Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/26/2021 - Study Session / Regular MeetingCITY OF NEWPORT BEACH City Council Meeting Minutes Study Session and Regular Meeting October 26, 2021 ROLL CALL - 4:00 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 II. CURRENT BUSINESS SS1. Clarification of Items on the Consent Calendar In response to Council Member Brenner's request, Public Works Director Webb provided a brief report on Item 8 (Cliff Drive Clubhouse Rehabilitation - Award of Contract No. 8695-1) and used a presentation to show proposed project details. SS2. Housing Element Update Status Report (PA2017-141) Community Development Director Jurjis and Deputy Community Development Director Campbell utilized a presentation to discuss housing element updates from the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) resulting from the City's draft submittal in August 2021. In response to Council Member Dixon's questions, Community Development Director Jurjis reported that HCD will determine the certifiable status, noted that past experiences with HCD were difficult to get certified with only five units, confirmed staffs strong commitment of time and resources to reach compliancy, and related the severe penalty and one-year City-wide rezoning requirements for not complying by February 11, 2022. Housing Element Update Advisory Committee Chair Larry Tucker summarized his concerns pertaining to the site capacity and non -vacant site comments in the HCD letter, summarized the aggressive measures taken by the City to identify sites as feasible, potentially feasible, and not feasible, emphasized the City's control of land use, acknowledged overlays creating limitations, suggested including in the letter to HCD that the City has done all it can do and no sites remain to the City's knowledge that have not been reviewed, provided his opinion regarding Banning Ranch, and expressed his frustrations about the process. Council Member O'Neill expressed concern for submitting a second draft to HCD prior to the next Council meeting with no Housing Element Update review by the City Council, noted the time invested in the first submittal, indicated that Council is uncomfortable sending something to a State agency explaining how to remove parts of the City Charter when the role at the dais is to protect what is within the City Charter, and sought to understand how Council will respond considering that they will not be going through a Greenlight vote until the Land Use Element is approved. In response to Council Member O'Neill's comments, Community Development Director Jurjis clarified that the goal is not to bypass the Greenlight vote process, rather provide justification of a path forward in case the vote fails, noted that staff is working on a written plan, acknowledged the policy decision involved, and suggested bringing back a draft version of the Housing Element at the November 16, 2021 Study Session. City Manager Leung suggested holding a special meeting before the November 16 City Council meeting. Council Member O'Neill expressed his preference for bringing the draft back at the regular meeting and discomfort in delegating the magnitude of this effort to Community Development Director Jurjis. In response Volume 65 - Page 166 City of Newport Beach City Council Meeting October 26, 2021 to Council Member O'Neill's question. Community Development Director Jurjis confirmed that staff can bring back a draft to Council at the November 16 City Council meeting without submittal time constraints. Council Member O'Neill inquired as to how staff plans to justify the 40% change to total affordability. Deputy Community Development Director Campbell confirmed that staff will be adding a narrative to justify assumptions of the 40% that was included in the first draft, and acknowledged the need for the time to provide additional layers of information as they move through the process. In response to Council Member Brenner's questions, Community Development Director Jurjis clarified that the City has no other options for procedural appeals with the State, Council could set a policy decision to take legal action if desired, and the City has exhausted appeals with the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). He further clarified that stimulating residential Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) production would be beneficial to the City in the long run, but it would not help related to the Housing Element Update, indicated that the Planning Commission has formed a subcommittee to review the ADU ordinance, staff is working with web designers to enhance the website and waive permit fees, and noted that there is limited negotiating power with the HCD relative to the number of ADUs, even with large community interest in converting their properties. In response to Council Member Dixon's questions, Community Development Director Jurjis confirmed that staff is being proactive and acknowledged the need for legal advice. Council Member Dixon shared that the City has made a significant good faith effort to develop housing in Banning Ranch and suggested that Should be included in the submitted document along with the roadblocks experienced at every attempt. Community Development Director Jurjis shared that the HCD considered the Coyote Canyon site to be a landfill and was unaware of its building potential, and noted that the HCD has indicated no incentive or interest in meeting with staff following the request from Mayor Avery. In response to Council Member Brenner's question, Community Development Director Jurjis affirmed the idea and agreed that staff would ask the California Coastal Commission to support the City with requesting that the HCD reduce the numbers planned in Banning Ranch. In response to Council Member O'Neill's inquiry if anyone has ever appealed the RHNA designation to the Coastal Commission, staff confirmed no. Council Member Duffield commented on the impossibility of the HCD staff accessing 482 cities in the State of California by the deadline and the potential for change with the strength and impact of a collective approach from all the cities. In response to Mayor Avery's question, Community