HomeMy WebLinkAbout01 - MinutesAugust 24, 2021
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Agenda Item No. 1
City Council Meeting Minutes
Study Session and Regular Meeting
July 27, 2021
I. ROLL CALL - 4:00 p.m.
Present: Mayor Brad Avery, Mayor Pro Tem Kevin Muldoon, Council Member Noah Blom (arrived at
4:10 p.m.), Council Member Joy Brenner, Council Member Diane Dixon (via Zoom), Council
Member Duffy Duffield, Council Member Will O'Neill (via Zoom)
Absent: None
II. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON AGENDA AND NON -AGENDA ITEMS
An unidentified speaker noted that Council Member Blom's restaurants have converted the existing
parking lot, including the handicapped spaces, into public seating and the employees do not wear masks.
He inquired whether Council Member Blom's new restaurant will have a mask mandate.
Jim Mosher appreciated the additional details provided on the ClosM# Session agenda, indicated a letter
was submitted that alleges some irregularities in balloting regarding Assessment District No. 124 in
that some ballots were improperly addressed, and suggested that Council learn the results of the
balloting prior to making any decision on the potential litigation.
Avery Counts, Constituent Services Manager for Orange Count District Supervisor Foley,
commented regarding the vaccination rate of those living in zip c e 92660, Veterans Workforce
Development Program grants, an August 12, 2021 redistricting town hall, the August 6, 2021 deadline
to apply for the District 2 Arts Grant, and the 100 -Day NTown Hall on July 15, 2021. He invited
communications with him at avery.counts@ocx om or 714-559-8364.
44
Mayor Pro Tem Muldoon announced that will'reZyfise himself on Closed Session Item IIIA
due to potential business interest conicts
City Attorney Harp announced that Council Member Blom will recuse himself on Closed
Session Item IIIA due to real property interest conflicts.
City Attorney Harp announced that the City Council would adjourn to Closed Session to
discuss the items listed in the Closed Session agenda and read the titles.
III. CLOSED SESSION -'Council Chambers Conference Room — taken out of order at the request
of the Mayor
A. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL
ANTICIPATED LITIGATION — EXISTING LITIGATION
(Government Code § 54956.9(d)(1)(2) (e)(2)): 1 matter
Concerned Owners Against Undergrounding on Balboa Island vs. City of Newport Beach
OC Superior Court Case No. 30-2021-01211835-CU-WM-CJC
The City Council will be meeting with legal counsel to discuss the City of Newport Beach's exposure
to litigation associated with the potential formation of Assessment District No. 124 based upon
allegations that the ballot process did not comply with applicable legal requirements, all as set forth
in the correspondence dated July 15, 2021 from Christopher L. Pitet. A copy of the correspondence
from Mr. Pitet is on file with the City Clerk. A copy of the aforementioned lawsuit is also on file with
the City Clerk.
B. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS
(Government Code § 54957.6): 1 matter
Volume 65 - Page 99
City of Newport Beach
City Council Meeting
July 27, 2021
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), Newport
Beach Police Association (NBPA), Newport Beach Professional and Technical Employees
Association (NBPTEA), Newport Beach City Employees Association (NBCEA), and Newport Beach
Firefighters Association (NBFA).
IV. RECESSED — 4:09 p.m.
V. RECONVENED AT 5:07 P.M.
VI. ROLL CALL
Present: Mayor Brad Avery, Mayor Pro Tem Kevin Muldoon, Council Member Noah Blom,
Council Member Joy Brenner, Council Member Diane Dixon (via Zoom), Council Member
Duffy Duffield, Council Member Will O'Neill (via Zoom)
Absent: None
VII. CLOSED SESSION REPORT
Regarding Closed Session Item III.A, City Attorney Harp aAnounced that opponents to Assessment District
No. 124 presented an ex parte application to the court seeking tostrain the City of Newport Beach from
holding the public hearing; however, the court ruled in favor of)he Com,+ and noted that, based on the
evidence, the City was likely to prevail on the merits.
