HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/25/2021 - Study Session / Regular MeetingCITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
City Council Minutes
Study Session and Regular Meeting
May 25, 2021
ROLL CALL - 6:49 p.m.
Present: Mayor Brad Avery, Mayor Pro Tem Kevin Muldoon, Council Member Noah Blom, Council
Member Joy Brenner, Council Member Diane Dixon, Council Member Duffy Duffield, Council
Member Will O'Neill
City Attorney Harp announced that Clarification of Items on the Consent Calendar and
Closed Session were not needed. Further and without City Council objection, Study Session
Item SS2 would be heard at the end of the meeting and Public Comments on Non -Agenda Items
would be heard at this time.
II. CURRENT BUSINESS
SSL Clarification of Items on the Consent Calendar - None
SS2. Review of the Proposed Fiscal Year 2021-22 Capital Improvement Program Budget
[100-2021] - heard at the end of the Regular Meeting
III. PUBLIC COMMENTS - None
IV. CLOSED SESSION - City Attorney Harp announced that Closed Session was not needed
A. 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 Organizations: Association of Newport Beach Ocean Lifeguards (ANBOL) and
Newport Beach Police Association (NBPA).
V. RECESSED
VI. RECONVENED AFTER THE SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND THE
FINANCE COMMITTEE AT 6:49 P.M. FOR REGULAR MEETING
VII. ROLL CALL
Present: Mayor Brad Avery, Mayor Pro Tem Kevin Muldoon, Council Member Noah Blom, Council
Member Joy Brenner, Council Member Diane Dixon, Council Member Duffy Duffield, Council
Member Will O'Neill
VIII. CLOSED SESSION REPORT
IX. INVOCATION - Pastor Drew Smithson, Orange County First Assembly of God, Santa Ana
X. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Mayor Pro Tem Muldoon
XVI. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON -AGENDA ITEMS
David Tanner requested that Council hold a series of General Plan Update workshops during Council
meetings and provide direction to staff regarding new housing and environmental laws. He proposed
the first workshop pertain to Mariners' Mile and the Orange County Master Plan of Arterial Highways.
Volume 65 - Page 44
City of Newport Beach
Study Session and Regular Meeting
May 25, 2021
George relayed the recommended and actual numbers of liquor licenses in the tract map containing
103 Palm Street, stated emergency responders have had problems entering the parking lot, and
expressed the opinion that the proposed business at 103 Palm Street will contribute to trash on the
beach. He hoped Council would not allow the proposed liquor license transfer to 103 Palm Street.
Cathy expressed the opinion that alcohol service at 103 Palm Street would increase the number of over -
served patrons which would cause problems for neighbors, police have difficulty closing fire pits at
10:00 p.m., and the Fun Zone used to be family -friendly. She asked Council Members to visit the area
and see the problems for themselves.
Harpreet Grewal, Newport Bay liquor store owner, indicated his business has been doing well for
23 years, but adding another business will put him out of business.
Carlos Godinez, President of the Newport Beach Restaurant Association (NBRA) Business Improvement
District (BID), asked Council to consider reinstating the BID for one more year, indicated restaurants
provide almost $3.9 million in economic impacts for the City, and noted the NBRA is pro-business.
Thad Foret, NBRA BID Board Member, advised that he relies on the BID to market his restaurant, the
small annual assessment makes him feel as though he is participating in big incentives and provides a
good return on money he does not have to spend.
Peggy Fort, CMC Inc., , indicated her firm represented the NBRA BID for 13 years in numerous
marketing initiatives, the NBRA BID grew to be a respected industry leader, and now is the time for
Council to support the NBRA BID's cooperative marketing efforts.
Philip Crowley, NBRA BID member, stated the BID has been financially worthwhile for both the City
and restaurants, requested Council reconsider its vote on the BID and renew it for at least a year so
that its success can be utilized to develop another direction.
David Salisbury, Newport Landing/Harborside Restaurant, expressed the opinion that abolishing the
BID would be a mistake, and another year would allow the BID to reconsider its direction.
David Guerrero, Bungalow Restaurant General Manager, requested Council give the BID another year
to resolve issues.
Jim Walker, Bungalow Restaurant Owner, related that many restauranteurs have contributed hours of
time to the NBRA because it has been good for the restaurant community, Newport Beach, and
businesses at large, the current membership totals about 470, the BID revised its structure in response
to concerns, full-service restaurants voluntarily paid the majority of BID fees, and BID membership is
not compulsory. He asked Council Members to attend meetings and discuss keeping the BID.
Steve Rosansky, President of the Newport Beach Chamber of Commerce, supported the NBRA and its
effective efforts to market restaurants and Newport Beach, noted the BID is an ideal public-private
partnership, and hoped Council would support renewing the BID for at least one more year.
Gary Sherwin, President and CEO of Newport Beach and Company, concurred with comments
regarding the challenges facing restaurants, agreed that the 1994 law was preferable, and advised that
the BID Board agreed to begin a strategic planning process which includes a conversion to the 1994 law.
