HomeMy WebLinkAbout01 - Minutes - AmendedCity of Newport Beach
City Council Meeting
March 22, 2022
April 12, 2022
Agenda Item No. 1
In response to Council Member Brenner's questions, Community Development Director Jurjis
indicated that the City Council was previously in favor of adopting an inclusionary housing
ordinance, questioned the timing, and noted an opportunity for in lieu fees with a threshold to
provide flexibility to applicants and the necessity of all options to reach compliance. He further
relayed that developers will be forced to use State Density Bonus Law if the City delays
implementation of an inclusionary housing ordinance, provided examples of potential projects
using the State Density Bonus Law with no inclusionary amount, challenges related to high
land values and penciling projects with no density boost, and emphasized the reasons for having
an inclusionary number in place prior to the City rezoning. Council Member Brenner expressed
concern for delaying implementing an inclusionary housing ordinance.
In response to Council Member Avery's questions, Kathy Head explained that the in -lieu fees
are tied to the affordability gap 4&sR Hi+ resulting from the r�inclusionary
requirement, indicated the analysis is conservative, balanced, and avoids a constraint to
housing, and agreed with lower numbers if the City desires. Council Member Avery expressed
his concern for market volatility and questioned the housin V
s.
In response to Council Member Dixon's questions, Community Development Director Jurjis
stated that, without an ordinance, a lack of affordable housing deve+pment is predicted unless
the developer wants to take advantage of the State Density Bonus Law. Principal Planner
Murillo reviewed State Density Bonus Law a4lim1ments throughout the years with the most
recent update being last year. Community Devvkment Director Jurjis clarified the difference
between available housing opportunities and wha is remaining in the General Plan, reported
approximately 350 housing units remaining in the Airnort area with 11,000 housing units to be
added citvwide after rezoning and updates to e Land Use Element, predicted 90% of
developers will use the State Density Bonus LawLT mitigate expenses, concurred that market
forces play a part in this, and noted escalated construction, labor costs, and challenges for
inexperienced developers.
N!RyeP-Council Member Avery rel he challenges of making the Housing Element work,
discussed problems created by the Density Bonus Law, and expressed concerns related to
parking, a supportive market, bulqW costs, and keeping expectations low.
Mayor Pro Tem Blom noted the premature nature of adding an inclusionary amount before
receiving feedback from HCD on the Housing Element, projects using the State Density Bonus
Law, in-heu fees, building preferences, timing, and the need for more information.
Council Member O'Neill recognized incentives for super -dense housing and used Irvine as an
example. In response to his questions, Principal Planner Murillo shared the State Density Bonus
Law slide to explain how the State Density Bonus Law and in -lieu fees work and concurred with
the recognition of incentives and challenges related to housing unit goals for the next three
years.
In response to Council Member Brenner's question, Principal Planner Murillo indicated that,
with the absence of an inclusionary housing requirement, developers can choose not to
incorporate affordable housing units, making the City unable to mandate units or in-heu fees.
With an adoption of an inclusionary housing ordinance, he stated that developers who choose to
not include affordable housing units would pay the City an equivalent inclusionary housing fee
8ee,._4841e, w,...,iiig _eEfdiveiiieiit but state law provides a very -low income incentive for
rental units even with no inclusionary ordinance. Community Development Director Jurjis
pointed out that an ordinance is necessary to require or provide an option for in -lieu fees, and
noted the slow growth measure (Greenlight) and additional housing opportunities after City
rezoning, updates, and voting.
Volume 65 - Page 276
City of Newport Beach
City Council Meeting
March 22, 2022
Council Member Dixon suggested moving forward slowly, recapped the working relationship
with developers and the use of development agreements, explained the use of collected fees for
the community's benefit, and expressed concern for parking and green space loss with the State
Density Bonus Law. In response to her questions, Community Development Director Jurjis
confirmed that fees can be negotiated in a development agreement until City rezoning, pursuant
to the current code and a future impact fee option, and Council Member O'Neill confirmed his
interest in having more time for discussion after the City receives comments on the Housing
Element from HCD, noted Greenlight constrictions, and expressed uncertainty for meeting
housing goals.
In response to Council Member Avery's question, Principal Planner Murillo disclosed that very
low-income units are the easiest way to maximize the State Density Bonus Law and incentives,
and detailed the incentives for development costs, waivers, parking rates, and square footage
requirements.
In response to Council Member Brenner's questions, Community Development Director Jurjis
confirmed that development agreements can be used for community benefit, discussed
affordable housing funding requirements until City rezoni and noted there bke�e-are
approximately 100 projects in the City that do not require develo t agreements. As a result,
Council Member Brenner expressed her support for delaying implementing an inclusionary
housing ordinance.
Nancy Scarbrough supported applying in -lie fees trent ^�e-a�'� housing projects,
implementing a a-7% or 8% inclusionary amouW1, and moving quickly with more studies.
Jim Mosher noted State Density Bonu fw incentives for affordable housing development, a
30% affordable housing requirement the 1300 Bristol project (Item 15), questioned who
contracted with Keyser Marston and Associates, Inc. and the cost of the report, and expressed
confusion for how the State Density Bonus Law and inclusionary ordinance work together,
in -lieu fees, and the analysis results.
Charles Klobe stated t*rhe former Marriott Hotel project will not provide for affordable
housing units and will instead pay the in -lieu fee, no General Plan amendment is required, an
ordinance is required to collect in -lieu fees, and expressed the opinion that having an
inclusionary housingonce demonstrates the City's commitment to affordable Housing
development.
Larry Tucker staalthat one policy will not fit all areas and supported the City Council taking
more time to have discussions with property owners.