Admobt
VIII. INVOCATION — Pastor Phil Eyskens, Lighthouse of Costa Mesa Church of the Nazarene
IX. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE — Council Member Duffield
X. PUBLIC HEARING — taken out of order at the request of the Mayor
13. Proposed Assessment District No. 124 — A Roughly 50 -Block Area of Central Balboa Island
(C-8627-2)[100-20�"
Mayor Pro TeMuldoon recused himself due to potential business interest conflicts.
Council Member �lom reeled himself due to real property interest conflicts.
Mayor Avery announced that all protests must be received by the City Clerk by the close of the
public hearing.
Deputy Public Works Director Houlihan and Assistant City Engineer Sinacori utilized a
presentation to highlight the timeline, description of property uses, project improvements, cost
estimates, public notice to property owners, and the ballot process.
Mayor Avery opened the public hearing.
Joe Busch, attorney representing Concerned Owners Against Undergrounding on Balboa Island,
requested Council continue the item so that staff can continue contacting property owners who have
not submitted a ballot, and expressed concerns that some property owners have not received ballots,
staff utilized the 2020 Tax Assessor roll when the 2021 roll was available, the average assessment
per parcel will be $34,000, the total cost will be roughly $52 million, which is substantially more
than the $32 million cost estimate staff presented, and property owners' assessments will increase
over 20 years by $2,700 to $3,000.
Volume 65 - Page 100
City of Newport Beach
City Council Meeting
July 27, 2021
City Attorney Harp reported the financing cost applies to property owners who choose to finance
their assessments, and the interest rate in 2023 is unknown. Assistant City Engineer Sinacori
advised that the interest rate for the last assessment was 2.1% and some property owners have
chosen not to vote because they do not want their names to be public information.
Jodi Bole expressed concern regarding the preservation of cottages because many cottage owners
have fixed incomes and the assessment may be a financial burden for them, stated she never
received the exact amount of the assessment, and questioned whether other Southern California
residents or Southern California Edison (SCE) would pay for the undergrounding.
Jamshed "Jim" Dastur recalled Assistant City Engineer Sinacori stating the estimate was based on
the west end, but pointed out that the construction cost for properties in central Balboa Island was
$6,000 or 25% more than for properties in the west end.
Assistant City Engineer Sinacori related that, based on the construction cost with the contingency,
the cost averages to approximately $33,000 to $34,000.
Jim Maloney, Balboa Island Preservation Association Chair, app eciated staff trying to reduce costs
by taking the project back from SCE, advised that his cost f'dr undergrounding will be around
$45,000, took issue with the $100 administrative fee per parcel per year, expressed the opinion this
will result in more homes being sold which will change the character of Balboa Island, questioned
staffs ability to contact property owners who did j#ot submit a bkllot when sealed ballots were
supposed to be opened during the hearing, and expressed his isdain that 306 property owners could
decide whether almost 1,000 property owners are rwponsibPlfor tiassessment.
City Attorney Harp related that the ball t en lopes were numbered and staff can determine who
voted based on the number on the envelo
Jim Mosher discussed the general and special is of an assessment district, the utility
companies' contributions, and the General Fund, and expressed the opinion that the percentages in
pages 52-54 of the staff report need close atten ' n.
An unidentified speaker questioned the nee change Balboa Island, indicated a lot of people love
Balboa Island's sweet lifestyle, and expxa&4 the concern that there is no money for this.
1J
Patti Janssen dated her main con ern and priority is safety because homes are 6 -feet apart,
undergrounding has proven to be t e safest and most efficient way to get power to everyone, utility
companies in Northern California have realized that they should have put lines underground a long
time ago, one life is worth more than $32,000 or $50,000, maybe there is a way to subsidize the cost
for those with a true hardship, and expressed the opinion that the big picture is there will be less
chance of fire and a safWcommunity.
