HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/25/2022 - Regular MeetingCITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
City Council Meeting Minutes
Regular Meeting
October 25, 2022
I. CONVENED AT 4:00 P.M. FOR REGULAR MEETING
II. ROLL CALL
Present: Mayor Kevin Muldoon, Mayor Pro Tem Noah Blom, Council Member Brad Avery, Council
Member Joy Brenner, Council Member Diane Dixon, Council Member Duffy Duffield, Council
Member Will O'Neill
III. INVOCATION — Pastor Scott Cody, St. Andrews Presbyterian Church
IV. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE — Council Member Dixon
V. NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC
Regarding the items under Matters for a Future Agenda, Jim Mosher requested that the Planning
Commission provide a recommendation to Council for regulating fractional ownership and expressed
opposition to a resolution condemning the government of Iran since it is not in the City's jurisdiction.
VI. CITY COUNCIL ANNOUNCEMENTS AND ORAL REPORTS FROM CITY COUNCIL ON
COMMITTEE ACTIVITIES
Council Member O'Neill:
• Attended the Finance Committee meeting and led a Girl Scout tour through City Hall
• Congratulated Corona del Mar High School for winning Battle of the Bay
• Reminded residents to drive safely on Halloween and to vote
• Announced a crime prevention meeting in partnership with the Association of Newport Coast
Council Member Duffield
• Announced that last week the City received approval for the Harbor dredging project from the
California Coastal Commission (CCC)
Council Member Dixon:
• Attended the Corona del Mar Meet and Greet and served home baked pie
• Announced the next Aviation Committee meeting and District One Town Hall
• Utilized a slide to announce the 5th Annual Halloween Spooktacular at Mariners Park
Council Member Brenner:
• Utilized slides to announce that the Corona del Mar Residents Association Historical Subcommittee
is seeking old photos of Corona del Mar cottages (ronyeoarchitect@gmail.com) and the City is holding
a student art contest(newportbeachca.gov/culturalarts)
• Attended the Corona del Mar Meet and Greet, Renew Newport Beach Volunteer Day, Homeless
Services Community Forum with Be Well, the freshman Corona del Mar High School football game,
ribbon cutting for Cappy's 40 Year Anniversary Celebration, Art in the Park exhibition, Corona del
Mar Foundation track and field dedication to Bill Sumner, and a concert at Newport Dunes
• Met with several residents regarding pickleball
Council Member Avery:
• Attended the California Coastal Committee meeting in San Diego with Council Member Duffield
and members of the Harbor Commission, recognized Council Member Duffield and staff for their
work on the dredging project, and noted environmental justice by not sending the dredged materials
to another community
Volume 65 - Page 416
City of Newport Beach
City Council Meeting
October 25, 2022
Mayor Muldoon:
• Acknowledged the kick-off for Renew Newport Beach Volunteer Day, announced there were
hundreds of volunteers, and expressed gratitude to the City and the hope that this continues in the
future
VII. MATTERS WHICH COUNCIL MEMBERS HAVE ASKED TO BE PLACED ON A FUTURE
AGENDA (NON -DISCUSSION ITEM)
• Consider directing the Planning Commission, at its January 5, 2023 meeting, to make a
recommendation to the City Council regarding the regulation of fractional ownership
[Dixon]
Council unanimously concurred to bring the matter back at a future meeting.
• Consider adopting a Resolution condemning the government of Iran for the physical
beating and death of Mahsa Amini by Iran's morality police [Dixon]
Mayor Muldoon and Council Members Brenner, Dixon, and Duffield concurred to bring the matter
back at a future meeting.
VIII. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON CONSENT CALENDAR
In response to Council Member Dixon's question, City Manager Leung stated that the Gateway Park
Improvement Project bids (Item 6) are expected to come to Council at the November 29, 2022 meeting.
Regarding Item 4 (Establishing an Ad Hoc Citizens' Advisory Committee to Provide Input and Make
Recommendations that will Address Residential Crime and Burglary), Jim Mosher reminded Council of
the Maddy Act, and noted missed opportunities for untapped talent when quick appointments are made.
Laura Curran noted that Item 12 (Annual Review of Visit Newport Beach Audited Financial Statements
and Expenditure Report) is separate from the operating budget previously submitted, expressed the
opinion that it is a superficial financial statement for Visit Newport Beach, discussed the importance
for the public to understand the Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) and how it is spent, and encouraged
residents to look at the statements.
IX. CONSENT CALENDAR
READING OF MINUTES AND ORDINANCES
1. Minutes for the October 11, 2022 City Council Meeting [100-20221
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. 2022-73: Adopting a Revised Employee Policy Manual [100-20221
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. 2022-73, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach,
California, Adopting a Revised Employee Policy Manual.
