted that the Orange Coast Winery is located in his district, the business has morphed since it opened, noted that these uses have been successful in industrial zones in other cities, and believed Council should review the use and rezoning. In response to Council Member Brenner's questions, Community Development Director Jurjis related that staff has not conducted any outreach to businesses and residents in the area. Council Member Brenner loved the idea of having eating and drinking establishments within walking distance of homes, but this seems to be a piecemeal approach. She expressed opposition to rewarding people who break laws and defy ordinances, indicated she wanted to see a study of changes to the area that could make it inviting for residents, and did not believe this is the right way to change the zoning for the area. In response to her question, Community Development Director Jurjis advised that the only process is the General Plan Update process due to staff resources. Council Member Muldoon believed this use would be excellent for the neighborhood as it would increase property values and may create more housing, stated he was elected not to impede business and not to micromanage free enterprise, believed there should be beer tasting as well as wine tasting, noted that if others want to do this, they will have to utilize the General Plan process, and pointed out that he had not received any public comments opposing the proposed Code amendment. Volume 64 - Page 502 City of Newport Beach Study Session and Regular Meeting August 25, 2020 Mayor O'Neill opened the public hearing. Phil Greer, attorney for the applicant, reported that the applicant seeks to continue the wine tasting operation that has been in effect for approximately ten years, the applicant was not aware of the noncompliance issue until City personnel visited the site, the business is currently closed, the proposed amendment would allow any business to apply for a CUP to operate a wine tasting room, the application process includes community research and outreach, the applicant has not found a location in Costa Mesa, the applicant does not serve food or drinks and has no kitchen, the applicant wants to sell wine from a specific winery, the proposed amendment would essentially modify a definition, parking for the business is more than adequate, and believed the proposed amendment would enhance growth in the area, provide alternatives, and increase property values. Jim Mosher agreed with Council Member Dixon, was unclear how this decision got through the Planning Commission, referenced General Plan goals for the Industrial Zone, noted that a wine tasting operation could be accommodated in other areas in the City, believed the proposed amendment is incompatible with the current General Plan, and stated that approving the proposed amendment would exclude this type of business from all other areas in the City. John Allred, Toes on the Nose shop owner, supported having a wine tasting facility in the current location as the area is unique and offers an opportunity for something special, noted that his business neighbors also support the applicant and business is difficult enough without this kind of challenge. Michael Bakke believed a walkable route from his home to a wine tasting room would be a good thing for his neighborhood, the business would draw professionals and educated people, and supported the project. Dorothy Kraus did not support amending the Code, stated there was no outreach to the area, believed this is spot zoning, and suggested folding the issue into Housing Element discussions. Hearing no further testimony, Mayor O'Neill closed the public hearing. In response to Council Member Brenner's questions, Community Development Director Jurjis reported a use was granted for the manufacturing of wine, Orange County Winery had a little tasting room and, over time, they stopped manufacturing wine and became a wine tasting room with food service. He added that this area is under consideration as a housing opportunity site rather than a future restaurant or alcohol use, and proposals for commercial uses in the Industrial Zone will be discussed as part of the General Plan Update process. Council Member Duffield shared his observations of the area over the past 50 years, indicated true industrial manufacturing does not exist in the area, stated that retail businesses in the area are disguised as wholesale businesses, and believed, in the big picture, the wine tasting room would not harm the area. Mayor Pro Tem Avery stated the owners have been running a good operation, believed creating a discrete zone for this type of use could have potential and should be explored, suggested Council could figure out a way to proceed without ignoring the planning process, and acknowledged he received support for this type of business. Mayor O'Neill noted the item before Council is different from the item presented to the Planning Commission, the original item would affect fewer buildings and preserve what has been in the area for years, and the Planning Commission recommended deleting the 500 -foot exclusion zone. In