Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01 - Minutes - AmendedCity of Newport Beach City Council Meeting September 14, 2021 September 28, 2021 Agenda Item No. 1 Charles Klobe discussed the 2510 West Coast Highway and Newport Village projects, inclusionary requirements for the Cities of Santa Monica and Pasadena, an inclusionary requirement as the only legal means to compel developers to include more affordable units in projects, support for a 20% inclusionary requirement, and the SDBL. Adam Wood, Building Industry Association, noted that the wrong inclusionary requirement will result in no housing production, and emphasized that an inclusionary requirement needs to be workable. Jim Mosher understood that staff is proposing an ordinance for Council to endorse, SB 9 will change the character of R-1 neighborhoods and generate market -rate housing, a developer may choose only one density bonus if a mix of affordable units is required, and the Affordable Housing Task Force has not met in quite a while. In response to Council Member Dixon's question, Community Development Director Jurjis reported that the City of Anaheim adopted an interim ordi ce in 2019 and may modify it to comply with RHNA numbers, and Anaheim's Mayor appoincommittee that recommended an inclusionary fee. Council Member Dixon recommended inclusionary requirement or fee and su inclusionary housing. Council Member Blom preferred to wait for H the City of Anaheim's decision, Council doe inclusionary policy because it raises recommendation to await HCD's comm Hills' systems. A Council Member O'Neill inclusionary requirements of the lot when utilizin was unsure of tl�mini Council Memb Council does n policy, viewed while a commi c committee explore an an interim policy of 10% Wents on the Draft Housing Element and rush to a decision, opposed a temporary irrent development, and supported staff's dy both the Cities of Anaheim and Beverly f provide potential impacts of having 15% and 20% ent, noted that developers work the math to fit the size he could support a 15% inclusionary requirement, and of units to which an inclusionary requirement would apply. "Pressed concern that developers will hurriedly submit projects if nterim policy as quickly as possible, supported a 15% or 20% interim period as a way to collect data, and preferred an interim 20% policy the issues. Community Development Director Jurjis noted that Council comments addressed forming an ad hoc committee and establishing an interim policy, staff could present an interim policy while a committee studies an inclusionary requirement, and staff could make recommendations for an ordinance once the committee concludes its work. City Attorney Harp advised that a policy is not an enforceable law. Council Member Dixon remarked that a policy relays the will of the City Council and supported forming an ad hoc committee and developing an interim ordinance. In response to Mayor Avery's question, Community Development Director Jurjis believed the prospect of an interim policy would not cause developers to submit applications. There was a unanimous straw vote to support conducting additional study. Council Member Blom suggested that, after staff provides Council with information, Council may decide whether to form an ad hoc committee if additional information is needed. Volume 65 - Page 129 City of Newport Beach City Council Meeting September 14, 2021 Council Member Dixon believed an ad hoc committee would have a more robust discussion and analysis. Community Development Director Jurjis related that staff could hire a consultant to conduct concrete analyses and present them at a future study session, at which time Council could decide to form an ad hoc committee or direct staff to prepare an ordinance. In response to Mayor Avery's question, City Manager Leung related that an expert analysies would be a good idea, HCD's comments are anticipated in 30 days, and this information would adequately inform Council. Council Member Dixon preferred to proceed with an ad hoc committee in order to obtain information and to move quickly. Council Member Brenner noted that Council Members will continue working on the issue and provide their input, and indicated she wanted to establis n interim policy quickly so that Council does not miss opportunities for affordable units. In r se to her question, Community Development Director Jurjis related that staff could draft a ent for Council consideration at the second meeting in October. In response to Council Member O'Neill's ques s, y Harp advised that a project does not have to comply with a Council po bu have to meet all other criteria. Community Development Director Jurjis state d require 60 to 90 days to complete. Council Member O'Neill noted Council consens nclusionary requirement and indicated staff should continue to advocate for affordgkle in projects. Jim Mosher noted that HCD's Governments (SLAG) region are IV.B., recommended that Coun California Supreme Court is ung endorse bad public polite 1 Nancy Scarbrough dis SB 10, and density bon �arncies in the Southern California Association of d litigation which is the subject of Closed Session Item taxpayer funds to support the litigation because the the case and the City of San Diego is asking Council to is Community Planning Initiative, which unwinds SB 9, that Council endorse it. Casey Westerfield refer to the August 26, 2021 incident in Santa Ana Heights, and noted an overconcentration of group homes in the neighborhood, expressed concerns caused by the transient nature of the homes' residents, the need for a coordinated approach to regulations, and a meeting with Supervisor Foley on September 24, 2021. An unidentified speaker addressed