Lynn O'Brien expressed concern that linemen will climb a utility pole and damage a very expensive
tree on her property in an effort to provide internet to businesses, and stated everyone will benefit
from removing utility lines.
Pam Howard shared her and her husband's efforts to contact property owners about voting, and
expressed the opinion that property owners who care would vote, undergrounding is not new, and
some people are being selfish rather than considering the greater good.
Sue Pearl related efforts to locate and educate property owners regarding undergrounding utilities,
her faith in Council Members' integrity and ethics, property owners' support for undergrounding
due to benefits related to safety, convenience, and aesthetics, and vehicles currently cannot travel
the alleys because of the utility poles.
An unidentified speaker questioned the need for a bond if property owners pay the assessment.
Volume 65 - Page 101
City of Newport Beach
City Council Meeting
July 27, 2021
Lee Pearl appreciated the lack of acrimony from opponents of the project and stated people are
interested in helping with financial needs, and thanked the volunteers who assisted him.
Mayor Avery announced that the ballots will be counted at this time, the agenda will proceed, and
the results will be announced once the tabulations have been completed.
City Clerk Brown announced that the public was welcome to view the ballot counting in the
Community Room and the individuals counting the ballots have been deputized to do so.
Hearing no further testimony, Mayor Avery closed the public hearing.
Following the completion of the assessment ballot tabulation, City Clerk Brown announced that,
based on the tabulations for the ballots received for Assessment District No. 124, 65.29% of the
ballots were submitted in favor of the Assessment District for a total assessment of $16,961,714,
which represents 51.68% of the total assessment amount of $32,815,700; 34.71% of the votes were
submitted in opposition, for a total assessment of $9,017,010; and that Council may proceed with
the formation of the Assessment District by adopting the resolution confirming the assessment.
Motion by Council Member Brenner, seconded by Cou�lcil Member Dixon, to a) adopt
Resolution No. 2021-71, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach, California,
Overruling Protests, Approving Final Engineers Report, Leiltg Assessments without Modification,
Approving and Ordering the Work and Improvements for thl Utility Underground Project, and
Authorizing and Directing Related Actions with Respect to Assessment District No. 124; b) approve
Budget Amendment No. 22-001 authorizing an advance fr1% the General Fund in the amount of
$792,800 to be repaid from Bond Proceeds and cash contributions from Assessment District No. 124
and appropriating $300,000 to Account X67502-941027 for electrical utility design by SCE,
$280,000 to Account No. 67502-941005 for phone and cable system design by AT&T and Spectrum,
$112,800 to Account No. 67502-941008 for City AdministraWon, and $100,000 to Account No. 67502-
941012 for Bond Counsel. Funds remaining in any fiscal year will be carried forward to future
annual budgets per Council Policy.,F-3; and c) approve amendment to Professional Services
Agreement with NV5 (C-86for cesry ssessment Engineering services not -to -exceed an
additional $112,800 fee.
With Mayor Pro Tem Muldoon ouncil Member Blom recusing themselves and
Council Membe Duffield absent (left the meeting after recusing himself from Item
No. 12), the meJW carried 4-0.
XI. STUDY SESSIONW- OW.m.
SS1. Council Redistricting (PA2021-035)
Community Development Director Jurjis and Systems and Administration Manager
Campagnolo discussed redistricting requirements and utilized a presentation to review the
existing districts, the previous boundary configuration, Charter Section 1005, formation of the
ad hoc committee, AB 849, Fair Maps Act 2020 criteria, the tentative schedule, public
engagement and outreach, and next steps.
In response to Council Member O'Neill's question, Systems and Administration Manager
Campagnolo reported the annexation agreement for Newport Coast mentions Council
representation but refers back to the City Charter, and noted that other agreements are silent
relative to City Council representation.
Jim Mosher discussed the appointment of the ad hoc committee, potentially having a citizen
redistricting committee, how the population has changed over the past ten years, that the
districts need to represent everyone not just voters, pointed out that Council Members do not
represent their districts, and suggested eliminating districts or changing the Charter.