Volume 65 - Page 417
City of Newport Beach
City Council Meeting
October 25, 2022
4. Resolution No. 2022-74: Establishing an Ad Hoc Citizens' Advisory Committee to Provide
Input and Make Recommendations That Will Address Residential Crime and Burglary
[241100-2022]
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;
b) Adopt Resolution No. 2022-74, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach,
California, Establishing the Citizens'Residential Crime and Burglary Advisory Committee; and
c) Direct the City Clerk to advertise for the citizen members of the Committee.
CONTRACTS AND AGREEMENTS
5. Central Library Boiler and Civic Center Hot Water Heater Replacement Project (Project
No. 22F02) — Notice of Completion for Contract No. 8730-1 [381100-20221
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.
6. Gateway Park Improvements — Rejection of All Bids for Contract No. 8791-1 (23L01)
[381100-2022]
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;
b) Reject all bids received for Contract No. 8791-1 and direct staff to return all bidders bonds; and
c) Direct staff to modify the bid documents and re -advertise the Gateway Park Improvements
Project for construction.
7. Approval of On -Call Professional Services Agreements for Emergency Medical Services
Nurse Educator/Continuous Quality Improvement Services [381100-2022]
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) Approve On -Call Professional Services Agreements with Caroline Jack (C-7191-4A) for Nurse
Educator Services, and Shelley Brukman (C-7191-5) for Continuous Quality Improvement
Services, with each agreement being for a three-year term and a total not -to -exceed amount of
$120,000, and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the agreements.
8. Joint Powers Authority Agreement with California Insurance Pool Authority (CIPA)
(C-8872-1) [381100-2022]
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;
b) Authorize the Mayor to enter into the proposed five-year Joint Powers Authority Agreement
with California Insurance Pool Authority (CIPA) and proposed five-year Agreement with CIPA
Regarding Insurance Pool Membership; and
c) Delegate authority to the City Manager to bind coverage and authorize the City Manager to
approve premium payments in the amount of the annual premiums from the Council -approved
budget accounts designated for insurance for the term of the Joint Powers Authority Agreement.
Mayor Muldoon recused himself from Item 8 due to potential business interest conflicts.
9. Purchase, Installation and Maintenance Agreement with Axon Enterprise, Inc. for
Body -Worn Cameras, In -Car Video Systems and Tasers (C-8973-1) [381100-20221
Volume 65 - Page 418
City of Newport Beach
City Council Meeting
October 25, 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;
b) Waive the Request for Proposals requirement of Council Policy F-14 and approve selection of
Axon Enterprise products and services through a Sourcewell cooperative competitive
procurement process; and
c) Approve a Purchase, Installation and Maintenance Agreement with Axon Enterprise, Inc. of
Scottsdale, Arizona, for body -worn cameras, in -car video systems, Tasers and related hardware,
software and services for a not -to -exceed cost of $3,430,214 over ten years, and authorize the
Mayor and City Clerk to execute the Agreement.
10. Purchase of Police Patrol Vehicles [100-20221
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 the purchase of seven Ford Police Interceptor Hybrid Utility vehicles from the National
Auto Fleet Group of Watsonville, California, using Sourcewell cooperative pricing, and authorize
the City Manager to execute a purchase order in the amount of $421,661.59; and
c) Approve Budget Amendment No. 23-029 appropriating $104,876.59 in increased expenditures
in Account No. 75304-911016 from the Police Equipment Fund (Fund 753) balance.
MISCELLANEOUS
11. Planning Commission Agenda for the October 20, 2022 Meeting [100-20221
Receive and file.
12. Annual Review of Visit Newport Beach Audited Financial Statements and Expenditure
Report (C-4436) [381100-2022]
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) Receive and file.
12. Grants and Donations Report for Quarter Ending September 30, 2022 [100-20221
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 Blom, seconded by Council Member Duffield, to approve the Consent
Calendar; and noting the recusal by Mayor Muldoon to Item 8 and the amendments to Item 1.
The motion carried unanimously.
X. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR — None
XI. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON -AGENDA ITEMS
Gary Cruz expressed concern regarding election fliers that are not factual, asked Council to denounce
them, and discussed accusations regarding Council Members Brenner and Dixon.
An unidentified speaker thanked Council Member Brenner for her contributions to regulating short-
term rentals and hoped that the City will apply what has been learned from short-term rentals to
fractional ownership.
Denys Oberman expressed the opinion that no legal barrier exists to enforce the current integral
facilities ordinance.
