Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01 - MinutesMay 11, 2021 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Agenda Item No City Council Minutes Study Session and Regular Meeting April 27, 2021 I. ROLL CALL — 4:00 p.m. Present: Mayor Brad Avery, Mayor Pro Tem Kevin Muldoon (arrived at 4:05 p.m.), Council Member Noah Blom, Council Member Joy Brenner, Council Member Diane Dixon, Council Member Duffy Duffield, Council Member Will O'Neill II. CURRENT BUSINESS SS1. Clarification of Items on the Consent Calendar — None SS2. Poppy Month Proclamation [100-2021] Mayor Avery announced that the item will be continued to a future City Council meeting. SS3. Initial Draft of the General Plan Housing Element U13date (PA2017-141) [100-2021] Community Development Director Jurjis and Deputy Community Development Director Campbell utilized a presentation to discuss the background Qf the committees, workshops, advertising and outreach, draft Housing Element, Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) and net remaining need, development potelLEal, site selection process, accommodating the remaining need, sight plane view ordinance, a 'Coyote Canyon and Banning Ranch. In response to Council Member O'Neill's questions, Deputy Community Development Director Campbell reported that rezoning in three years is re ,g,Uired by statute, the City will need to rezone Banning Ranch in advance of annexation, and in order to continue using Banning Ranch in the sixth cycle Housing Element, the City has tensure housing opportunities are available within three years. Deputy Community Development Director Campbell continued the presentation with a discussion about ry Dwelling Uryits (ADUs). In responsetoMember Dixon's question, Community Development Director Jurjis indicated that staff needs Council's input regarding the projection for ADUs. Deputy Comm ity Development Director Campbell further presented a site inventory summary. In response to Council Member Dixon's questions, Deputy Community Development Director Campbell advised that the 2,682 units of pipeline projects and fifth cycle sites comply with the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) guidance and noted that a buffer is highly recommended but not mandated. Community Development Director Jurjis added that above -moderate units pay for very low and low-income housing units, and these are mainly above -moderate units. Council Member Dixon expressed concern about the City stating it can zone for 9,000 housing units, and stated that moderate and above -moderate units are important because they pay for low and very -low housing. Deputy Community Development Director Campbell continued the presentation with the sites inventory "buffer." Volume 65 - Page 13 City of Newport Beach Study Session and Regular Meeting April 27, 2021 In response to Mayor Pro Tem Muldoon's questions, Deputy Community Development Director Campbell related that the City needs to plan and provide zoning for sites, but there is no obligation to build, as that is up to the private sector. Mayor Pro Tem Muldoon indicated his dislike for the buffer. Deputy Community Development Director Campbell presented additional information regarding questions about the buffer and Charter Section 423 (Greenlight). In response to Council Member Dixon's question, Deputy Community Development Director Campbell advised that staff anticipates the 4,985 units will be subject to Greenlight. Deputy Community Development Director Campbell continued the presentation with why "no net loss" is important. Council Member O'Neill noted that creating overlay zones does not change the Land Use Element or the General Plan, but applying an overlay to a development project could trigger a Greenlight vote. He added that if a project fails a Greenlight vote, there will be a no net loss issue and stated that cities with a slow -growth ordinance o�Charter amendment have a higher buffer because projects may fail the slow -growth vote. In response to Council Member Brenner's question, Dave Barquist, Kimley-Horn & Associates, reported that the City of Encinitas and HCDa negotiating a igher buffer to compensate for a speculative approach to housing. r Council Member Dixon cautioned about looking at what other cities are doing. In response to her questions, Community Development Director Jurjis indicated Greenlight votes on projects are possible and there is currently no case law that invalidates no -growth regulations. Mayor Pro Tem Muldoon stated the City is restricted by its slow -growth initiative and the City has to get residents to agree to new housing units. In response to his question, Community Development Director Jurjis relatAd thzt t4 enforceability of Greenlight is still to come and the State is going to try to subvert the ChartWHe added that the Charter is currently in place, so the City has to comply with it. Mayor Pro em Muldoon questioned whether the City could use the Charter to keep the numbers lower rather than use the Charter and a buffer. He stated he did not undersand why the City should show HCD more units when it could use Greenlight to preserve to 1 control and did not want Newport Beach to lead on this issue. I Council Me b Blom clarified that Encinitas' 67% is comparable to Newport Beach's 22% and also did not want to overestimate the buffer. Council Member O'Neill related that Encinitas' litigation is very complicated, stated that in one of their lawsuits, the judge set aside their slow -growth initiative to certify the Housing Element, and added that another lawsuit will determine whether State laws override Encinitas' slow - growth initiative. In response to Council Member Dixon's question, City Attorney Harp advised that, arguably, Council can go forward with the Housing Element without a Greenlight vote, but noted that many issues about whether State law supersedes local Charter amendments are unresolved. Council Member O'Neill expressed the opinion that Council needs to move forward assuming current laws are valid. City Attorney Harp indicated that many issues are currently being litigated. Volume 65 - Page 14 City of Newport Beach Study Session and Regular Meeting April 27, 2021 Community Development Director Jurjis and Deputy Community Development Director Campbell concluded the presentation with upcoming housing policies, next steps, environmental review (CEQA), statutory deadlines, and the General Plan Update (GPU) schedule moving forward. Housing Element Update Advisory Committee (HEUAC) Chair Tucker shared his experience on the Planning Commission with two Housing Elements, expressed the opinion that the State over -reacted in changing the rules, stated he does not fully understand the statutory framework, indicated that Council will have more questions about the process as they move forward, affirmed