Volume 65 - Page 102
City of Newport Beach
City Council Meeting
July 27, 2021
XII. NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC
XIII. CITY COUNCIL ANNOUNCEMENTS AND ORAL REPORTS FROM CITY COUNCIL ON
COMMITTEE ACTIVITIES
Council Member Brenner:
• Attended the Mayor's Reception
Council Member O'Neill:
• Attended the Mayor's Reception
Council Member Dixon:
• Attended the Mayor's Reception, the July 17, 2021 Aviation Committee meeting, and the Strategic
Planning Session for the Association of California Cities -Orange County (ACC -OC) with City
Manager Leung
Council Member Blom:
• Suggested continuing Item 6 (Resolution No. 2021-69: Suppor ' g Local Schools as they Return to
Normal and Parental Choice in Deciding Whether Childr ould be Masked or Vaccinated at
School)
Mayor Pro Tem Muldoon:
• Highlighted Council Member Duffield's participat' ra pac 2021
1
Mayor Avery:
• Attended a meeting of the Ad Hoc Comml'ffP�--on Homelessness, the Be Kind luncheon, a Corona
del Mar Library Foundation event, the Corona del Mar R sidents Association (CdMRA) Board
meeting, the Mayor's Reception, the Orange Coun r with government officials, and the
Governor's Cup
• Utilized a slide to congratulate Council Member Duffield on his participation in Transpac 2021
XIV. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON CONSENT CALENDAR
Council Member Blom recused himself from discussions relative to Item 9 due to real property
interest conflicts and left the room.
Council Member O'Neill clarifi hat Item 9 (Approval of an Exclusive Negotiating Agreement with
Lido House Hotel, LLIQ for the ease of Property at 475 32nd Street (PA21-00712)) is not a final
agreement.
Regarding Item 9, Jim MoW
referred to a handout available in the lobby and asked if the person or
entity responding to the letter from the Fritz Duda Company intended to be anonymous.
Nancy Scarbrough, addressing Item 9, expressed confusion as to whether the lease payment and terms
have been determined and, if so, expressed the opinion that the item should not be on the Consent
Calendar. She inquired whether the property was considered for a senior housing project or a parking
structure, staff studied the effects of a lease to Lido House Hotel on City revenue, and there is a higher -
value use for the property.
John Loper, representing the Fritz Duda Company, asked to be included in negotiations because Fritz
Duda Company could improve circulation, public parking, and Lido House Hotel parking.
In response to Council Member Brenner's questions, Community Development Director Jurjis reported
that RD Olson provided the response to the letter from the Fritz Duda Company, preliminary
negotiations have identified potential terms, the lease agreement needs to be amended, the project is
being reviewed, the project and any proposed amendment to the lease agreement will be presented to
Volume 65 - Page 103
City of Newport Beach
City Council Meeting
July 27, 2021
Council for discussion and approval, the exclusive negotiating agreement will contract Council to
working with RD Olson while the entitlement process for the project moves forward, staff has considered
affordable housing and land values, and the exclusive negotiating agreement allows Council to continue
the working relationship with RD Olson. He added that the Planning Commission will hear public
comments during the entitlement process for the project, and Council will hear public comments when
it considers entitlements for the project and amendments to the existing lease agreement.
XV. CONSENT CALENDAR
READING OF MINUTES AND ORDINANCES
1. Minutes for the July 13, 2021 City Council 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.
RESOLUTIONS FOR ADOPTION 0%
3. Resolution No. 2021-66: Approval of the Orange County Transportation Authority Senior
Mobility Program Cooperative Agreement and Acceptance of Funds for the OASIS
Transportation Program (C-8745-1) [38/100-2021]
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. 2021-66, A Resolution of,the &ity Council of the City of Newport Beach,
California, Approving Cooperative Agreement C-3246 Between the Orange County
Transportation Authority and the City of NewpqdjeBeach for Renewal of the Senior Mobility
Program for Senior Transportation Services and Authorizing the Recreation and Senior Services
Director to Act as the Authorized Agent for te City to Take Any Actions Necessary to Implement
the Cooperative Agreement.