Volume 65 - Page 419
City of Newport Beach
City Council Meeting
October 25, 2022
Laura Curran discussed rehabilitation facilities, a Miramar operator, non -transferable licenses,
requested the City keep accurate records of the rehabilitation facilities, reminded Council that several
Department of Social Services rehabilitation facilities are operating without a license, and emphasized
it is the City's right to request that facilities operate with a license and take action when not.
XII. PUBLIC HEARINGS
14. Resolution No. 2022-75: Authorization to Issue Obligations by the California Municipal
Finance Authority for an Additional Loan Benefiting Harbor Day School [100-20221
In response to Council Member Dixon's question, City Attorney Harp confirmed that the resolution
will not impact the City's finances, indebtedness, or credit rating.
Mayor Muldoon opened the public hearing.
Jim Mosher noted there will be a small fiscal impact to the City's revenue with tax-free bonds.
Hearing no further testimony, Mayor Muldoon closed the public hearing.
Mayor Muldoon stated he will be voting "no" for ideology reasons.
Motion by Council Member Dixon, seconded bMayor Pro Tem 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; and b) adopt Resolution No. 2022-75, A Resolution
of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach, California, Approving the Making of One or More
Loans in a Principle Amount Not -to -Exceed $5,000,000 for the Purpose of Financing the Additional
Costs of Certain Improvements to Harbor Day School and Certain Other Matters Relating Thereto.
With Mayor Muldoon voting "no," the motion carried 6-1.
15. Ordinance Nos. 2022-19 and 2022-20: Reconsideration of the Tennis Club at Newport
Beach Project Amendment (PA2021-260) (C-5068) [381100-2022]
Community Development Director Jurjis utilized a presentation to review the new application and
alternate plan, project location, site plan, subject site, proposed amendment, CEQA review, and
recommended action.
In response to Council Member Brenner's question, Community Development Director Jurjis
discussed the impact of this project if the alternate plan is approved and the process for approval.
Associate Planner Lee confirmed that the alternate plan includes 26 pickleball courts and two tennis
courts. Community Development Director Jurjis indicated that, through a revised application, the
current pickleball courts will get a Conditional Use Permit (CUP), noted that the site was identified
as a housing opportunity site, housing reductions by Council left a 100 housing unit allocation to
this property, an allowance of a housing unit transfer and development rights is an option if the
owners can find donor sites to donate property and transfer the units over, and stated that the
transferring of development and units is a legislative act by Council.
In response to Mayor Muldoon's question, Community Development Director Jurjis indicated that
a future Council can approve a Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) on the site in seven to
eight years and before the next cycle.
Mayor Muldoon opened the public hearing.
Robert O Hill, Managing Partner of The Tennis Club at Newport Beach, stated that he favors tennis
and pickleball versus high density apartments on the property, and utilized a presentation to review
the existing entitlement, Plan B amendment details, Plan B member support, property map and
Volume 65 - Page 420
City of Newport Beach
City Council Meeting
October 25, 2022
renderings, updated locker rooms, pickleball court investment, the parking study, the Plan
Snapshot Report, a drawing of sound blocking buildings, stakeholder concerns, property vision,
photos, and proposed renderings.
Brett Feuerstein and Ryan Chase, 50% owners of The Tennis Club at Newport Beach, relayed the
arbitration with Golf Realty Fund to determine application processing authority, stated there are
no plans for apartments, discussed a lease for a pickleball and tennis club with no hotel or
apartments, Mario Marovic's background and property improvement plans, lease terms, protection
measures to keep pickleball courts, and CEQA feedback, and asked Council to stay the course.
Susan Skinner expressed the opinion that the plan for the pickleball club site is for high density
development and asked Council to vote to protect the pickleball courts.
Judy Cole asked Council to vote "no" and allow the new pickleball plan to go through the process.
Robert Strother expressed the opinion that the Tennis Club is well -run, Sean Abdali and Mr. O Hill
will keep pickleball, noted competing interests, thought pickleball is the best use of the property,
supported hotel and apartment development and Plan B, and asked Council to support Plan B.
Monica read a letter from the Kiani Family that shared Mr. Abadli's impact and influence on their
family, students, and the community.
Rainier Ray supported Plan B, asked Council to consider the desires of the community, and
expressed support for the Abdali family.
Marina Andrei displayed a picture of her daughter on the Corona del Mar High School tennis team
and wished for other students to have the same opportunity.
Eserena supported Plan B.
Peggy Tanous supported Plan B and asked Council to consider the wants of the community.
Kevin, owner of the PickleConnect app, noted a problem if pickleball went away and thanked
Mr. Abdali and the community.
Trenton supported Mr. Abdali and Plan B.
Marisa Wayne supported Mr. Abdali and Plan B.
Steve Abraham expressed the opinion that the City needs to approve the project as proposed or cease
pickleball playing until the site receives an official approval.