response to his questions, City Attorney Harp explained spot zoning, reported that the item presented to the Planning Commission was closer to spot zoning than the item before Council, noted that spot zoning is allowed if a public benefit can be shown, stated that spot zoning is not applicable to the item before Council, added that if Council wishes to proceed with the item presented to the Volume 64 - Page 503 City of Newport Beach Study Session and Regular Meeting August 25, 2020 Planning Commission, it should find that some public benefit results from the spot zoning, and clarified that a public benefit is not mentioned in the staff report. Community Development Director Jurjis advised that staff did not view the item before the Planning Commission as spot zoning and did not discuss a public benefit, displayed a slide showing a map of the exclusion zone and the two parcels outside the zone, one of which could apply for a CUP for a wine tasting use. Further, because another parcel could benefit from the proposed amendment, staff did not consider a finding for a public benefit. Mayor O'Neill suggested Council return the item to the Planning Commission with direction to review the 500 -foot separation from schools and 500 -foot separation from another use, analyze the item from spot zoning and public benefit perspectives, review it soon, and notice the community/homeowners associations, Carden Hall, and Pacifica Christian High School. If the Planning Commission cannot determine a public benefit, then that is the situation. He noted that a more robust discussion of what the area should look like in the future could be a middle ground. Council Member Dixon indicated the Planning Commission interprets the rules and is being asked to make new rules, believing that a zoning change should be community driven and the final plan should be presented to the Planning Commission. She stated that if the Planning Department had sufficient resources, she would suggest forming an ad hoc committee to review and engage the community. In response to her question, Community Development Director Jurjis related that the City does not have any tools to allow an illegal use to continue operating for one or two years; however, at best, a 90 -day limited term permit may allow the business to operate. He stated that staff suspended an active enforcement to allow the business to find a new location and await the result of the proposed Code amendment and direction from Council. Council Member Muldoon stated that the General Plan is not a sacred document and is meant to be amended, believed those who want to squash businesses will often use rules imposed by the General Plan and omit the fact that the document is not meant to confine, stated that the landlord will do what he wants with the property, and further noted that the General Plan is not meant to be more important than people. Motion by Council Member Muldoon, seconded by Council Member Duffield, to a) find this action proposed herein is not a project subject to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") in accordance with Section 21065 of the California Public Resources Code and Sections 15060 (c)(2), 15060 (c)(3), and 15378 of the California Code of Regulations Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3 ("CEQA Guidelines"). The proposed action is also exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment; and b) waive full reading, direct the City Clerk to read by title only, introduce Ordinance No. 2020-21, An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach, California, Adopting Zoning Code Amendment No. CA2020-005 to Amend Section 20.24.020 (Industrial Zoning Land Uses and Permit Requirements) of Title 20 (Planning and Zoning) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code and Other Related Provisions to Allow for Wine Tasting Rooms within the Industrial Zoning District (IG) (PA2020-042), and pass to second reading on September 8, 2020. In response to Council Member Brenner's question, Community Development Director Jurjis understood most of the coffee houses, restaurants, and retail shops in that area are actually located in Costa Mesa, noted that a coffee roasting business that does some onsite tasting and a catering facility are located in Newport Beach and there could be some retail businesses operating in the area. Council Member Brenner expressed concern that one business would be penalized when the whole area may be in transition and suggested studying the issue and conducting outreach. Mayor Pro Tem Avery expressed wanting to discuss an extension for the business while studying the issues and engaging the community. In response to Council Member Dixon's question, Community Development Director Jurjis reported that a limited term permit could allow operations for 90 days and could be extended for an additional 90 days, and stated that Council could approve the item with direction to staff to study the area and return with something broader. Volume 64 - Page 504 City of Newport Beach Study Session and Regular Meeting August 25, 2020 In response to Council Member Herdman's question, Community