He added that, if given another year, the BID Board can decide whether to convert to a structure under
the 1994 law and noted that the BID was the only means for some restaurants to promote their business.
Hoiyin Ip remarked that restaurant owners work hard and restaurants are part of the City fabric, but
stated that the NBRA never officially supported efforts to reduce single -use plastics, and hoped the
NBRA is willing to discuss the problem the City is having with trash.
XI. NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC
Volume 65 - Page 45
City of Newport Beach
Study Session and Regular Meeting
May 25, 2021
XII. CITY COUNCIL ANNOUNCEMENTS AND ORAL REPORTS FROM CITY COUNCIL ON
COMMITTEE ACTIVITIES
Council Member Brenner:
• Submitted an Orange County Mosquito and Vector Control District report for the record regarding
Newport Beach
• Utilized slides to announce the CEO of Mother's Market spoke to the Corona del Mar Residents
Association (CdMRA), the Modified Vehicle Street Racing and Take Over Task Force and statistics,
a SWAT training in Corona del Mar, and requested residents planning to demolish their homes
contact the Police Department about using the homes for training
• Requested a future agenda item regarding direction to the Parks, Beaches and Recreation
Commission to agendize an Ocean Boulevard Bluff Walk presentation
Council Member O'Neill:
• Thanked Recreation and Senior Services staff for opening fields
• Attended the Corona del Mar High School theater performance
• Hosted a first -grade boy scout troop in the City Council Chambers
• Announced a Finance Committee meeting on May 27, 2021 at 3:00 p.m.
Council Member Dixon:
• Utilized slides to share the sound wall replacement project in West Newport and announced a
District 1 Virtual Town Hall on June 17, 2021 at 5:00 p.m.
• Attended a Zoom meeting with 2nd District Supervisor Katrina Foley regarding airport matters and
an Aviation Committee meeting on May 17, 2021
• Thanked the Recreation and Senior Services Department, Public Works Departments, and staff for
the Grant Howald Park grand opening
Mayor Avery:
• Utilized slides to show dredging at the Harbor entrance and the Grant Howald Park grand opening
held earlier in the day
• Attended meetings of the Finance Committee, Homeless Task Force, Orange County Sanitation
District (OCSD) Board, and administration committee
XIII. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON CONSENT CALENDAR
In response,to Council Member Dixon's question regarding Item 7 (Resolution No. 2021-44: Approval of
Revised City Council Travel Policy F-8), City Manager Leung clarified that the revision extended the
travel policy to commissions.
XIV. CONSENT CALENDAR
READING OF MINUTES AND ORDINANCES
1. Minutes for the May 11, 2021 City Council Regular Meeting [100-2021]
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.
ORDINANCES FOR ADOPTION
3. Ordinance No. 2021-10: Amending Portions of Chapter 1.05 of the Newport Beach
Municipal Code Relating to Citation Fees and Citation Appeal Period (PA2021-079)
[100-2021]
Volume 65 - Page 46
City of Newport Beach
Study Session and Regular Meeting
May 25, 2021
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) Conduct 'second reading and adopt Ordinance No. 2021-10, An Ordinance of the City Council of
the City of Newport Beach, California, Amending Section 1.05.020, Section 1.05.060, and Section
1. 12.020 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code to Increase Fines for Violations of the Municipal
Code and Shorten the Administrative Citation Appeal Period.
Council Member Blom and Council Member O'Neill voted "no" on Item 3.
4. Ordinance No. 2021-11: Zoning Code Amendment to Allow Eating and Drinking
Establishments and Health/Fitness Facilities Within the Mixed -Use Dover/Westcliff
Zoning District (PA2020-316) [100-2021]
a) Find this action proposed herein is not a project subject to the California Environmental Quality
Act ("CEQA") in accordance with Section 21065 of the California Public Resources Code and
Sections 15060 (c)(2), 15060 (c)(3), and 15378 of the California Code of Regulations Title 14,
Division 6, Chapter 3 ("CEQA Guidelines"). The proposed action is also exempt pursuant to
CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects which
have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment; and
b) Conduct second reading and adopt Ordinance No. 2021-11, An Ordinance of the City Council of
the City of Newport Beach, California, Adopting Zoning Code Amendment No. CA2020-009
Amending Table 2-8 (Allowed Uses and Permit Requirements) of Section 20.22.020 (Mixed -Use
Zoning Districts Land Uses and Permit Requirements) of Title 20 (Planning and Zoning) of the
Newport Beach Municipal Code to Allow Eating and Drinking Establishments and Large
Health/Fitness Facilities in the MU -DW (Mixed -Use Dover/Westcliff) Zoning District (PA2020-
316).