that the City might end up with more housing than it is set up for, stated that Newport Beach is a built -out community and most development is not obsolete, and reported that the State has decided the balanced land -use plan is not the best use of property. He expressed his frustration with the process, discussed that the HEUAC was charged with developing a plan to comply with RHNA, indicated that the Housing Element is the least specific document of the GPU, noted that the HEUAC looked at every potential site in Newport Beach, acknowledged that staff wrote letters to property owners and received a tepid response, related that the game plan is to get the Housing Element approved and then go into the details and how it will work with overlays, attested that few properties can be rezo d, confirmed that Council will be heavily involved in the mechanics of the Housing Eleme lieved the State is getting around the application of CEQA by objective standards and a t Council will have an interest in establishing objective standards. Mayor Pro Tem Muldoon found no benefit to submitting the Housing Element early, expressed the opinion that the smartest approach is to submit it on October 15, bringing existing ADUs into compliance could increase the overall number of units, Council needs to know the strategies other cities are using, and noted hiss t of preserving the sight plane. He thanked staff, the HEUAC, and Council Members invol in the process In response to Council Member Dixon's questions, Community Development Director Jurjis reported there is a 120 -day penalty -free period, and added that if Council wants to examine ADUs, he would not want-8taff to spendimot than 60 days obtaining input from the community and a final Council review before submitti g the draft to HCD for its 60 -day review. Council Member Dixon supported his propos,I a reed with Mayor Pro Tem Muldoon regarding not submitting earl , thanked the HEUAC;, Chair Tucker, Council Member O'Neill, and the community, e:ressed concern about doing this absent the GPU, understood that the Land Use Element update was plannedhoward the end of the year, and wanted to bring back to life the "lier question, Community Development Director Jurjis advised GPU Committee. In responlse t that Kimley-HNrn is the Housing Element consultant, Kearns & West is the outreach consultant, and LSA and Urban Crossroads will prepare traffic models, and added that staff invited Michael Costa, an affordable housing developer, to attend today's meeting. Deputy Community Development Director Campbell added that some of the HEUAC members have affordable housing expertise and noted that affordable housing projects over the past 20 years have included Bayview Landing Senior Housing, The Cove, and Uptown Newport. In response to Council Member Blom's questions, Deputy Community Development Director Campbell reported the City decides the number of projected units for Banning Ranch, the current General Plan states 1,375 units, and barriers include rezoning and annexation, which involves the California Coastal Commission. Council Member Blom stated he wanted to look at higher growth, higher density for Banning Ranch, expressed concern that there is too much affordable housing in the Airport Area, and preferred to spread out affordable housing throughout the City. Council Member O'Neill thanked the HEUAC, staff, consultants, and residents, agreed that Newport Beach is ahead of some neighboring cities so staff has the ability to do more work before submitting the draft Housing Element to HCD, stated that the City is subject to the regulations of other agencies, which tend not to be housing -friendly, preferred a more aggressive approach Volume 65 - Page 15 City of Newport Beach Study Session and Regular Meeting April 27, 2021 for ADUs, suggested staff talk with HCD regarding 1,000 units of ADUs and reducing the buffer to no more than 5%, especially in the first draft, as this will reduce the figures in Newport Center, the Airport Area, and Coyote Canyon, and expressed the opinion that property owners who request removal from the APN list should be removed and that Fritz Duda's property should be added to the list. Council Member Brenner noted Council consensus regarding appreciation for the HEUAC, reported that this process has been evolving and the State continues to change things, Council needs to move forward on the General Plan, Council does not want to be the first to submit the draft Housing Element, Council needs study sessions about ADUs and the inclusionary policy, suggested hearing from Michael Costa. Council Member Dixon agreed with Council Member Brenner and reported that legislators are proposing bills that affect density, staff needs to develop standards for multi -unit complexes, and Council needs a detailed discussion about ADU expansion. In response to her questions, Community Development Director Jurjis reported overlays will be discussed as part of the Land Use Element, but overlays are a part of zoning and the draft Housing Element is a plan to do more. Council Member Dixon agreed about inclusiona housing, believed 20% or 30% inclusionary housing might be a better approach, statedat Council needs to understand Federal and State incentive projects, concurred with having a 5% buffer, and expressed reluctance to agreeing to more housing on the Peninsula bee it needs more study and the area needs more marine -service businesses. Council Member Duffield thanked the I and staff, agreed with all of Council's comments, and noted there may be grants and monies later for homeless housing. Adak - Mayor Avery thanked the HEUAC, believed Council has studied this and is going in the same direction, noted the public is asking hard questions mt d is concerned, expressed his concern about developing villages in these areas, indicated he met with Chair Tucker to discuss this, and emphasized the need for hig V uality of life, vibrancy, and things to do in these areas. Michael Costa discussed his backgro `nd I company, inclusionary zoning as a way to help solve the problem, legislation funding affordable housing and updating CEQA for affordable housing, HCDoing after cities that do not meet low and very -low housing targets, financing programs for ordable housing units that help developers offset the cost of reduced rents and that make if easier to develop inclusionary zoning, and balancing affordability throughout the City as a way to even out lrd value and the location of affordable housing. In response to Council Members questions, Mr. Costa stated the State is pushing cities to develop more affordable housing and wants to allow by -right development of affordable housing projects so that local cities do not have control. He further stated that the State is trying to eliminate the CEQA process for affordable