Development Director Jurjis noted that approval of tonight's item would impose a CUP, so it is discretionary. Mayor O'Neill recapped that, within the 90 days provided through a limited term permit, the Planning Commission and the community could discuss the item, the Planning Commission should analyze the 500 -foot exclusion zone and make a determination regarding public benefit, believed that two hearings before the Planning Commission and two hearings before the City Council provide plenty of opportunities for public input, and noted the Planning Commission is tasked with interpreting the Code and making recommendations regarding a public benefit. In response to Mayor O'Neill's question, Community Development Director Jurjis advised that a limited term permit would allow the business to operate for 90 days while the Planning Commission analyzes the issues and staff conducts community outreach, and stated that the Planning Commission could also extend the limited term permit for a second 90 -day period. In response to Council Member Dixon's question, Mayor O'Neill doubted there would be a high- speed, holistic review process because only two parcels outside the 500 -foot exclusion zone would be allowed to apply for a wine tasting use, believed allowing the use on two additional parcels is not a holistic change, and stated that if this is close to spot zoning, the Planning Commission should attempt to find a public benefit. In response to Council Member Brenner's questions, Mayor O'Neill believed the Housing Element Update Advisory Committee (HEUAC) would have to consider the area for housing and clarified that modifying the zoning to allow an additional use now does not prevent Council from modifying the zoning for housing in a future General Plan. Community Development Director Jurjis clarified that the General Plan sets the path forward, and the Zoning Code implements the General Plan. In response to Council Member Muldoon's question, City Attorney Harp indicated one public benefit could be the fact that there is a lack of this type of general service business in the area. Council Member Muldoon believed Council could establish a public benefit from the dais which would include having a business within walking distance of residences, preservation of the value of the business, and preparation for the likely future of this area, which will increase revenues through property and sales taxes. In response to Council Member Dixon's question, Community Development Director Jurjis reported a zoning change is needed to allow the business to operate for the long term; however, a limited term permit would allow the business to operate for a maximum of six months. Council Member Dixon noted the problem is the zoning and supported approving a limited term permit while the Planning Commission analyzes a public benefit. Mayor O'Neill clarified that Council cannot direct the issuance of a limited term permit. If the motion fails, he would propose a compromise motion to send the item back to the Planning Commission for review of the 500 -foot exclusion zones from schools and similar businesses, direct the Planning Commission to hold a public hearing within 90 days unless it needs more community input, and strongly suggest the issuance of a permit that puts the business in compliance and the approval of a permit extension if the Planning Commission cannot hold a hearing within 90 days. In response to his question, City Attorney Harp confirmed that the proposed compromise motion is legal. Mayor O'Neill noted staff should drive community participation. Amended motion by Council Member Muldoon seconded by Council Member Duffield, to a) send the matter back to the Planning Commission to review the 500 foot separation from schools and 500 foot separation between properties that have wine tasting rooms and make a recommendation regarding findings for the public benefit for spot zoning within 90 days with staff conducting community outreach; b) suggest staff issue a 90 day special permit to allow the interim use, which the Planning Commission may extend for up to six months if needed; and c) return to the City Council after the conclusion of Planning Commission's review. Volume 64 - Page 505 City of Newport Beach Study Session and Regular Meeting August 25, 2020 The amended motion carried unanimously. 17. Resolution No. 2020-76: Appeal of Planning Commission's Decision of an AT&T Small Cell Installation (PA2019-111) [100-2020] Mayor O'Neill recused himself due to business interest conflicts. Council Member Brenner recused herself due to financial interest conflicts. Council Member Muldoon recused himself due to previous business interest conflicts. Mayor Pro Tem Avery described the process for the public hearing. City Attorney Harp noted the Charter requires four affirmative votes to pass any resolution and discussed the consequences of less than four affirmative votes. Senior Planner Zdeba utilized a presentation to provide the background of the project, limitations on the review process, the request, renderings of the existing and proposed light standard, alternative