RESOLUTIONS FOR ADOPTION
5. Resolution No. 2021-42: Initiation of Zoning Code and LCP Amendments Related to
Wireless Communication Facilities in the Public Right of Way (PA2021-103) [100-2021]
a) Determine this action exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant
to Section 15262 (Feasibility and Planning Studies) of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of
Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3; and
b) Adopt Resolution No. 2021-42, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach,
California, Initiating Amendments to Titles 20 (Planning and Zoning) and 21 (Local Coastal
Program Implementation Plan) of the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code Related to Wireless
Communication Facilities in the Public Right of Way (PA2021-103).
Mayor Pro Tem Muldoon recused himself on Item 5 due to business interest conflicts.
6. Resolution No. 2021-43: Initiation of Zoning Code and LCP Amendments Related to
Accessory Dwelling Units (PA2021-113) [100-2021]
a) Determine this action is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
pursuant to Section 15262 (Feasibility and Planning Studies) of the CEQA Guidelines,
California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3; and
b) Adopt Resolution No. 2021-43, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach,
California, Initiating Amendments to Title 20 (Planning and Zoning) and Title 21 (Local Coastal
Program Implementation Plan) of the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code Related to
Accessory Dwelling Units (PA2021-113).
7. Resolution No. 2021-44: Approval of Revised City Council Travel Policy F-8 [100-2021]
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. 2021-44, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach,
California, Adopting Revised City Council Policy F-8.
Volume 65 - Page 47
City of Newport Beach
Study Session and Regular Meeting
May 25, 2021
8. Resolution No. 2021-45: Emergency Declaration - Caulerpa prolifera in Newport Harbor
[100-20211
a) The proposed action is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA")
pursuant to Section 15269(c) (thy activity is necessary to prevent or mitigate an emergency) of
the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, because
it does not have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment, and none of
the exceptions listed in Guidelines Section 15300.2 apply. Section 15269 allows specific actions
necessary to prevent or mitigate an emergency; and
b) Adopt Resolution No. 2021-45, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach,
California, Proclaiming the Existence of a Local Emergency Related to the Infestation of Caulerpa
Prolifera in Newport Harbor.
CONTRACTS AND AGREEMENTS
9. Corporation Yard Fence Replacement Project - Notice of Completion for Contract
No. 7810-1 (20F02) [381100-20211
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.
10. Fiscal Year 2020-21 Traffic Signal Rehabilitation Project - Award of Contract No. 7791-
1A (21T01) [381100-2021]
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 project plans and specifications;
c) Award Contract No. 7791-1A to KDC, Inc., dba Dynalectric for the total bid price of $741,544,
and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the contract; and
d) Establish $75,000 (approximately 10 percent) contingency amount to cover the cost of
unforeseen work not included in the original contract.
Mayor Pro Tem Muldoon recused himself on Item 10 due to business interest conflicts.
11. Temporary Employment Agreement for a Principal, Building Inspector (C-8696-1) [381100-
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) Authorize the Mayor and Community Development Director to execute the Post Retirement
Temporary Employment Agreement with John Burckle for Principal Building Inspector
Services.
Mayor Pro Tem Muldoon voted "no" on Item 11.
12. Award of On -Call Vessel Removal, Storage and Disposal Services Agreements with
Newport Dredging Company, Inc. (C-7496-2), Pacific Towing, LLC (C-8697-1), and Perry's
Truck & Equipment Repair, LLC (C-7703-2) [381100-20211
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) Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute a three-year contract, with two optional
one-year extensions with Davis Farr LLP in a not to exceed amount of $270,000 to perform the
City's annual financial statement audit.
Volume 65 - Page 48
City of Newport Beach
Study Session and Regular Meeting
May 25, 2021
MISCELLANEOUS
13. Third Quarter Budget Update [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;
b) Approve Budget Amendment No. 21-043, which will:
1. Transfer unused Homeless Shelter CIP project funds of $265,285.80 to the City Manager
Outreach Services account (0102041-811008) for ongoing homeless shelter operating costs;
2. Transfer unappropriated fund balance from the 800 MHz Radio Fund to the General Fund
in the amount of $446,656; and
3. Transfer unappropriated fund balance from the Special Improvement District No. 95-1 Fund
to the General Fund in the amount of $281,611;
c) Receive and file the report of budget amendments for the third quarter; and
d) Receive and file the summary of pandemic -related costs and revenue.
Mayor Pro Tem Muldoon recused himself on Item 13 due to business interest conflicts.
14. Set Public Hearing Date for the 2020 Urban Water Management Plan and Water Shortage
Contingency Plan [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;
b) Receive the draft Urban Water Management Plan, the Water Supply Contingency Plan, and the
Addendum to the 2015 Urban Water Management Plan for review; and
c) Set the date of June 8, 2021 for a public hearing.
15. Set Public Hearing Date to Adopt Fiscal Year 2021-2022 Budget [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) Schedule a public hearing of the City's Proposed Budget for Fiscal Year 2021-2022 for June 8,
2021, and direct the City Clerk to publish a notice of said hearing in accordance with Section
1102 of the Newport Beach Charter.