housing, the value of land in Newport Beach limits affordable housing projects, affordable housing developers usually build in areas that are growing, the Legislature will pass bills that gets those units built, and the last voter -approved bill was mixed with homelessness. Nancy Skinner asked if penalties for not meeting housing targets came at the end of ten years, suggested some sort of relaxed meeting to discuss this, and inquired about how for -sale affordable units are kept affordable. Debra Allen indicated 600 people from the homeowners associations think the sight plane ordinance is important and requested Council formally state there is no interest in changing it, shared the history of the sight plane ordinance and expressed concern that, without a statement from Council, developers may think housing overlays permits high rises, and added that the Planning Commission agreed with maintaining the ordinance. Volume 65 - Page 16 City of Newport Beach Study Session and Regular Meeting April 27, 2021 Nancy Scarbrough thanked the General Plan Update Steering Committee and HEUAC, noted her attendance at every in-person and virtual outreach meeting, believed it was time to pause and consider an alternate plan, submitted an Option 3 for consideration, on behalf of the Good Neighbors group, requested Council direct staff to consider it, and indicated it is sellable to the community. Sean Matsler, Cox, Castle & Nicholson, representing Lido Partners, requested inclusion of the Fritz Duda property in the site inventory list, believed that Via Lido Plaza is a gateway to the City, reported that the owner plans to propose a mixed-use redevelopment centered around Lido Theater and to maintain the existing commercial Floor Area Ratio (FAR). He added that the proposed residential use is similar to surrounding and existing uses, and the owner is willing to offer affordable housing of 15% low income and 20% moderate income, and requests a density of 30 dwelling units per acre. Jim Mosher referred to his written comments and expressed the opinion that staff has not expressed the seriousness of the housing crisis, noted that people are moving out of the State, and stated the problem is due to high taxes and property values. Max Johnson supported the Good Neighbors' Option 3, agreed with the rationale for 1,000 ADUs, supported the request to stall the submission of the draft Housing Element, and expressed the opinion that the City needs to pa and let residents be more informed and engaged in the process. David Tanner commented that it is importan Council to understand the full impact of the Housing Element on the GP and City before Council acts, believed the City will not be able to comply and should only give the minimum to HCD, stated that the City is not going to want any new housing in areas subject to fire, flooding, e_arthqua es, or other natural hazards, and the hes GPU needs to state housing will not beilocated in treas. 11 Debbie Stevens, HEUAC member, thanked staff and the consultants, was encouraged by Council's comments, stated the buffer is too large and wanted to see the number capped, indicated the Housing Element should recognize some of the existing ordinances, supported the ADU comments, concurred with restarting the GPU process, and noted that the industrial sites on the list should be removed. A4 Dorothy Kraus thanked Council who participated in many HEUAC meetings and workshops, agreed that the draft Housing Element is complicated and will have a long-lasting impact on the quality of lie and character of the City, supported the Good Neighbors' Option 3, noted that comments from Council Member Dixon, Council Member Brenner, and Mr. Costa are incorporated into Option 3, and requested Council pause and make this a thoughtful process to fully understand thronsequences of the HCD submittal. Mayor Pro Tem Muldoon stated flexibility in the location of some of the sites could be beneficial in light of potential geographical restraints caused by Greenlight, and supported an increase at Banning Ranch, Coyote Canyon and other location, and retaining as many options as possible. Council Member Dixon supported whatever is possible with Banning Ranch, did not support adding Lido Village at this time because residents have not provided input, and supported preservation of the sight plane ordinance. Community Development Director Jurjis summarized Council comments as: • Support to delay the submission of the Housing Element to HCD, • Support to boost the ADU count, • Reduce the buffer to 5%, • For Banning Ranch, increase the dwelling unit count to 50, • Reduce the density of the Airport Area and Newport Center, Volume 65 - Page 17 City of Newport Beach Study Session and Regular Meeting April 27, 2021 • For Coyote Canyon, reduce the low and very -low units and possibly boost the density, • Remove the sites as requested by the property owners, • Add sites that are requesting to be included, • Discuss Inclusionary Zoning at a future City Council meeting, and • Kick off the General Plan Update. Council Member O'Neill discussed the process HEUAC used for listing properties for redevelopment, noted that listing a property on the sites inventory does not mean a project is approved, a property owner's interest in redevelopment resulted in the property being listed, and the list should stay consistent. Council Member Dixon reported the residents of her district have not expressed a desire to do this, community review and comment has not occurred, and Lido Village has not been studied for impacts on traffic, parking, or West Marine. Council Member Brenner supported looking at that in the future, but not adding it to the list tonight, and expressed the opinion that discussion needs to occur regarding the sight plane ordinance, workforce housing, objective standards, ADUs, and an inclusionary policy. In response to her question, Community Development Director Jurjis indicated the Circulation Element will come to Council in May 2021. City Manager Leung advised that Lido Villa g retur ouncil with ADUs and buffer discussions. Council Member O'Neill noted the importance of referring to our residents and assured that everything Council Member Brenneris not part f he draft Housing Element, but Council will talk about all of those topics. If - Mayor Pro Tem Muldoon supported adding as many properties to the list as possible in case HCD rejects some and emphasized this is not a vote for a project. In response to his question, Community Developme Direct Jurj_is lated that staff will bring that property back to Council for discussion. if There was a ranimous straw vote to approve the list of comments to staff except for Lido Village. Council Member O'Neil rifie that the process has been to list APNs for any property owner who indicated t ey were lling to convert the property to housing and list the number of units and affordable units. H ted that this practice will continue for any property owner who comes forward before the draft is submitted to HCD. 1 There was a unanimous straw vote to consider any property that wants to be placed on the site inventory list. III. PUBLIC COMMENTS Charles Klobe noted Mr. Matsler's comment for Lido Village dictated 30 dwelling units per acre, which was not vetted at a public meeting, and implored Council to allow public comment on the density when Lido Village returns for discussion. City Attorney Harp reported the City Council would adjourn to Closed Session to discuss the items listed in the Closed Session agenda and read the titles. IV. CLOSED SESSION — Council Chambers Conference Room A. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL Volume 65 - Page 18 City of Newport Beach Study Session and Regular Meeting April 27, 2021 EXISTING LITIGATION (Government Code § 54956.9(d)(1)) Richard Vos and Jenelle Bernacchi v. City of Newport Beach, et al. United States District Court Case No. 8:15-cv-00768 JCG-DFM B. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS (Government Code § 54957.6) Agency Designated Representatives: Grace K. Leung, City Manager, Carol Jacobs, Assistant City Manager, Barbara Salvini, Human Resources Director, and Charles Sakai, Esq., Negotiators. Employee Organization: Newport Beach Police Association (NBPA). V. RECESSED — 6:38 p.m. VI. RECONVENED AT 7:15 P.M. FOR REGULAR MEETING VII. ROLL CALL Present Mayor Brad Avery, Mayor Pro Tem Kevin Member Joy Brenner, Council Member Diar. Member Will O'Neill VIII. CLOSED SESSION REPORT City Attorney Harp announced that no reportable actions were taken. IX. INVOCATION — Mayor Pro Tem Muldoon , X. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE — en1ber Brenner XI. NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC XII. CITY COUNCIL AAOUNCEMEN-%S AND ORAL RE er Noah Blom, Council Duffy Duffield, Council COMMITTEE ACTIVITIES - Council Member -BLIN • Announced the Corona dol Business Improvement District (BID) is considering dissolution and searching for an entitytom ovide holiday decorations • Utilized slides to annoWe a District 6 Town Hall on April 29, 2021 and shared her experience at the Community Youth Center (CYC) for Reptile Day • Advised that beaches at China Cove are temporarily closed due to the discovery of an invasive plant Council Member O'Neill: • Attended a Finance Committee meeting, a meeting of the Mayors of Newport Beach and Costa Mesa, and the Matt Leinart Flag Football Camp for girls • Hosted a Girl Scout Troop in the City Council Chambers • Utilized a slide to announce the City of Newport Beach 2021 Scholarship Program Council Member Dixon: • Utilized slides to announce Board and Commission annual vacancies, the May 12, 2021 application deadline, and applications available at newportbeachca.gov/vacancy • Attended meetings of the Aviation Committee and solid waste working group • Met with HEUAC Chair Tucker and Michael Costa regarding housing Volume 65 - Page 19 City of Newport Beach Study Session and Regular Meeting April 27, 2021 XIII. Installed the Associated California Cities of Orange County's (ACC -OC) new president, and acknowledged that City Manager Leung is the City Manager liaison to ACC -OC Requested a future agenda item to restart the General Plan Update process with consideration given to the former members of the committee Council Member Blom: • Attended a Newport Aquatic Center (NAC) scrimmage Mayor Pro Tem Muldoon: • Visited the Wedge to watch the waves, and appreciated life getting back to normal • Requested a future agenda item to review and update the most recent ADU ordinance Mayor Avery: • Attended meetings of the Finance Committee and Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) Board • Assisted Police Chief Lewis at the Police Awards Ceremony • Interviewed Utilities Director Vukojevic, which will be shown on the City's YouTube channel and NBTV • Utilized slides to announce a COVID-19 Vaccine Clinic on April 28, 2021 in the Civic Center Community Room, a boat auction on May 7, 2021 at MaringoPark, and a Community Programs and Special Events Grant Program application (newportbeachca.gov/grants) • With implementation of the Balboa Village Master Plan now complete, remove the Balboa Village Area Benefit District from thd%lea Benefit District Reserve (Section 12.44.029), rescind Resolution No. 2014-101, which provides thrat 100% of funds generated within the Balboa Village Area Benefit District should be placed in the Balboa Village Area Benefit District Fund, and return all unprogrammed funds back to the General Fund [O'Neill] Mayor Avery, Mayor Pro Tem Muldo�n, and Council Members Blom, Dixon, Duffield and O'Neill concurred to bring the item back at a future meeting. Better Beaches: To ensure the City's beaches are safe and enjoyable for residents and visitors in light'Aof the growing number of beachgoers, we request staff review and discuss: (1) the current resources allocated to maintain, manage and secure our beaches; as well as (2) alternatives and cost information associated with providing a higher level of service at City beaches for trash pickup, boardwalk ambassadors, lifeguard coverage, and code enforcement; as part of the presentation for the proposed FY 2021-22 Budget [Brenner, Dixon] In response to Mayor Pro Tem Muldoon's question, City Manager Leung summarized the boardwalk ambassador program. Mayor Avery and Council Members Brenner, Dixon, Duffield and O'Neill concurred to bring the item back at a future meeting. • Request for a resolution supporting AB327: COVID-19 Vaccination Status: Prohibition on Required Disclosure [Dixon, O'Neill] The City Council concurred 7-0 to bring the item back at a future meeting. XIV. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON CONSENT CALENDAR Volume 65 - Page 20 City of Newport Beach Study Session and Regular Meeting April 27, 2021 In response to Mayor Pro Tem Muldoon's question regarding Item 3 (Resolution No. 2021-31: Amending City Council Policy A-1 (City Council)), City Attorney Harp reported the intent is to allow Council Members to ask a few, short, clarifying questions during the meeting. City Manager Leung announced that Item 6 (Resolution No. 2021-34: Temporary Employment Agreement for a Life Safety Specialist III) is removed from the Consent Calendar. XV. CONSENT CALENDAR READING OF MINUTES AND ORDINANCES 1. Minutes for the April 13, 2021 City Council Special Meeting and Regular Meeting [100- 20211 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. RESOLUTIONS FOR ADOPTION 3. Resolution No. 2021-31: Amending City Council Pol4��ty Council) [100-20211 a) Determine this action is exempt from the CaliforniaEnvironmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Sections 15060(c)(2) and 15060(c%3) of thMVEQ�, uidelines because this action will not result in a physical change to the environment, directly or indirectly; and b) Adopt Resolution No. 2021-31, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach, California, Amending City Council Policy A-1 jjiii;�Oncil) Adopting a Revised City Council Policy A-1 "City Council." 