4. Resolution No. 2021-67: SB 2 Permanent Local Housing Allocation Grant Application and
Five -Year Plan (C-8743-1) [38/100-2021]
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 iii a physical change to the environment, directly or indirectly;
b) Adopt Resolution No. 2021-67, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach,
California, Authorizing the Application and Adopting the PLHA Plan for the Permanent Local
Housing AllocationWogram; and
c) Authorize the City Manager to execute the PLHA Program Application, the PLHA Standard
Agreement and any subsequent amendments as required by the State of California.
5. Resolution No. 2021-68: Resolution of Intention to Conduct a Public Hearing to Grant
New Non -Exclusive Solid Waste Franchises [241100-2021]
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. 2021-68, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach,
California, Declaring its Intention to Conduct a Public Hearing to Consider Granting
Non -Exclusive Commercial Solid Waste and Divertible Materials Handling Franchises.
6. Resolution No. 2021-69: Supporting Local Schools as they Return to Normal and Parental
Choice in Deciding Whether Children Should be Masked or Vaccinated at School [100-
2021]
Volume 65 - Page 104
City of Newport Beach
City Council Meeting
July 27, 2021
Continue to the August 24, 2021 City Council meeting.
CONTRACTS AND AGREEMENTS
7. Corporation Yard Re -Roofing Project - Notice of Completion for Contract No. 7880-1
(21F02) [38/100-20211
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 Notice of
Completion has been recorded in accordance with applicable portions of the Civil Code; and
c) Release the Faithful Performance Bond one year after acceptance by the City Council.
8. Amendment No. Two to Agreement with Sulzer Electro - Mechanical Services (US), Inc.,
for On -Call Maintenance/Repair Services for Maintenance and Repair of Variable
Frequency Drives Manufactured by Toshiba (C-7470-1) [38/100-20211
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) Approve Amendment No. Two to the On -Call Maintenance/Repair Services Agreement with
Sulzer -Mechanical Services (US), Inc. to increase the contract compensation limit by $120,000
and extend the contract term to June 15, 2023, and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to
execute the agreement.
9. Approval of an Exclusive Negotiating Agreement with Lido House Hotel, LLC for the
Lease of Property at 475 32nd Street (PA21-00712) (C-8744-1) [38/100-20211
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 t06lifornia Code of Regulations Title 14,
Division 6, Chapter 3 ("CEQA Guidelines"); and
b) Approve an Exclusive Nego ' Agreee ment with Lido House Hotel, LLC.
Council Member Blom re h elf on Item 9 due to real property interest conflicts.
hk
MISCELLANEOUS ISk
10.PlanningCon ission Agenda for the July 22, 2021 Meeting [100-20211
Receive and fi
11. FY 2020-21 Donations Report for the Quarter Ending June 30, 2021, and Annual District
Discretionary Grant Report [100-20211
a) Determine this acl Wh 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 Muldoon, seconded by Council Member Brenner, to approve the
Consent Calendar; and noting the recusal by Council Member Blom to Item 9, the continuance of
Item 6, and the amendments to Item 1.
The motion carried unanimously.
XVI. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR - None
XVII. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON -AGENDA ITEMS
Volume 65 - Page 105
City of Newport Beach
City Council Meeting
July 27, 2021
Nancy Scarbrough discussed residential units, inclusionary percentages, density bonuses, and the City's
Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA), and urged Council to adopt an inclusionary requirement
as quickly as possible.
Dave Tanner noted the City and surrounding cities are dealing with RHNA allocations, development
potential is actually two or three times the RHNA number, streets will have to be wider to handle the
traffic from development, and Council has to consider the cumulative traffic impacts.