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 Items 5, 10, and 13, the "no"
votes by Council Members Blom and O'Neill to Item 3, the "no" vote by Mayor Pro Tem Muldoon to
Item 11, and the amendments to Item 1.
The motion carried unanimously.
XV. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR — None
XVI. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON -AGENDA ITEMS — Was taken after Pledge of Allegiance
XVII. PUBLIC HEARING
16. Resolution No. 2021-46: Lower Newport Bay Confined Aquatic Disposal (CAD)
Construction Project — Environmental Impact Report [100-2021]
Public Works Director Webb and Administrative Manager Miller utilized slides to review the
recommendations, map of the Federal channels that need dredging, the sediment characterization
study, open ocean disposal limit (mercury parts per million), anchorage area material, and Newport
Channel material. Public Works Director Webb reported the material is not toxic, staff advocated
diligently to obtain a level of 1.5 parts per million (PPM), and staff is looking to dispose of the
material in some way.
Volume 65 - Page 49
City of Newport Beach
Study Session and Regular Meeting
May 25, 2021
In response to Council Member Dixon's questions, staff indicated the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) sets the limit based on data, the limit has to be safe, the City tests for toxicity, staff
had concerns about mercury but the level is extremely low, approximately 100,000 cubic yards of
material cannot be disposed of in the ocean, PCBs also contaminate the material, and the EPA did
not find the level significant enough to prohibit offshore disposal.
Administrative Manager Miller continued the presentation with the Sediment Management Plan
and RGP-54 shoreline sediment material requiring alternative disposal. Public Works Director
Webb noted material around some residential docks in the Harbor cannot be dredged and disposed
of in the ocean, the cost of dredging and moving a small amount of suitable material is high, staff is
looking at areas outside the Federal ehannels and the characterization of sediment is valid for only
five years.
Administrative Manager Miller continued the presentation with a discussion about the disposal site
project objectives, disposal in prior years at the Port of Long Beach, and Project Alternative No. 1.
Public Works Director Webb clarified that leaving unsuitable material in place creates locations
where vessels cannot travel, and two locations of unsuitable material will create problems for large
vessels traveling to the Newport Shipyard if they are not dredged.
In response to Council Member Dixon's questions, Public Works Director Webb related that capital
projects have reduced the amount of sediment flowing into the Harbor, the level of sediment will
rise but not at a fast rate, the number of large vessels that cannot navigate the Harbor is unknown,
and many vessels can navigate during high tide only.
Administrative Manager Miller continued the presentation with an explanation of Project
Alternative No. 2 (no CAD construction). Public Works Director Webb emphasized the number of
truck trips and the cost impacts of handling material in this alternative.
Administrative Manager Miller continued the presentation with Project Alternative Nos. 3 and 4
(reduce CAD size).
In response to Council Member Dixon's questions, Public Works Director Webb related that a whole
area has to be dredged because the small area that exceeds the limit cannot be identified, and noted
the blue areas on the map can be dredged and disposed of in the ocean.
Administrative Manager Miller continued the presentation with Project Alternative No. 5 (In -
Harbor disposal). Public Works Director Webb clarified that this alternative involves digging a hole
inside the Harbor to dispose of dredged material.
In response to Council Member Dixon's question, staff indicated the depth of the proposed green
location is about 12 feet, material from the site will be dredged and disposed of in the ocean, other
dredged material will refill the hole, and the proposed location in the Turning Basin is not a good
location because the top layer of material is not suitable for ocean disposal.
Administrative Manager Miller continued the presentation with the recommended CAD location.
In response to Mayor Avery's questions, Administrative Manager Miller stated the yellow dashed
line represents the footprint of the CAD, and the barge releases the material into the CAD.
Administrative Manager Miller continued the presentation with the CAD construction process.
Public.Works Director Webb noted the Stage 13 Project involved digging sand from the ocean floor,
moving it to the beach, and not refilling the hole. For the dredging project, the hole will be refilled.
In response to Council Member Dixon's question, Public Works Director Webb advised that the hole
in the ocean floor may be referred to as a vault. Steve Cappellino, Anchor QEA, reviewed current
CAD locations, CADs have been constructed within 200 yards of residences in the northeastern
United States, such as New Bedford Harbor, but not on the West Coast, and other facilities are
receiving materials with higher -concentration material than proposed for Newport Harbor.
Volume 65 - Page 50
City of Newport Beach
Study Session and Regular Meeting
May 25, 2021
Administrative Manager Miller continued the presentation with the Basis of Design Report (BODR)
and the CAD construction process. Public Works Director Webb noted staff worked with the
community and the Harbor Commission regarding using the CAD for ten years, the community
raised concerns, the compromise was two years to obtain permits for residential dredging and use
of the CAD for six months, the current RGP-54 permit does not allow CAD disposal, staff will work
on that in the next permit, and two years is not a long time for residents to obtain permits and line
up a dredging service.
Administrative Manager Miller continued the presentation with a 2012 dredging photo and
discussion about community and public outreach. Public Works Director Webb emphasized that
outreach was extensive.