4. Resolution No. 2021-32: Repealing Resolution No. 8195 and Designating Portions of 30th Street and 31st Street as Two-VUay Stre is [100-20211 a) Determine this action is exempt from th California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Sections 15060(c)(2) and 150 0(c)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines because this action will not result ip a physical change to the environment, directly or indirectly; and b) Adopt ResolutAn No. 2021-32, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach, California, Repealing City Council Resolution No. 8195 and Designating Portions of 30th Street and 31St Street in Cannery illage as Two -Way Streets. Council Member Blom re ed himself on Item 4 due to real property and business interest conflicts. 5. Resolution No. 2021-33: Requesting the United States Army Corps of Engineers Fund and Immediately Proceed with Surfside -Sunset Beach Nourishment Project Stage 13 from Anaheim Bay Harbor to Newport Harbor [100-20211 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 amended Resolution No. 2021-31, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach, California, Requesting that the United States Army Corps of Engineers Fund Immediately Proceed with Surfside -Sunset Beach Nourishment Project Stage 13 and Prioritize All Future Beach Nourishment Projects from Anaheim Bay Harbor to Newport Bay in Orange County, California. 6. Resolution No. 2021-34: Temporary Employment Agreement for a Life Safety Specialist III [100-20211 Pulled from the agenda. Volume 65 - Page 21 City of Newport Beach Study Session and Regular Meeting April 27, 2021 CONTRACTS AND AGREEMENTS 7. Dover Shores Traffic Calming Improvement — Award of Contract No. 7998-1 (19T12) [38/100-20211 a) Find this project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15301 (minor alteration of existing public facilities such as existing highways and streets, sidewalks, and gutters involving negligible or no expansion) of the CEQA Guidelines; b) Approve the project plans and specifications; c) Award Contract No. 7998-1 to AToM Engineering Construction, Inc, for the total bid price of $151,962, and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the contract; d) Establish a contingency of $15,200 (approximately 10 percent of total bid) to cover the cost of additional unforeseen work not included in the original contract; and e) Approve Budget Amendment No. 21-038 authorizing the appropriation of $169,162 from unappropriated General Fund balance to Account No. 53601-980000-19T12 for the Dover Shores Traffic Calming Improvement project (19T12). Council Member O'Neill abstained on Item 7. 8. Amendment No. Three to On -Call Maintenance and Repair Services Agreements for Underground Utility Installation and Repair Services with GCI Construction, Inc. (C- 8556-1) and T.E. Roberts, Inc. (C-8556-3) [38/100-20211 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, directlyor indirectly; and b) Approve Amendment No. Three to On -Call Maintenance and Repair Services Agreements for Underground Utility Installation and%Repair services, which increases the agreement compensation by $225,000 for GCI Construction, Inc., and increases the agreement compensation by $275,000 for T.E. Roberts, Inc., and exTends the contract term to December 31, 2022 for both. Mayor Pro Tem Muldoon:recus4himself on Item 8 due to potential business interest conflicts. . 9. Award of On -Call Roofing Maintenax�i ce and Repair Services Agreements with Best Contracting, Inc. (C-7326-1) and C.I. Services, Inc. (C-7060-2) [38/100-20211 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 iii a physical change to the environment, directly or indirectly; and b) Approve On -Call Roofing Maintenance and Repair Service Agreements with Best Contracting, Inc., and with C.I. Services Inc., with each agreement being for a five-year term and total amount not-to-exceW $120,000 each, and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the agreements. MISCELLANEOUS 10. Grants and Donations Report for the Quarter Ending March 31, 2021 [100-20211 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) Receive and file. Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Muldoon, seconded by Council Member O'Neill, to approve the Consent Calendar; and noting the recusal by Mayor Pro Tem Muldoon to Item 8, the recusal by Council Member Blom to Item 4, the abstention by Council Member O'Neill to Item 7, that Item 6 was pulled from the agenda, and the amendments to Items 1 and 5. Volume 65 - Page 22 City of Newport Beach Study Session and Regular Meeting April 27, 2021 The motion carried unanimously. XVI. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR - None XVII. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON -AGENDA ITEMS Scott Carpenter, iTrip Vacations, inquired whether Council will be considering lifting the ban on short- term lodging (STL) permits in light of Orange County being in the orange tier, the Governor's plan for a broader reopening in June, and the City's progress on STLs. XVIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS 11. Resolution No. 2021-35: Community Development Block Grant - 2021-2022 Annual Action Plan (C-8482) [100-20211 Mayor Avery opened the public hearing. Hearing no testimony, he closed the public hearing. Council Member Dixon thanked staff for identifying agencies that will help the homeless in Newport Beach. i Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Muldoon, seconded.by Counclil Member Duffield, to a) find the approval of the 2021-2022 Annual Action Plan exempt from,1he National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) pursuant to 24 CFR Part 58, Section 58.34; b) find the approval of the 2021-2022 Annual Action Plan exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Sections 15060(c)(2) (the activity will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment) and Section 15060(c)(3) (the activity is not a project as defined in Section 15378) of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations-,�itle 14, Chapter 3, because it has no potential for resulting in physical change to the environment, directly or indirectly; c) adopt Resolution No. 2021-35, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach, California, Approving the 2021-2022 Annual Action) Plan for the Allocation of the Federal Community Development Block Grant Program Funds for Fiscal Year 2021-2022; and d) Authorize the City Manager to: 1) adjust appropriations to specific programs and projects as necessary to conform with the final 2021-2022 formula grant alleamiiwn of CDBG funds from HUD, 2) submit the 2021-2022 Annual Action PI to HUD, 3) execute the 2021-2022 CDBG Program Grant Agreement and all related docum4s on behalf of the City of Newport Beach, 4) execute sub -recipient agreements with the non-profit organizations �eceiving allocations of CDBG funds in the Action Plan, and 5) authorize the Comms unity Development Director, or his designee, to be the official representative of the City of Newport Beach to submit required environmental documentation for CDBG projects. The motion carried unanimously. 