Bruce Branstine supported Mr. Abdali, Mr. O Hill, and Plan B.
Nancy Skinner supported Plan B.
H. Schneider attested to Mr. Abdali's work and noise deterrents at the Tennis Club, questioned why
the owners favored a different operator, and supported Plan B.
Dennis Murchison supported Plan B and asked Council to support it.
An unidentified speaker expressed support for Plan B, Mr. O Hill, and Mr. Abdali, and noted no
noise heard from the Tennis Club from his nearby office.
Ella Said supported Plan B.
Robert Keller supported Plan B.
John Rosen supported Plan B.
Volume 65 - Page 421
City of Newport Beach
City Council Meeting
October 25, 2022
Kareem Gobran, tennis coach at the Tennis Club, attested to the development and programming at
the Tennis Cub, and supported Plan B.
Dirk and Rollie Larson supported moving forward with Plan B.
Bernard Prat expressed appreciation for Mr. Abdali's leadership and supported listening to the
residents.
Jim Mosher supported Council's previous decision to defer the decision until receiving the plan with
pickleball courts, expressed the opinion that the plan raises a Greenlight issue and a General Plan
amendment does not exist for Plan A.
Valentina Abdali provided background about the Tennis Club development and asked Council to
approve Plan B.
Sean Abdali discussed his background, recognized the difficult and confusing decision before
Council, asked Council to help them get to the finish line, thanked Mr. O Hill, expressed interest in
having a good relationship with the owners, and asked Council to support Plan B.
Rachel Long believed Mr. O Hill will follow through with the plans for pickleball courts and the
ownership has divided the community, noted concerns for high density housing and development
rights, and asked Council to move forward with Plan B.
Hearing no further testimony, Mayor Muldoon closed the public hearing.
Council Member O'Neill noted a dysfunctional owners' relationship and pointed out that there are
two versions of Plan B. In response to his question, Community Development Director Jurjis
confirmed that tonight's Plan B is for tennis courts only and does not include pickleball courts.
Council Member O'Neill clarified that no pickleball is included if Council approves Plan B tonight,
noted the staff report link to the project description and entitlements, and additional requirements
for pickleball courts in the new project. He expressed support for pickleball and the timeline of
events leading to the new application, relaying that Council wishes to review the actual project and
not the one without pickleball, expressed concern regarding an incorrect project description and the
approval of the amendment as presented would not set a good precedent. Lastly, he stated that high
density housing is hard to put in Newport Beach and requires a vote of the people, RHNA does not
trump Greenlight, and suggested sending the actual project to the Planning Commission so it can
go through the normal process.
In response to Council Member Dixon's questions, Brett Feuerstein and Ryan Chase confirmed their
support for pickleball and tennis, and discussed reasons for wanting a new operator and lease terms,
no hotel, and projected financials. Furthermore, they indicated that Mario Markovic will hire the
right people and operator and invest $2 million into the facility for parking and upgrades. Council
Member Dixon, Mr. O Hill, Community Development Director Jurjis, and Assistant Planner Lee
utilized slides of the project entitlements and proposed plans to discuss original versus new proposal
items. Mr. O Hill confirmed that no process exists to approve pickleball courts and sought to secure
final approval of the proposed plan with the understanding that the new application includes
pickleball courts and CEQA requirements related to parking, traffic, and the operator lease terms.
In response to Council Member Dixon's question, Community Development Director Jurjis relayed
that although changes can be made during a project development, the project description is what is
submitted with the application. Mr. O Hill expressed the opinion that the only difference from the
original application is official approval for existing pickleball courts because no process exists.
In response to Council Member Brenner's questions, Mr. O Hill utilized the presentation to review
the Plan B Amendment and indicated that approval will allow a lease to be prepared and move
forward with a hotel developer agreement. He declared to keep his word and only work with hotel
developers who support pickleball courts and relayed that litigation can be postponed if both sides
agree to it, and asked Council to support tonight's Plan B.
Volume 65 - Page 422
City of Newport Beach
City Council Meeting
October 25, 2022
Mayor Pro Tem Blom clarified Council's role in this matter and approval processes, requested that
a full and finished project be presented, noted the impact to small business owners, and indicated
he will be voting "no" because it is not the will of the people.
Mayor Muldoon indicated he is here to vote for the property rights of the individual who represents
the property.