Administrative Manager Miller concluded the presentation with the CEQA review, details of
identified CEQA mitigation measures, public comment periods for CEQA, next steps, and staff
recommendation.
In response to Council Member Duffield's question, Mr. Cappellino reported computer modeling
using field data is used to predict the plume action under different circumstances, and limitations
are placed on disposal events to minimize the potential movement of material from the site. A
disadvantage of placing the CAD in the Turning Basin is the depth of the water.
In response to Mayor Pro Tem Muldoon's question, staff related that the concentration of dredged
material will be the same when it is dredged and when it is placed in the CAD, the material placed
in the CAD will not harm a swimmer because of the depth of the dredged material, the CAD site
will be blocked to vessels during construction, a catastrophic event would be needed to pick up and
disperse material, the EPA was not concerned about the in-place material for swimmers unless there
was some type of long-term ingestion of the material, and all biological tests found no toxicity of the
material. Mr. Cappellino discussed the EPA's reasons for setting limits for material, and the fact
that concentrations in existing sites are not causing biological responses. He added that a person
traveling in the Harbor is safe even if sediment is disturbed.
In response to Mayor Avery's questions, Mr. Cappellino agreed that large vessels disturb the
sediment, which drifts with the current and settles again in some radius around the area, the City
does not perform targeted sampling for resuspension events from ships, a very controlled water
quality monitoring program is in effect during construction projects, and if results do not match
predictions, the City is required to stop or alter the project. He added that testing is phased and
currently underway, and results are submitted to the Water Quality Board.
In response to Council Member Dixon's questions, Public Works Director Webb stated the CAD will
be returned to essentially its original state, and he has no concerns about living within 25 yards of
the CAD.
In response to Council Member Duffield's question, Mr. Cappellino reviewed the testing for toxic
materials and indicated testing materials in the Harbor did not produce a toxic response, when the
EPA revised the limit from 1.0 ppm to 1.5 ppm, the amount of unsuitable material to be dredged
decreased from 270,000 cubic yards of material to 100,000 cubic yards.
In response to Council Member Blom's questions, Mr. Cappellino advised that the EPA and most
regulatory agencies want the City to manage sediment. Council Member Blom noted the toxic
material already exists in the Harbor, the City is in compliance with EPA regulations, the City found
a way to dispose of dredged material, the project seems like a win-win situation, and an excessive
amount of due diligence has been performed. Public Works Director Webb reported the City looked
at various options that are not viable, stated that trucking is probably the most viable option, but it
is very expensive at $21 million, noted that bringing the dredge to Newport Beach costs $1 million,
and confirmed that the EPA said the CAD is probably the best and safest method. Mr. Cappellino
described a Combined Disposal Facility (CDF) and eliminated it as an option because there is not a
lot of unbuilt space to create new land. He further stated that obtaining a permit from the Coastal
Commission would be difficult, a CAD is probably safer than a CDF, and trucking the material to a
construction site raises liability issues for the City.
Volume 65 - Page 51
City of Newport Beach
Study Session and Regular Meeting
May 25, 2021
In response to Mayor Avery's questions, Mr. Cappellino indicated locating a CAD in an area where
the groundwater upwells into the CAD is not safe because the groundwater could push the material
out of the CAD. Newport Harbor does not have that problem, stated that the cap for the CAD will
be 3 feet thick to prevent animals from digging through it and wind and wave action from scouring
it, and noted that if the City wants to develop an anchorage over the CAD site, it will need to
determine the largest size anchor allowed and design the cap for that size anchor.
Council Member Duffield related that he has talked with staff and the consultants, they have
considered a wide range of options, and the City's options are limited because of regulations and
restrictions. He expressed his support for the proposal.
In response to Council Member Dixon's questions, Mr. Cappellino indicated Long Beach is
attempting to permit a CAD, staff has approached Long Beach about dumping material in their
proposed CAD but the CAD is limited to Long Beach's use, and the project is likely years away from
completion.
Mayor Avery opened the public hearing.
Harbor Commission Chair Kenney reported the Harbor Commission held a public hearing on the
project's Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and voted 6-0 with one abstention to recommend that
Council adopt and certify the EIR, the EIR determined trucking material to a land-based fill site
was not feasible, indicated the Harbor Commission formed an ad hoc committee to consider a land-
based fill site but determined the dredging project could not be delayed, listed benefits of the
dredging project, noted the project has been reviewed by all required Federal, State, and regional
jurisdictions, and significant Federal funding has been secured.
Brent Mardian expressed the opinion that a CAD is not a bad idea but it is also not the best or most
creative idea and advised that Palmer Luckey is funding a private alternatives investigation, and
reasonable alternatives have not been presented, stakeholders in Newport Beach have been
surprised by Mr. Luckey's progress and new alternatives, Newport Beach deserves an option that
provides benefits, and he intends to provide an alternative in the next 60 days that will avoid
locating a landfill in front of Newport Beach homes.