12. Resolution No. 2021-36: Call for Review of Planning Commission's Approval of a Mixed - Use Project at 2510 West Coast Highway (PA2019-249) [100-20211 Council Member Duffield recused himself due to business interest conflicts. Council Member Blom recused himself due to real property and business interest conflicts. Mayor Avery advised that he called the project for review due to concerns raised by residents. Community Development Director Jurjis and Principal Planner Schneider utilized a presentation to review the call for review, vicinity map, General Plan and zoning designation, site photographs, project details, site and project plans, parking requirements, elevations, density bonus, Coastal Development Permit, visual simulations, conditional use permit, traffic, Housing Accountability Act (HAA), CEQA review, Planning Commission decision, and recommended actions. Volume 65 - Page 23 City of Newport Beach Study Session and Regular Meeting April 27, 2021 Mayor Avery opened the public hearing. Sean Matsler, Cox, Castle & Nicholson, on behalf of the applicant, used a presentation to review project features, affordable housing program, the building design, January and February 2021 plan revisions, consistency with the General Plan, Local Coastal Plan (LCP), and the zoning code, CEQA, HAA, three new view simulations, how to consider view simulations, community questions, and introduced the project team. In response to Council Member O'Neill's questions, Mr. Matsler indicated the request for a parking reduction is separate from the HAA or Density Bonus arguments, discussed that staff has not said that the parking study is inaccurate, the parking requirement for affordable housing units decreased on January 1, 2021, which nets an additional four spaces, and noted that he did not see anything in Ms. Rosenthal's letter that the parking analysis is wrong; however, contrary to Ms. Rosenthal's statements, parking is based on the project, not a future use. In response to Council Member Dixon's questions, Mr. Matsler advised that the project does not rely on the Avon Street parking lot for overflow parking, the auto boutique will be similar to the McLaren dealership or other high-end dealership, a sales tax estimat& has not been prepared, and the business is a retail enterprise. He detailed the ways the�proct is compatible with the village aesthetic. Council Member Dixon expressed concern that project materials do not comply with the City's standards. In response to Council Member Brenner's quer. Matsler related that a General Plan amendment was considered, but an amendmen ns a longer process, potential exposure to Greenlight, and an LCP amendment. Deborah Rosenthal, representing the Coalition to Protect M'iner's Mile, stated they were happy to see housing but not at the expense of the existing resideng, believed the fundamental problem is that the size of the parcel is too small to provide a minimum -size commercial use and a large residential use, and the size of the project causes height and view issues. She discussed that the project proposes 13 parking spaces for the coninkercial building rather than the required 43 spaces, the City does not have the ability to require a b9kitique auto showroom to remain in the commercial building, the communal dining room and fireplErce lounge do not seem to support the auto showroom, the project is a problem for the Mariner's Mile streetscape, and the HAA does not apply to parking reductions for commercial uses. In response to Council Member O'Neill's questions, Ms. Rosenthal described application of the HAA and the Density BY us Law parking, Council needs to decide if it wants to reduce parking by 65-70% for a specialized usgrnd the use cannot change in the future because it is under -parked. In response to Council Member Dixon's questions, Ms. Rosenthal clarified that the next use for the commercial building will be required to provide 13 parking spaces and comply with the conditions of approval or the building will remain vacant, the City does not have the ability lock in this niche use, what happens to the commercial space affects the residents' access to open space and recreation because the rooftop deck is the only open space for the residential building, the courtyard is designed as more of a passageway than open space, and the commercial and residential buildings are financially interdependent, which is inconsistent with the goals of having commercial along Pacific Coast Highway and residential on the rear of the parcel. She referred to page 12 of the resolution highlighting language regarding communal dining, a fireplace lounge, and an exterior residential area in the commercial space, and noted that those features do not appear to be typical amenities in an auto showroom. In response to City Attorney Harp's question, Mr. Matsler reported the applicant has not made the argument that the HAA does not apply to the conditional use permit, but it could be the case that the applicant can qualify to use the second density bonus incentive to waive commercial parking requirements. Volume 65 - Page 24 City of Newport Beach Study Session and Regular Meeting April 27, 2021 Ms. Rosenthal understood that parking standards are objective, and the applicant is required to demonstrate that the density bonus incentive is necessary to provide affordable housing. Patrick Gormley, Coalition to Protect Mariner's Mile representative, shared a view of Coast Highway, commended Council for reviewing the issue, the coalition has 1,200-1,400 members, expressed concern that Mariner's Mile will not continue the legacy of having villages surrounding the Bay, Mariner's Mile does not need to continue the way it has been for many years, a village design is best for Mariner's Mile, Council has to come up with a vision for Mariner's Mile, this project will take away protected public views, does not address the number of accidents along Mariner's Mile, endangers children who travel through Mariner's Mile, the project's design, size, and adverse impact to the community is not worth the project, read a letter from Jodi Bole of the Balboa Island