Mayor Muldoon received consensus by the City Council to delay implementing an inclusionary
housing ordinance at this time, predicted a noncompliant outcome for the Housing Element, and
mentioned influences of the free market.
In response to Council Member Dixon's questions, Principal Planner Murillo explained how the
30% affordable housing requirement in the 1300 Bristol project resolved a development
constraint in the Fourth Cycle Housing Element and stated that no other area is subject to the
requirement.
In response to Council Member Brenner's question, Community Development Director Jurjis
announced that he has the authority to mandate in -lieu fees by way of the Director's
Determination.
III. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON AGENDA AND NON -AGENDA ITEMS - None
Volume 65 - Page 277
City of Newport Beach
City Council Meeting
March 22, 2022
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) Accept donations from the Dorothy Arens Ressel Trust for the benefit of the Police, Fire and
Library Departments that in total are anticipated to equal or exceed $120,000, and authorize
the City Manager to take any actions necessary to accept these donations.
14. 2021 Annual General Plan and Housing Element Progress Report (PA2007-195) [100-2022]
a) Find the preparation, review and submission of the 2021 General Plan Progress Report not
subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as the actions are not a project as
defined by Section 15378(b)(2) of the Public Resources Code;
b) Review the 2021 General Plan Progress Report, including the Housing Element Annual
Progress Report; and
c) Authorize the submittal of the 2021 General Plan Progress Report to the California Office of
Planning and Research and the submittal of the Housing Element Annual Progress Report to
the State Department of Housing and Community Develop**.
Motion by Mavor Pro Tem Blom, seconded by Council Member O'Neill, to approve the Consent
Calendar; and noting the recusal by Council Member Duffield to Item 3, the recusals by Mayor Muldoon
to Items 9 and 10, the "no" votes by Mayor Muldoon and Mayor Tem Blom to Item 5, the amendments
to Item 1, and the continuance of Item 3.
The motion carried unanimously.
XVI. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR - None
XVII. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON -AGENDA I S
Lynn Swain expressed her opposition to Meas n the June 7, 2022 ballot.
City Attorney Harp reminded speakers that��ipaigning at City Council meetings is not allowed.
Nancy Scarbrough reported on onal Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) audit by the California
Alliance of Local Elec d n discrepancy in the resident counts.
XVIII. PUBLIC HEARING
15. Resolution Nos. 2022-19 and 2022-20: Land Use Entitlements for the Residences at
1300 Bristol Project (PA2021-161) [100-2022]
Community Development Director Jurjis and Associate Planner Crager utilized a presentation to
review the residences at 1300 Bristol Street project, map, project description, transfer of
development rights, Development Standard waiver requests, incentive requests, and the project
consistency relative to City zoning and State laws.
Ken Picerne, President and CEO of The Picerne Group, utilized a presentation to review the
multifamily-, ffa*e4-use project, reviewed the One Uptown Newport project, and noted the project
will have 169 market rate rental units and 24 affordable housing units.
Amanda Tropiano, Principal of De Novo Planning Group, Irwin Yau, Principal at TCA Architects,
and Matt Jackson, Vice President of MJS Landscape Architecture, utilized a presentation to
highlight the project, the project team, Picerne Group's background, One Uptown Newport, the
vicinity map, existing conditions, project context map, the project design, site plan, project
perspectives from Bristol and Spruce Streets, elevations, building sections, materials, the lifestyle
imagery, composite landscape plan, ground level view, podium level view, roof deck amenities, and
examples of amenity and plant imagery.
Volume 65 - Page 282
City of Newport Beach
City Council Meeting
March 22, 2022
XX.
W41
Human Services Director Salvini mentioned the current City Attorney employment aereement
effective January 26, 2021, and provided an overview of the terms and conditions of the proposed
agreement through December 20, 2028, including
^rr, eti p T,.....,.,_ oa 2021, a five percent merit adjustment upon the effective date, cost of living
adjustments tied to those received by executive management employees beginning January 2023
and each January thereafter, deferred compensation for City contributions to a 40l(a) account as of
the agreement's effective date in the amounts of $14,500 with an increase of $2,500 in January of
each year for the remainder of the employment agreement term, and severance provisions if
terminated without cause providing a cash settlement from the City equal to the monthly salary
multiplied by the number of remaining months on the unexpired agreement term subject to
conditions.
Jim Mosher noted the change in the contract's term length and suggested a severance provision cap
of six months.
In response to Mayor Muldoon's questions, Human Resources Director Salvini clarified the
severance provision as per the Government Code, clarified an 18 -month maximum provision, and
reported there would be an 18 month severance provision if tted without cause before
March 22, 2026, and a 12 month severance provision after March *6.
Motion by Council Member O'Neill, seconded by Coil 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; b) approve and authorize the Mayor to execute a
Seventh Amended and Restated Employment Agreement between the City of Newport Beach and
City Attorney Aaron C. Harp, subject tot e terms and conditions approved by the City Council;
c) adopt Resolution No. 2022-21, A ResoltNion of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach,
California, Modifying the Salary RanOr the City Attorney; and d) approve Budget Amendment
No. 22-047 appropriating $5,303 from unappropriated General Fund balance to various salary and
benefit accounts to implement the terms of the Agreement for the remainder of FY 2021-22.
The motion carried unan1itn
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERA - None
ADJOURNMENT -Adjourn at 6:50 p.m. in memory of Andrew Dossett III
The agenda was poste"#n 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
March 17, 2022, at 4:00 p.m.
Leilani I. Brown
City Clerk
Kevin Muldoon
Mayor
Volume 65 - Page 284