Sandra Ayres, on behalf of an elderly resident, asked Council to consider allowing remote participation
during Council meetings again.
Mayor Pro Tem Muldoon recused himself during the next speaker's comments due to potential
business interest conflicts and left the room.
Kristin West discussed the impacts of electrical pollution, utility poles and lines, and the need to protect
citizens and to regulate electromagnetic fields.
XVIII. PUBLIC HEARING
12. Resolution No. 2021-70: Call for Review of Plani
Use Project at 2510 West Coast Highway (PA201
's Approval of a Mixed -
Council Member Duffield recused himself duto businss I st conflicts.
V'I
Council Member Blom recused himself due to real property interest conflicts.
Community Development Director Jurjis related thLt the applicant has redesigned the project since
Council's previous review and tonight's hearing is the fourth of a maximum of five public hearings
that can occur.
Principal Planner Schneider. and Deputy Com unity Development Director Campbell utilized a
presentation to review changes to the proje t, the mixed-use project, site plan, perspective
renderings, materials and colors, parking, el ations, density bonus, tentative parcel map, visual
simulations, traffic, the Housing Accountability Act (HAA), California Coastal Commission appeal
jurisdiction, Califd�nia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review, recommended actions, and
revised conditio 's of approval.
In response to ou it Member O'Neill's questions, City Attorney Harp advised that the letter from
the Coalition to Protect Mariners' Mile does not affect staff's recommendations and reflects some
confusion regarding Density Bonus Law and HAA requirements. He clarified that the Density Bonus
Law allows concessionWr development standards.
Mayor Avery opened the public hearing.
Sean Matsler, Cox, Castle & Nicholson, representing Lido Partners, utilized a presentation to
illustrate project changes, setbacks, and dedication of property along Avon Street. He addressed
letters from David Tanner and the applicant's attorney, and discussed Condition of Approval 67.
At City Attorney Harp's request, Mr. Matsler discussed the Class 32 exemption under CEQA and
CEQA analysis of the widening of Avon Street.
Deborah Rosenthal, representing the Coalition to Protect Mariner's Mile, provided a handout,
shared the Coalition's opposition to the project based on visual impacts to water views, the City's
intended commercial use of the site, access from the rear of the property, HAA and Density Bonus
Law requirements, parking, future flexibility, concessions and incentives, waivers, traffic and view
studies, story poles, and traffic impacts.
Volume 65 - Page 106
City of Newport Beach
City Council Meeting
July 27, 2021
Jim Carlson, Coalition to Protect Mariner's Mile, utilized a slide to provide an alternate view
simulation, and noted the applicant's simulations do not include elevator shafts, the applicant
refused to erect story poles, and locating parking against residential areas is a first.
Patrick Gormley utilized slides to discuss a Mariners' Mile Master Plan, the project's consistency
with the General Plan and the vision for Mariners' Mile, Mr. Moshayedi's community outreach
meeting, the project as a precedence, the community's opposition to the project, developing Mariners'
Mile as a village, and suggested next steps.
In response to Mayor Avery's questions, Deputy Community Development Director Campbell
indicated the site is designated for mixed use, the applicant seeks a waiver of the minimum floor
area ratio (FAR) requirement, the project is consistent with the General Plan designation,
waterfront parcels have a different General Plan designation and zoning than the subject site, and
the City and community would have to develop a vision for Mariners' Mile and start the process to
update the General Plan and subsequently the zoning.
David Tanner related various challenges facing Council regarding the project and encouraged
Council to protect the health, safety, and general welfare oft public and delay consideration of
the project until the General Plan Update is complete or un ' Coastal Commission can address
the coastal issues.
Charles Klobe stated the applicant's letter has not been 1posd on the City website, and in his
opinion, Council has sufficient information to make a decison the project.
i
An unidentified speaker shared her observations about vehicles, bicyclists, pedestrians, joggers, and
dog walkers traversing on Avon Street, which has no sidewalks or streetlights, and implored Council
to obtain an environmental analysis of the project.