Preservation Association, the community asked the Planning Commission to hold a community outreach meeting, but the City denied the request, the applicant provided a Zoom meeting, Mariner's Mile should follow the design of Lido Marina Village, and people do not know what is required at Mariner's Mile. He added that the Coalition requests continuation of the project, an analysis to preserve the views through the use of story poles, and a redesign of the project. Peggy Palmer, Coalition to Protect Mariner's Mile treasurer, advised that the coalition has not done three view simulations, only one, used a presentation to di cuss public views, ingress and egress, and SB 1467. She stated that the coalition feels the project is an embarrassment to the City and patients park in the area to view the tranquil Bayprio�to receiving treatment at Hoag Hospital. Jim Carlson, Coalition to Protect Mariner's Mile chairmaned architect, provided his background and used a presentation to discuss the architectural analysis, view simulation comparisons, story poles, and the Coalition's request. Adob- Charles Klobe, Newport Heights Association president,ed when the last General Plan was implemented, mixed-use horizontal on Mariner's Mile di of contemplate the HAA and density bonuses, thanked Mayor Avery for calling the project for review, opposition to the project is nearly universal, there is no reason to grant a parking reduction, this project does not comply with the LCP, and an Environmental Impact ReporttEIR) should have been prepared. He requested Council direct the applicant to redesign the project to comply with the Local Coastal Act, not reduce parking, and to prepare an EIR. Ago ` Kathy Shaw, Mar' er's Mile business owner, stated village communities are becoming more popular and valuable, the project could sept a precedent for architectural style but is too big and dense, far from timeless, and has nom itime appeal, the project will be a burden on safety, parking, and traffic, and a loop inc five offered by the State does not mean it is the right thing for the City. Slavica, Mariner's MileV Msiness owner, discussed safety issues, the number of accidents on Pacific Coast Highway each year, insufficient parking, and the use of Avon Street. She expressed the opinion that the project does not fit at this location. David Tanner referred to his written comments and expressed the opinion that the rooftop deck and the flat roof on the residential building are not allowed, the project impacts public coastal views, staff and the Planning Commission determined the project is consistent and approved the findings, the Coastal Commission approved the findings, Council has to interpret the LCP, the project is not consistent with the LCP, the resolution and findings are not accurate, Council must consider public comments, CEQA concerns include visual impacts, impacts to community character, and public safety, the project must comply with all General Plan, Newport Beach Municipal Code (NBMC), and LCP policies, and Council needs to change the process for evaluating planning applications. Paula Castanon expressed concerns about traffic, parking, and the narrowness of Avon Street, noted Tustin is 27' 7" wide, and urged Council to protect pedestrians, especially children. Volume 65 - Page 25 City of Newport Beach Study Session and Regular Meeting April 27, 2021 Tony Shaw did not oppose development but questioned building 35 units on the site and the building height, discussed parking requirements, density bonus incentives, and insufficient parking in the area. He requested Council require story poles and a traffic study, and expressed the opinion that the 2006 General Plan needs to be enforced. Sue shared information from the Police Department about citations and traffic accidents on Pacific Coast Highway in the last four years, which contradicts statements during the Planning Commission meeting, and requested Council direct the Police Department to conduct a comprehensive study of citations and accidents on Pacific Coast Highway. Mark Moshayedi, property owner/applicant, indicated the team worked with staff for two years and conducted required parking studies to meet the requirements for the project, the size of the project is needed to fit the residential units, the project does not impact Bay or ocean views, the car showroom will be used for his business, the area is zoned for mixed use, he followed the City's rules, the team changed the building design and materials to comply with City guidelines, and natural materials were not a requirement. Jodi Bole expressed the opinion that there are aesthetic prohlems with the project, it does not represent nautical or Mariner's Mile, there were limited copmunity meetings, and a survey found Newport Beach to be the number one beautiful place in California. She asked Council to direct staff to modify the project so that it represents what the commWity wants. Jim Maloney viewed the project as a precedent fon Mariner' Mile, Council needs to consider public safety and conduct a traffic report, the business is not boutique dealership but a museum, concurred with Council Member Dixon's comment about tax revenue, the City did not allow a Porsche dealership on Mariner's Mile, and eged Council to require story poles. City Attorney Harp advised that the densitybonus incentive cannot be requested tonight, which means Council should conduct its usual analysis under the traditional findings set forth in the NBMC. Hearing no further testimony, Mayor Averlosed the public hearing. Council Member O'Neill wanted more analysis of the project in order to understand the HAA and Density Bonus La In response to his question, Mr. Matsler related that the applicant is open to a four-week cont'uance, and he has heard a lot of new things to which he wishes to respond in writing. Motion b Counc Per O'Neill to continue the item to the May 25, 2021 City Council meeting. In response to Council Member Dixon's questions, Community Development Director Jurjis reported that roof design, promotion of pedestrian activity and visual interest, landscaping, and high-quality materials are subjective standards, multiple staff members review these standards, the roof heights have been articulated, the project provides a pedestrian connection, staff provides all this information to the Planning Commission, staff missed the natural wood material, a lot of the other elements do comply with the LCP and policies, and the Planning Commission found the project consistent. He added that the Planning Commission did not inquire about complementary architectural aspects, and Council can look at everything. Council Member Dixon believed the project does not comply with the NBMC and opposed the project as currently designed and wanted a redesign that complies with the NBMC. In