The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About01 - Minutes - AmendedApril 13, 2021 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Item No. 1 City Council Minutes Study Session and Regular Meeting March 23, 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 (via Zoom), Council Member Will O'Neill Excused: Council Member Duffy Duffield II. SSI. Clarification of Items on the Consent Calendar Council Member Brenner, addressing Item 6 (Resolution No 2021-22: Authorizing the Request for Delay of Measure M2 Project V Funding for the Balboa /Corona del Mar Microtransit Feasibility Study Project), clarified that Council can bring th ck before two years. SS2. Proclamation Designating April as "Let's Be KindMonth [100-2021] Mayor Avery read the proclamation and presented it to Costa Mesa Middle and High School student Rebekah Robeck. Miss Robeck thanked Council and indicated the "Let's Be Kind" campaign has changed Costa Mesa. SS3. Discussion on How "Matters Which C CMLCwmbers Have Asked To Be Placed On A Future Agenda" are Handled [100 - AM City Manager Leung discussed cu ent procedures for Council Members to place items on the agenda, Council Member Brenrginterest in allowing for discussion, and presented a slide of Ir potential options. - Council Member Brenn reported she is interested in obtaining clarification from the Council Member brintetem forward rather than holding a full discussion. ICouncil Membeill shared the background of City Council Policies, the reason Council Policy A-1 wased and amended, and indicated allowing clarification of an item is reasonable. Council Member Dixon indicated she would support a quick clarification but not advocacy or discussion. Mayor Pro Tem Muldoon related his support for a short clarification but nothing further. Jim Mosher stated he believed that a revision of Council Policy A-1 was not required, only a careful reading and examination of its history, the public expects Council to comment on all agenda items, and the public should be able to comment. With Council Member Duffield absent, the City Council concurred 6-0 to allow for City Council clarification during "Matters Which Council Members Have Asked To Be Placed On A Future Agenda." SS4. Presentation by the Harbor Commission on the Harbor Attendance Study [100-2021] Assistant City Manager Jacobs and Harbor Commissioner Scully utilized a presentation to discuss the Newport Beach Harbor Stakeholder Study, Harbor dynamics, stakeholder participants and counts, and footnotes. Volume 64 - Page 667 City of Newport Beach Study Session and Regular Meeting March 23, 2021 In response to Mayor Pro Tem Muldoon's question, City Manager Leung indicated the ad hoc committee's meetings are not publicly noticed meetings. Mayor Pro Tem Muldoon preferred that the STL Ad Hoc Committee meetings be publicly noticed and would support an amendment to require a public component to the meetings. Council Member Brenner stated the STL Ad Hoc Committee has invited local property management companies to meet with them and incorporated some of their ideas into recommendations, it is not a matter of the ad hoc committee needing to hear the impacts, and the ad hoc committee does not focus on telling staff how to enforce ordinances but on how to amend ordinances that do not give staff the tools to enforce. Council Member O'Neill related that, if the focus will be on Newport Island, then that needs to be stated in the ad hoc committee resolution, and if that occurred, he would not ask to amend it to become a Brown Act committee. Council Member Dixon indicated a property management compa ddressed the ad hoc committee regarding new technology, the ad hoc committee is open to input, upported limiting the ad hoc committee's focus to Newport Island. In response to Craig Batley's question, Council Member O'Neill reported the focus for the ad hoc committee will be Newport Island. Mr. Batley noted the City arranged for enforcement sweeps Thursday through Sunday nights on Newport Island, which he believed may be resulting in some benefits to the area. Jim Mosher expressed concern reg enforcement is not a proper role for ad Gary Cruz expressed concern that presented to Council, and added t California Coastal Commissio that meets privately and stated mmittee will be dissolved and issues will not be .tee needs to figure out how best to approach the approvals. Scott Carpenter, iTripVacationi1wowner, expressed concerns regarding the transparency and openness of the committee, was eased with shifting the focus to Newport Island, and because of the decrease in COVID-19 cas s, suggested Council consider removing the last element of the emergency ordinance that prohibits STL permits from being issued. Bud Levy wanted soTrepresentation from Newport Island at those meetings. Nancy Scarbrough stated that people on Newport Island have carried a lot of the burden for the rest of the City, Council should make this as simple as possible for them, property rights also apply to neighbors, and whatever Council can do to make this problem manageable should be done. Mike Glenn asked why the City is not charging people with illegal activities if what they are doing is already illegal and indicated that the Fourteenth Amendment ensures that the entire City may be affected by any property rights Council decides to strip from property owners on Newport Island, and added that it is only fair for property owners and operators to be part of the ad hoc committee in order to explain their positions and deter the deterioration of property rights. Gina Cruz commented that people's lives are being affected, some people feel like prisoners in their homes due to the STLs around them, and their quality of life has -gene decreased in the last two years which also coincides with the increased issuance of permits. Council Member O'Neill proposed amending the resolution by replacing "in the coastal zone" with "on Newport Island" in the first "Whereas" paragraph and at the end of Section 1. Volume 64 - Page 674 City of Newport Beach Study Session and Regular Meeting March 23, 2021 voters supported the 1959 ordinance with more explicit details, and stated that the cost study indicates if residents recycle 100%, they will have to pay 100% of the cost. City Attorney Harp clarified that the recycling fee was in place before the ordinance was adopted; therefore, the recycling fee is valid. Murphy McCann inquired about the goal of the recycling program, commented it appears that Council is trying to pass on more cost to the residents, stated that it is not clear how the money is spent on the other side, how diversion rates are calculated, and if more money has to be spent on CR&R's contract to achieve higher diversion rates. Rachel Cushman, representative of Miss Scuba California, was happy that Newport Beach is implementing research, but believed education will fix this problem and help the community grow and participate. In response to Council Member Brenner's request, Public Works Director Webb discussed the impacts of State laws, disposal of contents from the black (dirty) and green (clean) cans, technology, the three -cart system, and the January 2022 deadline for organics. Council Member Brenner noted in the past, recycling was on the honor system, but the City will incc penalties if people do not recycle, which might need to be passed to residents. A In response to Council Member Brenner's questiol City Attorney Harp advised that the property tax paying for trash removal services has been on the books for a long time, when the most recent ordinance was adopted by the people, there was confusion about whether it applied to residences or residences and commercial properties, the ord ance indicates that the City will take care of trash service for residential but not commercialrties, the City was already charging a recycling fee at the time it was adopted, the fee was neve ntended to go away when the ordinance was adopted, and there is no argument that it was caught up in the adoption of the ordinance. Council Member Dixon shared th*ling� member of the working group with Council Members Brenner and O'Neill has been an educatidnal process. In response to her question, Public Works Director Webb related that most Orange County cities have been on the three -cart system and separating trash for many years. He noted that Costa Mesa Sanitary District uses two carts but is moving to a three -cart system. Council Member Dixon indicated landfills have finite capacity, State mandates are unavoidable, this will bring the City into compliance with modern waste management techniques with minimum inconvenience, people want the City to do more recycling, and commended staff for diligently working on this and the community for realizing the City is handling waste in the most responsible manner possible. Hearing no further testimony, Mayor Avery closed the public hearing. City Clerk Brown announced that she received ten (10) protest letters. Motion by Council Member Dixon, seconded by Council Member O'Neill, 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 a4ePResolution No. 2021-25, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach, California, Adopting an Adjusted Recycling Service Fee, since there was not a majority of protest votes received against the adoption of the new Recyclinge Service Fee rates. With Council Member Duffield absent and Mayor Pro Tem Muldoon voting "no," the motion carried 5-1. Volume 64 - Page 676