Motion by Mayor Muldoon seconded by Council Member Dixon, to a) adopt Resolution
No. 2022-65, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach, California, Adopting an
Addendum to Mitigated Negative Declaration No. ND2010-008 for the Tennis Club at Newport Beach
Located at 1602 East Coast Highway (PA2021-260); b) adopt Resolution No. 2022-66, A Resolution
of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach, California, Approving a General Plan Amendment,
Amendment to Major Site Development Review No. SD2011-002, Amendment to Coastal
Development Permit No. CD2017-039, Amendment to Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. NT2005-003,
and Amendment to Limited Term Permit No. XP2011-004 for the Tennis Club at Newport Beach
Located at 1602 East Coast Highway (PA2021-260); c) adopt Resolution No. 2022-67, A Resolution
of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach, California, Authorizing Submittal of a Local Coastal
Program Amendment to the California Coastal Commission to Amend the Newport Beach Country
Club Planned Community Development Plan (PC-47) for the Tennis Club Located at 1602 East Coast
Highway (PA2021-260); d) waive full reading, direct the City Clerk to read by title only, and
introduce Ordinance No. 2022-19, An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach,
California, Approving an Amendment to the Newport Beach Country Club Planned Community
Development Plan (PC-47) for the Tennis Club at Newport Beach Located at 1602 East Coast
Highway (PA2021-260), and pass on to second reading on November 15, 2022; and e) waive full
reading, direct the City Clerk to read by title only, and introduce Ordinance No. 2022-20, An
Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach, California, Approving the Second
Amendment to the Development Agreement (DA2008-001) for the Tennis Club at Newport Beach
Located at 1602 East Coast Highway (PA2021-260), and pass on to second reading on November 15,
2022.
In response to Council Member Avery's questions, Mr. O Hill clarified that he is trying to get the
plan that preserves the pickleball court approved by the judge and, if it is not done in time, he will
likely lose. Community Development Director Jurjis indicated that staff has a sense of urgency to
get this done and estimated a 90 to150 day turnaround for the entire process. Council Member Avery
concurred with Council Member O'Neill that it would be improper for Council to accept a plan that
is not going to happen and indicated he will be remaining consistent with his previous "no" vote.
Council Member Brenner expressed concern for the actions of the State and building industry and
indicated a preference for a hotel on the property versus a high -density apartment building.
Community Development Director Jurjis stated that a property owner cannot be told what to put
on their property.
Council Member O'Neill clarified tonight's plan for consideration and indicated that approving a
project not actually being proposed in order to benefit business expediency is a precedent they will
regret. Community Development Director Jurjis confirmed that the project description has been
changed. Council Member O'Neill suggested looking at what is in front of Council and not a
hypothetical plan.
In response to Council Member Brenner's question, Community Development Director Jurjis stated
that the chances of a high -density project being submitted to the City while the project is being
litigated is not reasonable and noted that the transfer development rights require approval by
Council.
Mr. O Hill predicted that the State mandate will trump Greenlight in the courts relative to the
Housing Element.
Volume 65 - Page 423
City of Newport Beach
City Council Meeting
October 25, 2022
Mayor Muldoon stated that he expects a continued trend of similar ordinances being overturned and
the loss of local control.
Council Member Avery relayed that Council needs to consider the plan that is before them tonight.
With Mayor Pro Tem Blom and Council Members Avery, Brenner, Duffield, and O'Neill
voting "no," the motion failed 2-5.
Motion by Council Member O'Neill, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Blom, to continue the item
until the meeting after the Planning Commission approves plans that include pickleball courts.
With Mayor Muldoon and Council Member Dixon voting "no," the motion carried 5-2.
Mayor Muldoon recessed the meeting at 6.57 p.m. and reconvened at 7.08 p.m. with all
members of the City Council in attendance.
16. Ordinance No. 2022-22, Resolution Nos. 2022-76 to 2022-79, and Lease Amendment:
Lido House Hotel Expansion at 3300 Newport Boulevard and 475 32nd Street (PA2020-068)
(C-5567B) [381100-2022]
Mayor Pro Tem Blom recused himself due to .real property interest conflicts
Community Development Director Jurjis, Principal Planner Zdeba, and Real Property
Administrator Whitlinger utilized a presentation to review the expansion of the Lido House Hotel,
vicinity map, brief background, existing and proposed site, applicant's request, joint use of the area,
project overview, required City entitlements, parking map, fiscal impact snapshot, CEQA review,
recommended action, and next steps.
Mayor Muldoon opened the public hearing.
Jim Mosher noted clerical changes to the Coastal Implementation Plan, suggested cleaning up the
municipal facilities building limit in the General Plan on Table LU2, and objected to the proposed
fencing.
Hearing no further testimony, Mayor Muldoon closed the public hearing.
Council Member Dixon expressed support for the project.