Dave Rhodes expressed concern about the location of the CAD, related that the existing plume can
be dispersed, mercury levels are sufficient to prevent the disposal of material at LA -3, and urged
Council not to locate a CAD close to residences.
Shana Conzelman supported dredging and commented that every option needs to be explored in its
entirety, a CAD is the only option staff has presented, and a representative from the Water Quality
Board spoke to the Harbor Commission and stated the City is attempting to downplay the severity
of contaminated material. She disagreed with disposing of contaminated material in the Newport
Harbor anchorage.
Carson Hill supported the use of a CAD, stated staff has conducted a lot of research and studies for
the proposed project to be successful, and encouraged Council to move forward with the proposal.
Jess Salem, Newport Harbor Shipyard and Lido Yacht Anchorage, supported the CAD, noted vessels
already have difficulty navigating the Rhine Channel with less than a 4 -foot tide, a 30 to 40 -foot
vessel can cause turbidity in the bay, plants and fish have returned to the Rhine Channel since the
2012 dredging, and dredging is good for the bay.
Palmer Luckey expressed the opinion that many people do not know how to operate boats, advances
in technology have made dredging possible in better and cheaper ways, long-term monitoring is
worthwhile, the ping pong ball analogy is probably off by orders of magnitude, and dredged material
will contain 3,000 to 9,000 pounds of mercury.
Volume 65 - Page 52
City of Newport Beach
Study Session and Regular Meeting
May 25, 2021
Harbor Commissioner Beer indicated he has met with Mr. Luckey and his team, the work on
alternatives is encouraging, discussions would continue in parallel to Mr. Luckey's work, the Harbor
Commission or Council could review and evaluate any compelling work from Mr. Luckey and his
team, not approving the project tonight will only delay the project, Council action today allows the
City to take advantage of the best alternative if a compelling alternative is not developed, vessels
navigating the channel currently disperse unsuitable material across the Harbor, and only a
catastrophic event will cause material to escape a CAD.
Lauren Chase, Orange County Coastkeeper, stated dredging is important to the Harbor and needs
to be done correctly, the EIR does not provide adequate information for Council to make the best
decision, Coastkeeper has been disappointed with the engagement process, options are not a CAD
or nothing, and the EIR needs to be revised. She requested Council provide more time for public
engagement.
Mary Buckingham inquired whether the six-month period would occur every two years for ten years
or in perpetuity, about the flow of traffic during the six-month period, and about a source for
additional information regarding the project.
Hearing no further testimony, Mayor Avery closed the public hearing.
In response to Mayor Pro Tem Muldoon's questions, staff anticipated learning about Federal funding
by early 2022 and construction beginning in the summer or fall of 2022. Public Works Director Webb
indicated the usual challenges apply to the EIR, reported that funding for Phase 1 of the project is
contained in the budget, an additional appropriation of about $6.2 million is in the approval process,
regulatory agencies may require new data for the sediment plan if the project is delayed, there is
no certainty that Mr. Palmer will provide an alternative, and it would have its own permitting
process. City Attorney Harp advised that the EIR is subject to a CEQA challenge, and litigating a
challenge could require a year.
Mayor Pro Tem Muldoon expressed the opinion Council has a duty to explore alternatives and
walking away from Federal funding and ignoring the EPA are not prudent actions. In response to
his question about moving the project forward and requiring the City to seriously consider a private
option such that no vendor or staff can take away another option, City Attorney Harp advised that
Council needs to approve the environmental document and supplement the motion with direction to
staff about alternatives, an alternative will be subject to the environmental process, and approving
the EIR does not prevent Council from considering other alternatives. Public Works Director Webb
suggested the Harbor Commission's ad hoc committee continue its investigation and report to
Council.
Council Member Dixon would support the proposed motion if there was some urgency to finding an
alternative.
Harbor Commissioner Beer related that Mr. Luckey's team anticipates providing him with
information to share with the Harbor Commission at its June 2021 meeting, and assured Council
that the process will continue diligently.
Following discussion, motion by Mayor Pro Tem Muldoon, seconded by Council Member
Dixon, to a) adopt Resolution No. 2021-46, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Newport
Beach, California, Certifying Environmental Impact Report No. ER2021-001; Adopting the
Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program; Making Facts and Findings; and Approving the
Construction of a Confined Aquatic Disposal Facility and Dredging Outside the Federal Channels in
Lower Newport Harbor; and b) direct the Harbor Commission to continue to explore the privately -
funded option or other alternatives within 90 days, and make a recommendation to the City Council
regarding the alternative(s).
The motion carried unanimously.
Volume 65 - Page 53
City of Newport Beach
Study Session and Regular Meeting
May 25, 2021
XVIII. CURRENT BUSINESS
17. Ordinance No. 2021-12: Eliminating the Balboa Village Area Benefit District [100-20211
Finance Director Catlett utilized a presentation to provide the background, history of the Balboa
Village Area Benefit District (District) and the Balboa Village Advisory Committee (BVAC), past
and future uses of District funding, and next steps.