response to Council Member Brenner's questions, Community Development Director Jurjis indicated flat roofs are allowed in the NBMC, vents and elevator shafts are allowed to penetrate the roof and exceed the roof height, elevator shafts should be shown on the drawings but vents normally are not, the City does not have a policy for rooftop decks, the biggest issue is noise, staff asks for a Volume 65 - Page 26 City of Newport Beach Study Session and Regular Meeting April 27, 2021 sound analysis, a sound analysis will include live or amplified music to determine the decibel levels, and staff uses that to impose conditions to limit the hours for live music. He added that the City does not have a parking standard for this boutique use, staff asked the applicant to conduct a study, and City Traffic Engineer Brine spent a lot of time reviewing the study and provided comments. Council Member Brenner expressed concern that the City is creating a future problem by under - parking the commercial use, stated a traffic study should have been conducted, and questioned the community compatibility, village feel, and marine uses of the project. She supported looking at the project in greater detail and doing some remediation. Council Member O'Neill reported the State purposefully made laws to remove subjective standards from the City to ensure more housing can be built, asked for the continuance to get to the right decision, highlighted page 5 of the staff report which outlines the findings, read the findings for Council to deny the project, indicated it was not clear on how design standards can be objective, and questioned whether Council has to analyze parking holistically or commercial and residential independently. He added that the State wants the City to approve housing projects, but Council is trying to analyze the project with its own standards. Council Member Dixon stated she made objective comments,.,and safety is a relevant, objective standard for Council consideration. In response to her question, Community Development Director Jurjis reported the number of hearings is limited to five, tonight is the third hearing on this project, if Council wishes to deny the project, staff will retur at a future meeting with a resolution for denial, and the applicant can choose to submit a ne licati�n. City Attorney Harp advised that the applicant can withdraw the project and resubIlUgn of the project, rather than have a denial. -IF, Council Member Brenner expressed concerns about the health and safety aspects of the project, noted pedestrians and motorists cannot see one another when pedestrians walk from John Wayne Park, a traffic study is needed, the project will create almost 300 additional trips in an area that is not well-planned, the area is not conducive to this type of development, and the applicant has future projects in that area. AO -.� Mayor Avery expressed the opinion that the Mayedi family is a big part of the future of Mariner's Mile, Council unwittingly might have enc;rzrgied things that might not be good for the City, the General Plan encou ages good designnts and a good building, the price of commercial real mo estate today des a good return, going forward the City will need good partnerships with people who are developing critical areas, the building would be good in another part of the City, residents tonight have hopes and aspirations for Mariner's Mile, he wished to see a better partnership between the community and developers of iconic properties, the building is not blocking the Bay view but disrupting the organic feel of the rooflines, the totality of the project is the problem, the City is going to have more car trips, the community is experiencing a sense of loss because of the turnover of properties, community involvement is very important, the City cannot infringe on people's property rights, the planning process could encourage particular styles, and Council needs to look at the General Plan and what it encourages. He understood what the community is going through and concurred with Council Member O'Neill's proposal to continue the item. In response to Mayor Avery's question, Community Development Director Jurjis indicated the east wall is located on the property line, and by code it must be solid. The motion was seconded by Mayor Avery. Council Member O'Neill reiterated his request for information regarding parking, the HAA, and subjective versus objective analysis. Council Member Dixon proposed an amendment to review compliance with the General Plan. Council Member O'Neill expressed the opinion that many General Plan requirements are subjective, which is the reason he wants to understand objective versus subjective. Volume 65 - Page 27 City of Newport Beach Study Session and Regular Meeting April 27, 2021 With Council Members Blom and Duffield recusing themselves and Mayor Pro Tem Muldoon voting "no," the motion carried 4-1. XIX. CURRENT BUSINESS 13. Resolution No. 2021-37: Waiver of Fees for the Permitting of Accessory Dwelling Units [100-20211 Motion by Council Member Brenner, seconded by Council Member Dixon, 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. 2021-37, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach, California, Temporarily Waiving Building Plan Check, Building Construction Permit, and Other City Permit Fees Directly Related to the Design and Construction of Accessory Dwelling Units and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units. In response to Mayor Pro Tem Muldoon's question, Community Development Director Jurjis reported that this applies to anyone wanting to get a permit or an ADU or a Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit (JADU), the resolution waives any City fees, e program will continue until the end of 2022. Mayor Pro Tem Muldoon encouraged staff ote this to residents as much as possible. 1.0k In response to Council Member Brenner's questioALCorumulWevelopment Director Jurjis indicated staff is moving forward with additional work, ande HlWng Element contains many of the action plans that staff has to study and promote. law With Council Members Blom and Duffield absent, the motion carried 5-0. 14. Coronavirus (COVID-19) Update [100-20211 City Manager Leung and Fire Chief Boyles ut' 'zed a presentation to discuss Orange County case statistics, County and State status, vaccineW locations and rates, Fire Department call and transport statistics, and the"Npwport Beac Jrnior Lifeguard Program. XIX. MOTION FOR RECASIDE ATION - None XX. ADJOURNMENT - Adjournt 10t- 4 p.m. in memory of David Kawashima The agenda was posted on t City's website and on the City Hall electronic bulletin board located in the entrance o the City Council Chambers at 100 Civic Center Drive on April 22, 2021, at 4:00 p.ffl" Leilani I. Brown City Clerk Brad Avery Mayor Volume 65 - Page 28