the lack of regulations for group homes with six or fewer residents, City of Costa Mesa's ordinance, and additional regulations for group homes. An unidentified speaker related that a developer intends to establish a residential care facility mon 25�Vista Baya, the City halted unpermitted work on the property, and residents are concerned for their children's safety. She sought Council's assistance with maintaining the residential character of the neighborhood and provided photos of the neighborhood's July 4th celebration. Janna Hedler shared her experiences living next door to a facility for the elderly and neighbors' concerns regarding the facility's compliance with regulations. John Wong believed the overconcentration of group homes is a serious problem that will get worse if Council does not regulate them. Volume 65 - Page 130 City of Newport Beach City Council Meeting September 14, 2021 An unidentified speaker stated the problem with group homes are that they are not run well, supervised, or regulated, and if the City will not act, residents should go to the State. An unidentified speaker indicated that neighbors are considering buying guns in response to the recent incident, Council support would be appreciated, and these problems are not wanted. An unidentified speaker asked Council to reconsider allowing the conversion of single-family homes to healthcare facilities, so children can play freely outdoors and to help the community avoid further incidents. In response to Mayor Pro Tem Muldoon's question, City Attorney Harp advised that the State of California has removed the City's ability to regulate any licensed group home, the City has to treat every licensed facility the same as a single-family residence, the City of Costa Mesa's ordinance is almost identical to Newport Beach's ordinance, Costa Mesa's distancing requirements apply to resideneesthe distance of regulated homes from licensed facilities, the City's ordinance is comprehensive, concerns regarding group homes should be addressed to State representativ nd the City has worked for more than a decade to obtain local control. Mayor Pro Tem Muldoon remar that the political party to which Supervisor Foley belongs to is running the State, releasing criminal assing laws. Council Member Brenner assured the public that Council looking at every possibility. - the situation and is In response to Council Member Dixon's question, City yWp related that integral facilities are two facilities that work together as one, and the court 1 injunction against the City to prevent it from enforcing laws related to integral facilities. Council Member O'Neill suggested members of contact him to discuss advocacy efforts. City Attorney Harp announced that t ouncil would adjourn to Closed Session to discuss the items listed in the Clos agenda and read the titles. IV. CLOSED SESSION - Counc A. CONFERENCE (Government C, Agency Designat Manager, Barbara TORS matter Room -esentatives: Grace K. Leung, City Manager, Carol Jacobs, Assistant City Human Resources Director, and Charles Sakai, Esq., Negotiators. Employee Organizations: Association of Newport Beach Ocean Lifeguards (ANBOL), Newport Beach Police Association (NBPA), Newport Beach Professional and Technical Employees Association (NBPTEA), Newport Beach City Employees Association (NBCEA), and Newport Beach Firefighters Association (NBFA). B. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL ANTICIPATED LITIGATION — INITIATION OF LITIGATION (Government Code § 54956.9(d)(4)): 1 matter Michael Ramesh Haytasingh v. City of San Diego Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, Case No. D076228 Superior Court of San Diego County, Case No. 37 -2014 -00082437 -CU -PO -CTL (The City Council will be meeting with legal counsel to discuss the City of San Diego's request for amicus support related to the Court of Appeal's interpretation of the five (5) mile per hour speed limit for vessels set forth in Harbor Code Section 655.2 (a).) Volume 65 - Page 131 City of Newport Beach City Council Meeting September 14, 2021 XXI. In response to Mayor Avery's question, Shelly O'Sullivan indicated costs will be covered in LICA's operating budget. Motion by Council Member Dixon, seconded by Council Member Blom, 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; b) waive City Council Policy L-6, Encroachments in the Public Rights -of -Way, to authorize that the City Council rather than the Planning Commission be designated to grant or deny the requested waiver of City Council Policy L-6; c) waive City Council Policy L-6, Encroachments in Public Rights -of -Way, to allow installation of lighted garland and wreaths on each side of the Lido Isle bridge (with power provided from a City outlet), contingent upon all conditions of the Encroachment Permit process being met; d) adopt Resolution No. 2021-85, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach, California, Waiving City Council Policy L-6 (Encroachments in Public Rights -of -Way) and Approving Encroachment Permit No. N2021-0425 to Install Seasonal Lighted Garland and Wreaths on the Lido Isle Bridge; and e) accept Council Member Diane Dixon's and Council Member h Blom's payments of $2,.087.50 each from their City Council discretionary funds and/or pers funds to cover the applicable encroachment permit fee of $4,175.00. The motion carried unanimously. MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION - None ADJOURNMENT - Adjourned at 8:57 p.m. in m Harry S. Rinker, George Engelke, and Bonnie Jinkens The agenda was po located in the eni September 9, 2021 Leilani I. Brown City Clerk the City Hall electronic bulletin board ,mbers at 100 Civic Center Drive on Irad Avery layor Volume 65 - Page 142