Council Member Dixon shared slides of existing conditions while discussing the importance of public
information for businesses to operate, use of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding,
the importance of maintenance, the language of the resolution regarding maintenance, renaming
the District and reserve to the `Beach Area District and Reserve" and expanding the area to Balboa
Village, Corona del Mar, Ocean Avenue, Marine Avenue and the boardwalk on Balboa Island, a
special fund for parking revenue, and the direct nexus between use of parking revenue from visitors
and reinvestment in immediate areas affected by negative visitor impacts.
Council Member O'Neill quoted Ronald Reagan's view on the government's view of the economy and
noted a restricted fund has been dedicated for one area only, the anchor tenant recently left the
area, the area just wants better maintenance, power washing costs $260,000 per year for the whole
city while this area generates over $400,000 per year in restricted funding, this is bad fiscal policy,
the parking revenues do not go to the General Fund (GF), funding is needed for aging infrastructure,
and removing this restricted fund forces competition and does not stop enhanced maintenance.
Motion by Council Member O'Neill, seconded by Council Member Duffield, 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) waive full reading, direct the City Clerk to
read by title only, introduce Ordinance No. 2021-12, An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of
Newport Beach, California, Amending Section 12.44.029 (Area Benefit District Reserve) of Chapter
12.44 (Stopping, Standing and Parking Restrictions) of Title 12 (Vehicles and Traffic) of the Newport
Beach Municipal Code to Eliminate the Balboa Village Area Benefit District, and pass to second
reading on June 8, 2021.
Council Member Blom suggested the photos indicate that money has not been spent in the right
way, Council's job is not to prop up businesses, funding is intended to make the City better for
everyone, residents use parking lots just as visitors do, government cannot help business, business
supports the City, people need to desire investing in Balboa Village, and separating funds only
separated the ability to spend the funds.
Council Member Brenner related that she is conflicted about the issue, monies were being collected
from a specific area, the City was not doing a good job of maintaining the area, perhaps Council
should have noticed a long time ago that the funds were not being well spent to enhance the District,
and beachfront communities are suffering.
Council Member Dixon agreed that Council's job is not to prop up any business but noted the City
is responsible for maintaining public space, the City encourages and benefits from visitors, the
projects were identified in the Balboa Village Master Plan and executed by the BVAC, the focus is
getting Balboa Village, Corona del Mar, and Balboa Island back to Disneyland standards in the next
three years, Council needs to identify targeted areas that need improvements, and the sole purpose
is to clean up the City.
Mayor Avery concurred with all comments and indicated the City's job is providing and maintaining
public infrastructure, running a business in Balboa Village is difficult for many reasons, and
segregating funds is not the answer to Balboa Village's issues.
Volume 65 - Page 54
City of Newport Beach
Study Session and Regular Meeting
May 25, 2021
Gary Sherwin, President and CEO of Newport Beach and Company, understood that the new Fun
Zone owners have pledged to preserve and enhance the Fun Zone and stated the City's culture has
always been about building a cooperative public-private relationship, the City needs to do its part
to keep Balboa Village clean, safe, and attractive to visitors and merchants, and the proposal to
expand the area is a good one.
In response to Council Member O'Neill's questions concerning whether Visit Newport Beach would
contribute any of the money that the City provides from its Transient Occupancy Tax to the
maintenance efforts, Mr. Sherwin reported that Newport Beach and Company is going to set aside
a special marketing fund for Balboa Village, it is their job to get visitors into the City, and noted
that there is a representative present to support the idea of building a better experience, but would
not contribute toward physical improvements.
Kelly Carlson, President of the Balboa Village Merchants Association and resident, commented that
her business is a success but everyone seems to agree that the level of service and appearance of
Balboa Village needs to be better, Balboa Village is always going to be a commercial district, and
without a solution the problem will continue.
Jim Mosher concurred with Council Member O'Neill's premise, noted other parking benefit districts
were repealed when this District was created, suggested Balboa Village is not the oldest part of
Newport Beach, and the City does not own the boardwalk in front of the Fun Zone.
In response to Council Member Brenner's questions, Council Member O'Neill indicated a strategic
plan for maintenance is needed, the end result is based on Council budget decisions for the GF, a
broad policy discussion of GF money is not before Council, and every budget decision determines
Council's priority.
Council Member Dixon stated she was not aware of any part of the City that was not being
addressed, maintenance is the City's responsibility, the BVAC was diligent in fulfilling prior
Councils' mandate to implement a master plan for Balboa Village, reserve funds are part of the
budget, Council has to bring the area forward as a targeted area for a limited time to invest funds
that enhance the City, and Council does not recognize that exceptional maintenance is required.
Mike Robb indicated great progress has been made in Balboa Village over the last six years with
this funding, the concern today is that neglect will return, the area will not get the attention it needs
if the funds return to the GF, the City needs to take care of its property, and BVAC members were
promised quarterly meetings to discuss maintenance issues, but the meetings have not occurred.
He proposed finding a better way to report progress.