In response to Council Member Avery's questions, Principal Planner Zdeba confirmed that the
proposed wall will match the existing wall and will be lower along Newport Boulevard. Anthony
Wrzosek, RD Olson, relayed that the wall on Newport Boulevard will be concealed by a hedge or
shrub, the wall height on some portions of 32nd Street is 5 feet and others are 3-1/2 feet ,so it blends
in with the existing fence and wall, and noted that the proposal to enclose the roof top deck will
count toward the total square footage.
Motion by Council Member Dixon seconded by Mayor Muldoon, to a) adopt Resolution
No. 2022-76, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach, California, Adopting
Addendum No. 2 to the Lido House Hotel Certified Environmental Impact Report (PA2020-068);
b) adopt Resolution No. 2022-77, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach,
California, Approving a General Plan Amendment for the Lido House Hotel Located at 3300 Newport
Boulevard and 475 32nd Street (PA2020-068); c) adopt Resolution No. 2022-78, A Resolution of the
City Council of the City of Newport Beach, California, Authorizing Submittal of a Local Coastal
Program Amendment to the California Coastal Commission to Amend the City of Newport Beach
Coastal Land Use Plan and Title 21 (Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan) of the Newport
Beach Municipal Code Related to the Lido House Hotel Located at 3300 Newport Boulevard and
475 32nd Street (PA2020-068); d) adopt Resolution No. 2022-79, A Resolution of the City Council of
Volume 65 - Page 424
City of Newport Beach
City Council Meeting
October 25, 2022
the City of Newport Beach, California, Approving Amendments to the Major Site Development Review
and Conditional Use Permit for the Lido House Hotel Located at 3300 Newport Boulevard and
475 32nd Street (PA2020-068); e) waive full reading, direct the City Clerk to read by title only,
introduce Ordinance No. 2022-22, An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach,
California, Approving a Zoning Code Amendment for the Lido House Hotel Located at 3300 Newport
Boulevard and 475 32nd Street (PA2020-068), and pass to second reading on November 15, 2022; and
fj authorize the City Manager and City Clerk to execute the Second Amendment to Ground Lease
between the City of Newport Beach and Lido House, LLC (Tenant), to incorporate the property
located at 475 32nd Street into the leased premises and allow the Tenant to construct five cottages
and various site and public improvements, in a form substantially similar to the agreement prepared
by the City Attorney.
With Mayor Pro Tem Blom recusing himself, the motion carried 6-0.
17. Annual Review of Zoning Agreement for Sierra by the Sea (PA2010-150) (C-4145) [38/100-
2022]
Mayor Muldoon opened the public hearing.
Nabila Martin expressed gratitude to the Council Members, indicated she is a condo owner and
neighbor to one of the Sierra by the Sea facilities, expressed the opinion that compliance reporting
is inaccurate, relayed incidents, and asked Council to rethink allowing rehabilitation facilities in
residential areas and consider the impacts to the neighborhood.
In response to Council Member Brenner's questions, Ms. Martin stated the report indicates that no
calls were reported, yet she has called the City, Community Development Department/ Code
Enforcement, and property management with complaints, including cigarette butts all around the
neighborhood. Community Development Director Jurjis confirmed it is not allowable to have smoke
that infringes on neighbors and shared his business card with Ms. Martin.
In response to Council Member Dixon's questions, Ms. Martin reported having reviewed the Code
Enforcement process, calling the City, speaking with the property management, and having no
awareness of Code Enforcement's presence at the property. Council Member Dixon noted the
importance of this topic and if no calls are placed, then nothing gets reported. Assistant Planner
Whelan noted that calls made the prior year would have been included in last year's report, and
recalled the smoking complaint, and having worked with the operator to implement an action plan
for relocating smoking and limiting the number of smokers at one time. Ms. Martin noted
altercations on the property and safety concerns, smoke flowing into homes even when smoking is
on the other side of the property, trash issues, and a desire for the City to be more cautious about
where the facilities are allowed to operate. Community Development Director Jurjis relayed that
enforcement requires witnessing the action and thought the next best step is to increase dialogue
with the operator. City Attorney Harp indicated that the property is a City -permitted facility that
is required to follow rules and regulations and has an obligation to prevent smoke from impacting
other residents. Julie Thorne, Sierra by the Sea Director of Quality and Compliance, noted they
have two houses on Patrice Road, smoking is allowed across the street against the Hoag Hospital
wall, and designated smoking is on the front patio with a limit of no more than two smokers at a
time. She offered to give Ms. Martin her number to address future issues, and shared logistical
changes to redirect smokers to the backside of the house, and relayed no other complaints received,
trash being contained with no issues received, weekly safety walk-through visits, and reported there
is an on -site supervisor 24 hours per day.