sites, coverage, findings, the appeal, and staffs recommendation. Mayor Pro Tem Avery opened the public hearing. Cory Autrey, representing AT&T, reported he was involved in negotiating the Master License Agreement (MLA) with the City. Emily Murray, attorney for the applicant, reviewed the legal issues raised in the appeal and the applicant's responses, believed the issues have no legal merit, noted that during the Planning Commission hearing, the City Attorney advised the Planning Commission that the issues did not pose any risk to the City, and affirmed that the applicant requests Council deny the appeal. Mark Pollock, representing the appellant, detailed concerns regarding the City's liability that resulted in the appeal, reviewed discrepancies within the document, requested the correction of the permit holder's name to New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC to ensure the indemnity provisions of the MLA are legal and enforceable, and recommended that the applicant re -submit the application with the proper name and proof of self-insurance for electromagnetic field and pollution coverage. In response to Council Member Dixon's question, City Attorney Harp believed the entity and insurance are proper and Council can make the findings and uphold the Planning Commission's decision. Jim Mosher understood Council could consider issues other than those the appellant raised and discussed Zoning Code and Coastal Implementation Program priorities for locating wireless facilities and the inability of small cell facilities to function from rooftops. An unidentified speaker stated he supports the appeal because of problems with the application and discussed the need for environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), complaints to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), and electromagnetic field emissions. Ms. Murray clarified the applicability of NEPA. Mr. Autrey indicated many laws grant AT&T access to public right-of-ways, and -small cell technology provides the best coverage when deployed in public right-of-ways. Hearing no further testimony, Mayor Pro Tem Avery closed the public hearing. Motion by Council Member Dixon, seconded by Council Member Herdman, to a) find this project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Sections 15302 and 15303 under Class 2 (Replacement or Reconstruction) and Class 3 (New Construction or Volume 64 - Page 506 City of Newport Beach Study Session and Regular Meeting August 25, 2020 Conversion of Small Structures), respectively, of the State CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, because it has no potential to have a significant effect on the environment and the exceptions to the Class 3 exemption under Section 15300.2 do not apply; and c) adopt Resolution No. 2020-76, A Resolution of the City Council of Newport Beach, California, Upholding the Decision of the Planning Commission Approving Minor Use Permit No. UP2019-030 and Coastal Development Permit No. CD2020-052 for a Small Cell Facility Located Within the Public Right -of -Way on City Streetlight No. SCL0796, at the Northwestern Corner of Balboa Boulevard and 30th Street (PA2019-111), and denying the appeal. With Mayor O'Neill, Council Member Brenner and Council Member Muldoon recusing themselves, the motion carried 4-0. XVII. CURRENT BUSINESS 18. Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19) Update [100-20201 City Manager Leung used a presentation to review recent and pending changes, school openings, a second testing site, the fast track back to business program, small business support grants and announced that applications for the business grants are due August 28, 2020, at 5:00 p.m. Mayor O'Neill indicated he wanted to send two letters to the Governor, if there are no objections, for guidance regarding 1) in-person voting and 2) reopening barber shops, nail salons, and beauty salons, and explained his reasons for requesting guidance. Council Members did not object. In response to Council Member Dixon's question, Deputy City Manager Finnigan reported the next group of 100 grant applications are being vetted and all funds must be disbursed by December 1, 2020. In response to Council Member Muldoon's question, Fire Chief Boyles indicated that 72 firefighters and lifeguards either tested positive or were quarantined during July, but all have returned to work and are healthy, noted that the Junior Lifeguard Program was extremely successful, and none of the participants became ill, added that 17 personnel have been deployed to wildfires, and that concerns have shifted from COVID-19 to wildfires. Council Member Muldoon thanked Chief Boyles and his staff for running the Junior Lifeguard Program so well and stated this has been quite a year. XVIII. MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION - None XIX. ADJOURNMENT - At 9:13 p.m. in memory of Dick Nichols and John Hamilton The agenda was posted on the City's website and on the City Hall electronic bulletin board located in the entrance of the City Council Chambers at 100 Civic Center Drive on August 20, 2020, at 4:00 p.m. Will O'Neill Mayor Volume 64 - Page 507