Jim Mosher indicated his confusion regarding the office building, the vision for Mariners' Mile, and
the staff report's explanationof fight waiver.
Sandra Ayres related that residents support rresponsible revitalization of Mariners' Mile and
provided information for whey Vouncil should not approve the project.
Bill Dunlap disagreed with Mr. Matsler's allegation that Council has no authority over planning
and zoning and expressed the op, nion that Council should consider upcoming projects in
determining cumulative impacts.
Mr. Matsler advised that both he and the applicant are residents of Newport Beach and want to
provide a project they can be proud of.
Hearing no further testimony, Mayor Avery closed the public hearing.
In response to Council Member Brenner's questions, Deputy Community Development Director
Campbell reported a parcel map is needed to allow the construction of buildings on property lines,
for at least ten years, buildings have not been constructed on property lines without some action to
eliminate the property lines, Council may consider imposing a development moratorium until a
master plan can be adopted, developing a master plan could take a year or more, the revitalization
plan could be the starting point for a master plan, staff is preparing a traffic study for the Circulation
Element, the traffic study should be ready September or October 2021, the net increase of traffic for
the project is less than 300 trips, the project is not required to conduct a Level of Service analysis of
intersections pursuant to the traffic phasing ordinance, 30 to 50 people attended public workshops
for the Circulation Element, modeling for the traffic analysis is underway, the Circulation Element
does not address Avon Street because it is technically an enhanced driveway, Mr. Tanner's
suggestion for Council to delay the project and seek Coastal Commission input is probably not
consistent with Council's legislative platform relative to local control, a Council action on a coastal
Volume 65 - Page 107
City of Newport Beach
City Council Meeting
July 27, 2021
development permit may be presented to the Coastal Commission to determine if the matter falls
within the Coastal Commission's appeal jurisdiction, and staff has evaluated the cumulative
impacts of the subject project and pending projects in the area.
In response to Mayor Avery's question, Deputy Community Development Director Campbell
indicated a credible environmental analysis is not based on market assumptions and zoning, and
noted concessions and waivers complicate the analysis.
In response to Council Member Dixon's questions, Principal Planner Schneider stated the project
proposes a total of 36 units, and an additional unit was available to the applicant in the original
design, but the applicant utilized it in the redesign. City Traffic Engineer Brine indicated an agenda
item for Council going forward in August contains potential improvements to Tustin Avenue in
response to residents' concerns, and national rates for trip generation are used to calculate the
number of trips a project may generate. Deputy Community Development Director Campbell related
that the project will not be the tallest building in Mariners' Mile, a maximum height of 35 -feet is
allowed under the existing zoning, and the base height limit is 26 -feet. Community Development
Director Jurjis advised that Council will discuss next steps in the General Plan Update process later
in the year, and staff will recommend forming of a steering cittee to update other General Plan
Elements with the Land Use Element being the priority.
Council Member Dixon commended the applicant for redesigning the project so that it is consistent
with Mariners' Mile, expressed disappointment wifrh the applicant holding only one community
meeting, and indicated that the State has tied Council's han�k as to what it can and cannot approve.
She emphasized that Mariners' Mile and the industrial arell of Newport Heights need immediate
attention in terms of land use planning.
Council Member O'Neill reviewed HAA's requirements fonial and noted that Council's efforts to
push back on the City's RHNA allocation %have not work, this project is a good example of the
reason the State Legislature wanted to stop local jurisdictions from denying housing projects, a court
may review Council's decision on a project, Council's record will be weak at best in a court of law, a
court decision against the City for this project will set a terrible precedent for a much larger project
for Mariners' Mile, and Council cannot make the findings necessary to deny the project under HAA.
In response to Mayor Pro Tem Muldppia:s questions, Community Development Director Jurjis
suggested a master plan process for Mariners' Mile can begin with the 2017 revitalization plan or
from scratch, and only objective design standards can be implemented. City Attorney Harp clarified
that additional criteria cannot be imposed on the subject project, Council cannot consider subjective
standards under 1-14A, a Council decision to deny a project or reduce the density of a project shifts
the burden of proof to the Ci , and the project seems to comply with the objective criteria.