In response to Council Member Dixon's questions, Community Development Director Jurjis relayed
that an additional condition cannot be added and the action tonight is that the operator has
demonstrated good faith compliance. Council Member Dixon expressed concern for a report that
does not include complaints when complaints are made. Community Development Director Jurjis
reminded Council that this is a receive and file item and Council can accept the report or provide
Volume 65 - Page 425
City of Newport Beach
City Council Meeting
October 25, 2022
direction to staff to work diligently with the operator and ensure responsive Code Enforcement,
Council Member Dixon encouraged residents to call Code Enforcement with issues so the data is
collected.
Motion by Council Member Dixon to a) find this review exempt from the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15321 (Enforcement Actions by Regulatory
Agencies) of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3,
because this review enforces an entitlement for use adopted by the City and has no potential to have
a significant effect on the environment; b) find that Sierra by the Sea has demonstrated good faith
compliance with the terms of the Zoning Implementation and Public Benefit Agreement; c) receive
and file documents submitted by Sierra by the Sea to demonstrate good faith compliance with the
terms of the Zoning Implementation and Public Benefit Agreement; and d) direct staff to work
diligently with the operator and ensure Code Enforcement is responsive to resident complaints.
Council Member Avery indicated that he would be voting "no" on this item.
Council Member Dixon withdrew her motion.
In response to Council Member Brenner's questions, City Attorney Harp relayed that the City has
to make a finding of whether the operator is in good faith compliance or not in order to take action
and, if no findings are made, the City could go down a revocation path or continue the item.
Motion by Mayor Muldoon, seconded by Council Member Dixon, to continue the matter until
the November 29, 2022 City Council meeting.
Mayor Muldoon opened the public hearing.
Jeff Roberts commended Police Chief Lewis and thanked Council, noted concerns for facilities on
Orchard Avenue and a call to the police for public safety, sought a safe haven community, and
encouraged Council to avoid allowing these types of facilities in residential neighborhoods.
Jane Spitz expressed safety concerns that an unlicensed facility will be established next door to her
and wondered why the City is not taking action against unlicensed facilities.
Lindsey Dickhout stated she lives next to an unlicensed facility and described an incident at the
facility that involved police which led to her children being fearful. She stated that she is a supporter
of mental health through Project Happiness, does not understand how the City is allowing
unlicensed facilities, and relayed trust that Council has the best interest of the community in mind.
In response to Council Member Brenner's questions, City Attorney Harp relayed a consistent
philosophy for Code Enforcement, pending licenses for three mental health collective properties, and
the City's complaint -based Code Enforcement process that works to bring violators into compliance
as opposed to impose punishments.
When Council Member Brenner asked if this item should be an A-1 item (Matter for a Future
Agenda), City Attorney Harp thought it would be appropriate for Council to do an A-1 item to discuss
Code Enforcement and noted the State's involvement in the permit process. Council Member
Brenner requested an A-1 item to discuss Code Enforcement.
In response to Council Member Dixon's questions, Community Development Director Jurjis
indicated that staff is working on feedback from the Planning Commission for the new ordinance.
Council Member Dixon suggested that Assistant City Manager Finnigan hold an Ad Hoc Residential
Care Facilities Committee meeting to receive an update on the Planning Commission's
recommendations. In response to Council Member Dixon's suggestion to enact a time limit on the
State if State licenses are not approved by a certain time, City Attorney Harp reminded Council of
equal treatment for all. Council Member Dixon relayed the uniqueness of this situation, how the
City is powerless to enforce the Newport Beach Municipal Code, supported the A-1 item, and asked
Volume 65 - Page 426
City of Newport Beach
City Council Meeting
October 25, 2022
staff to keep moving forward with the proposed ordinance and an Ad Hoc Residential Care Facilities
Committee meeting.
Erica Keane noted a previous Santa Ann Heights incident, expressed concern for inappropriate
complaint documentation by Code Enforcement, and asked Council to reconsider addressing the
issues involving Sierra by the Sea.
Eric Spitz expressed the opinion that the City is being bamboozled, recounted the steps he took
relative to complaints, and questioned why unlicensed facilities are not getting shutdown like other
unlicensed businesses.
Bill Lyon noted the Orange County population and percentage of group homes and complaints to
the State with no follow-up. He expressed the opinion that this issue is an Orange County problem,
not a State problem, noted social rehabilitation facility development, stated the responsibility falls
on the City because the State is not going to do anything, believed the City has not found a published
State court opinion that would prevent the City from putting a facility under a Conditional Use
Permit (CUP), and the community must look to the City for middle ground.
In response to Council Member Dixon's questions, Mr. Lyon stated that there is not a published
opinion from the State Court that would prevent the City from having a State licensed facility
subject to the CUP process. He took issue that State law protects standalone facilities that have six
beds or under, but operators are getting around that by establishing several facilities in the
community and using a central location for treatment.