With Council Members Brenner and Dixon voting "no," the motion carried 5-2.
14. Coronavirus (COVID-19) Update [100-2021]
City Manager Leung reported that Orange County continues to be in the yellow tier, and the
June 151h deadline is approaching.
SS2.Review of the Proposed Fiscal Year 2021-22 Capital Improvement Program Budget [100-
20211
The following Capital Improvement Program (CIP) project conflicts were announced:
Mayor Pro Tem Muldoon recused himself from Fire Station No. 2 Replacement (Lido),
Alleys Reconstruction — Undergrounding, Streetlight Rehabilitation Program, Marine
Avenue Reconstruction — Undergrounding, Culver Drive /Bonita Canyon Drive Traffic
Signal Synchronization, MacArthur Boulevard RTSSP, Traffic Signal Rehabilitation
Program, Advanced Metering Infrastructure, SCE Rule 20A Credit Purchase, and
Undergrounding Districts AD 111, 113, 116, 116B, and 117 due to business interest
conflicts; and Eastbluff Drive Pavement Rehabilitation due to real property interest
conflicts and left the dais.
Volume 65 - Page 55
City of Newport Beach .
Study Session and Regular Meeting
May 25, 2021
• Council Member Blom recused himself from Balboa Island Drainage Master Plan /
Pump Stations, Landscape Enhancement Program, Marine Avenue Reconstruction,
Balboa Island / Corona del Mar Microtransit Feasibility Study, and Undergrounding
District AD111 due to real property interest conflicts.
• Council Member Brenner recused herself from Grant Howald Park Rehabilitation due
to real property interest conflicts.
• Council Member Dixon recused herself from Landscape Enhancement Program related
to Lido Isle due to general financial interest conflicts.
• City Clerk Brown recused herself from Balboa Peninsula Crosswalks Improvement and
Oceanfront Boardwalk and Parking Lot Improvements due to real property interest
conflicts.
Deputy Public Works Director Houlihan utilized a presentation to discuss the purpose of the CIP,
provided a recap of the 2020-2021 CIP projects, listed completed projects, projects in progress or in
construction, and major projects in design, discussed the proposed 2021-2022 CIP budget, reviewed
City Council priorities, highlighted projects by CIP budget section, and reviewed the CIP budget
summary and funding sources. Public Works Director Webb added that the CIP budget includes
planning for the next five years, and both are available online.
Council Member O'Neill preferred to set aside Federal funding for the library lecture hall and Junior
Lifeguard building if guidelines allow use of the funds for those purposes.
Council Member Dixon noted $10 million from the GF supports CIP projects and commended staff
for seeking additional funding sources.
Jim Mosher indicated the source of funds for many projects is contributions, but contributions are
marked as grants rather than private donations. He suggested that the budget distinguish private
donations from grants.
In response to Hoiyin Ip's question, Deputy Public Works Director Houlihan clarified that the City
received a grant of $500,000 for the water wheel project, which was added to the total.
XVIII. MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
Prior to discussing anything related to the Newport Beach Restaurant Association Business
Improvement District, Council Member Blom recused himself due to business interest
conflicts.
Council Member Dixon stated she would like to change her May 11, 2021 Consent Calendar vote relative
to bringing back a Resolution of Intention to disestablish the Newport Beach Restaurant Association
Business Improvement District and fixing the time of a public hearing because the discussion was
difficult to hear via Zoom.
Council Member Brenner noted the meeting was extremely confusing, and she did not recognize at the
time that she was voting to disestablish the BID. She requested the item return to Council.
City Attorney Harp advised that staff will present a resolution to set a public hearing to disestablish
the BID at a future meeting, Council Members can discuss the topic during the public hearing, and a
motion to reconsider is not needed at this time.
Council Member O'Neill indicated the minutes reflect that four Council Members voted "no" on that
item and noted that neither Council Member Dixon nor Council Member Brenner were part of the "no"
votes.
Volume 65 - Page 56
City of Newport Beach
Study Session and Regular Meeting
May 25, 2021
City Attorney Harp noted there was not a vote on the appropriateness of bringing the item back, and
the minutes adequately reflected Council Member Brenner's and Council Member Dixon's vote with the
minority. He added the minutes indicate everyone voted to bring back a resolution for disestablishment,
noting that Council Members voted 4-2 on the main motion, but everyone voted to bring
disestablishment back as a next step.
Motion by Council Member O'Neill, seconded by Council Member Brenner, to change Council
Member Dixon's and Council Member Brenner's May 11, 2021 Consent Calendar votes to "no" votes
relative to bringing back a Resolution of Intention to disestablish the Newport Beach Restaurant
Association Business Improvement District and fix the time of a public hearing.
With Council Member Blom recusing himself, the motion carried 6-0.
XIX. ADJOURNMENT - 11:14 p.m.
The agenda was posted on 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
May 20, 2021, at 4:00 p.m.
Leilani I. Brown
City Clerk
Volume 65 - Page 57