In response to Mayor erg's question, City Attorney Harper advised that compliance with the
Coastal Act is separate from compliance with HAA.
In response to Mayor Pro Tem Muldoon's questions, Community Development Director Jurjis
reported that the current version of the project complies with all objective standards contained in
the General Plan and Zoning Code. Principal Planner Schneider indicated the view simulations are
accurate as to elevator shafts, elevator overruns are common but more expensive, and the project
does not propose them. Deputy Community Development Director Campbell stated the applicant's
offer to dedicate land for widening Avon Street would benefit the City.
Mayor Pro Tem Muldoon advised that he has no plans for Mariners' Mile, but he will protect the
aesthetics of the City, and appreciated the redesign of the project.
In response to Council Member Brenner's questions, City Attorney Harp understood Mr. Matsler's
letter was made available to the public. City Clerk Brown added that copies were provided in the
lobby and late correspondence will be added to the packet. Deputy Community Development
Volume 65 - Page 108
City of Newport Beach
City Council Meeting
July 27, 2021
Director Campbell clarified that the applicant may submit an application to rezone the site from
office to retail in the future, the application will be subject to the review process, the Coastal Act
and the Local Coastal Program (LCP) do not provide percentages delineating significant impacts for
views, and protecting views is a subjective standard. Council Member Brenner appreciated the
applicant complying with residents' request for a nautical theme, especially since the applicant was
not required to do so.
In response to Council Member Dixon's questions, Deputy Community Development Director
Campbell stated a condition of approval requires the applicant to dedicate land for widening Avon
Street, but the City is not obligated to do so. Community Development Director Jurjis clarified that
the applicant has not offered to pay for widening the entire length of Avon Street, it is late in the
process to require the applicant to pay for the widening, the City does not have a view plane
protection ordinance, and the City has not documented all the views in the City.
Council Member Dixon requested developers work with the community when developing future
projects in Mariners' Mile, at least until a master plan is adopted, and remarked that rampant
development could be the result of State mandates, the community values its villages, the City does
not require design standards, and the City needs objective sta ards for views.
Motion by Council Member O'Neill, seconded by M ro Tem Muldoon, to a) find this
project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15332
under Class 32 (In -fill Development Projects) of the-CEQA Guidelines, because it has no potential
to have a significant effect on the environment; a d b) adopt Resolution No. 2021-70, A Resolution
of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach, Vqornia, Upholding the Planning Commission's
Approval of Coastal Development Permit No. CD2019-062, Site Development Review No. SD2019-
003, Tentative Parcel Map No. NP2020-013, and Affordable Housing Implementation Plan
No. AH2021-001 for a Mixed -Use Project Located at 2510 and 2530 West Coast Highway (PA2019-
249), including the amended Conditions.
Mayor Avery expressed concern that wide WvonWStreet could increase vehicle speeds, noted
slowing traffic is better because man eolile cross at Tustin Avenue, discussed how businesses in
Mariners' Mile have changed over ti , pointed out that Pacific Coast Highway is not pedestrian -
friendly, the scale of future development is bgth exciting and daunting, applicant willingly improved
the project, the community has informed developers about their aspirations for Mariners' Mile, and
the City will have to mitigate the impacts of more traffic.
11
With Council Members Blom and Duffield recusing themselves, the motion carried 5-0.
XIX. MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION - None
XXI. ADJOURNMENT -Adjourned at 9:27 p.m. in memory of Terry Donahue
The agenda and amended agendas were 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 July 22, 2021 at 4:00 p.m., July 23, 2021 at 8:35 a.m., and July 23, 2021 at
3:00 p.m.
Leilani I. Brown
City Clerk
Brad Avery
Mayor
Volume 65 - Page 109