Council Member Dixon expressed interest in finding a way to conduct enforcement on unlicensed
facilities.
Hearing no further testimony, Mayor Muldoon closed the public hearing.
The motion carried unanimously.
18. Resolution No. 2022-80: Adopting the General Plan Circulation Element Update (PA2017-
141)[100-20221
Mayor Muldoon opened the public hearing.
Jim Carlson, Chairman of the Coalition to Protect Mariners Mile, expressed the opinion that the
Circulation Element should be a planning document without conclusions. He referenced Policy CE
2.3.1/Coast Highway Ownership and asked for a language change to reflect that the width of
Mariners Mile is "under study."
David Tanner provided a handout and expressed the opinion that the Circulation Element fails to
meet statutory requirements to address other local public utilities and facilities, discussed portions
of the Circulation Element, noted the City's role, relayed the impact to community members, and
suggested that Council continue the item.
Jim Mosher noted that all but one public comment has been ignored in the Circulation Element
Update and supported changing the word "construct" to "update" in Policy CE 2.1.2/Street and
Highway Network.
Hearing no further testimony, Mayor Muldoon closed the public hearing.
In response to Council Member Duffield's question, City Traffic Engineer Brine clarified that the
State owns the portion of Pacific Coast Highway (PCH) through Mariners Mile. He noted that, if the
City wishes to take ownership, an agreement between the State and City would be needed; however,
he reported that similar past negotiations have not netted appreciable monetary support from the
State, since past conversations have been centered around the City taking over the highway and not
a negotiation of the dollar amount.
Volume 65 - Page 427
City of Newport Beach
City Council Meeting
October 25, 2022
In response to Council Member Brenner's question, City Traffic Engineer Brine indicated that public
workshop comments are contained in a document that went to the Planning Commission, the
process for the Circulation Element update was delegated by the City Council to the Planning
Commission, a high percentage of public comments were incorporated into the plan, otherwise
known as the "Community Document," and staff is bringing forward into the Circulation Element
State mandates and laws passed many years ago. LSA Associates Consultant Tony Petros noted
that it is common to act in this manner and the City is not required to update the General Plan in
its entirety at once. City Traffic Engineer Brine indicated that adjustments can be made to the
Circulation Element after approving it, the job of the General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC) is
to review goals and policies, and a traffic analysis will occur as part to the update to the Land Use
Element.
Council Member Dixon questioned why the City would pursue ownership of PCH, noted a split
community opinion about widening Mariners Mile, and questioned if the City is trying to drive
approval of City ownership so the highway can be widened or if the State is going to do it anyway
from their master plan. City Traffic Engineer Brine shared the conversation with the State about
ownership and reminded Council of weighing the benefits to the costs for City ownership. Council
Member Dixon suggested striking "as opportunities arise" from the Circulation Element policy and
Public Works Director Webb suggested the language "pursue if it makes sense." Mr. Petros used the
example of a bike lane installation to demonstrate a benefit of City ownership. City Traffic Engineer
Brine agreed to modify the language, Council Member Dixon suggested adding words to complete
the bicycle lane, and Mr. Petros suggested the language "to allow flexibility and discretion in other
design alternatives." City Traffic Engineer Brine clarified the action tonight to approve a resolution
that incorporates the State mandates to the Circulation Element and noted that GPAC will be
reviewing the Circulation Element.
In response to Council Member Avery's questions, City Traffic Engineer Brine indicated that staff
wanted to update the Circulation Element document to include the goals and policies that cover the
State laws and the GPAC will be involved in reviewing the traffic analysis and specific policies tied
back to the master plan and policies associated with the traffic impacts. Council Member Avery
stated that a lot of consideration is needed before taking on ownership, liability, and maintenance
of PCH.
Motion by Mayor Muldoon, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Blom, to a) find this action exempt
from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the
CEQA Guidelines, because it has no potential to have a significant effect on the environment and
further that the action is statutorily exempt under Section 15262 of the CEQA Guidelines, which
exempts projects involving feasibility or planning studies for future actions which the City has not
approved or funded; and b) adopt Resolution No. 2022-80, A Resolution of the City Council of the
City of Newport Beach, California, Adopting an Amendment to the Newport Beach General Plan
Updating the Circulation Element (PA2017-141).
The motion carried unanimously.
XIII. MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION - None
XIV. ADJOURNMENT - Adjourned at 8:30 p.m. in memory of Judy Rosener
The agenda was posted on the City's website and on the City, 11 electronic bulle 'n board
located in the entrance of the City Council Chambers t 100 Civ�Crive on
October 20, 2022, at 4:00 p.m. �,/
Kevin
Volume 65 - Page 428