Development Director Jurjis shared that the City falls in the middle of the pack in comparison to the pages of comment letters received by other cities. He added that staff is going to try its best to do everything they can. In response to Mayor Avery's comments, Community Development Director Jurjis agreed the pendulum will have to swing the other way at some point because there are limits to development, labor, and supply and demand, and agreed with Mayor Avery's perspective on acceptance around ambiguity and what is within the City's control. Nancy Scarbrough suggested using the $31 million budget surplus to set up a subprogram that gives grants to existing granny units to assist with bringing units up to current code, so they can be included in the ADU count: and creating a nonprofit Housing Trust for a 500 unit senior housing project with the potential for public/private partnerships. land purchases by the City, and developer bidding secured by the Housing Trust. including Density Bonus Laws to increase the numbers, and an eight year process for SB S and SB 10 housing, duplexes. and multi -unit apartment buildings. She offered her assistance in the effort. Volume 65 - Page 167 City of Newport Beach City Council Meeting October 26, 2021 Laura Curran commented on occupant limits pertaining to residential care facilities, believed most individuals in the facilities are not residents of California, suggested Council fight back against state -imposed regulations, and encouraged the City to vigorously team up with other cities to address these issues. Denys Oberman acknowledged staff and Council for an incredible effort with the California Coastal Commission, reminded Council about the crisis management approach in urgent situations, and encouraged Council and staff to consider eliminating Short Term Lodging (STL) permits that are inactive for a period of time, with a target goal of 1,000 units, to offset the State's count, and consider the potential reuse of the Fashion Island Hotel in the current count and explore other uses for this site. III. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON AGENDA AND NON -AGENDA ITEMS - None 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. Council Member O'Neill reported that he will be recusing himself on Closed Session Item IV.B. due to a potential bias issue. IV. CLOSED SESSION - Council Chambers Conference Room A. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS (Government Code § 54957.6): 1 matter Agency Designated Representatives: Grace K. Leung, City Manager, and Barbara Salvini, Human Resources Director, Negotiators. Employee Organizations: Association of Newport Beach Ocean Lifeguards (ANBOL), Newport Beach Police Association (NBPA), Newport Beach Firefighters Association (NBFA), and Newport Beach Employees League (NBEL). B. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL ANTICIPATED LITIGATION - INITIATION OF LITIGATION (Government Code § 54956.9(d)(4)): 2 matters V. RECESSED - 4:49 p.m. VI. RECONVENED AT 6:00 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 City Attorney Harp announced that no reportable actions were taken. IX. INVOCATION - Nadia Khazei, Spiritual Assembly of the Baha'i's of Newport Beach X. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Council Member Blom XI. NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC Volume 65 - Page 168 City of Newport Beach City Council Meeting October 26, 2021 XII. CITY COUNCIL ANNOUNCEMENTS AND ORAL REPORTS FROM CITY COUNCIL ON COMMITTEE ACTIVITIES Council Member Brenner: ■ Attended the Joint School Board and City quarterly meeting with Council Member O'Neill, three school board members, and new Superintendent Wes Smith. and an Orange County Mosquito and Vector Control meeting • Announced a community open house at the corner of Avocado Avenue and Pacific Coast Highway to meet with the owner of the proposed Corona del Mar 76 Service Station Remodel on November 6 to address questions regarding the project • Attended the California Coastal Commission meeting about STLs, received acknowledgement for the City's generosity of having a 1,550 STL cap in Newport Beach, mentioned Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) challenges, and discussed how STLs are contributing to the lack of housing in some districts ■ Utilized a slide to introduce the Good Giving Campaign fliers to say no to panhandling and yes to good giving and noted more information can be found at newportbeachca.gov/give Council Member O'Neill: • Attended Battle of the Bay and the Police Department Promotion Ceremony ■ Announced that Creatures of the Night at Sherman Gardens will take place on October 31, 2021. and the Halloween Trunk or Treat sponsored by the Police Foundation will take place at the police station on October 29, 2021 Council Member Dixon: • Attended the California Coastal Commission meeting where the STL project application was approved 9-2, the Employee Service Award recognition luncheon and thanked the Newport Beach Chamber of Commerce and participating restaurants, the Council Ad Hoc Redistricting Committee meeting, and the Police Department Promotion Ceremony • Requested a future agenda item to consider a resolution supporting the Support Action for Spent Fuel Now Coalition, which facilitates a network of stakeholders to make offsite spent fuel storage and/or disposal a priority at the Federal level, including for the San Onofre Nuclear Generation Station site Council Member Blom: ■ Attended the Police Department Promotion Ceremony, Corona del Mar Residents Association meeting, and the Aviation Committee meeting and noted great progress has been made on increasing communication between the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), John Wayne Airport (JWA), and General Aviation operators • Utilized a slide for the Newport Beach Small Business Clinic and no -cost 30 -minute consultation on November 2, 2021 at City Hall Council Member Duffield: ■ Utilized a slide to announce the Halloween Spooktacular at Mariners Park on October 30, 2021 Mayor Pro Tem Muldoon: ■ Attended the Police Department Promotion Ceremony Mayor Avery - Attended the Employee Service Award luncheon and the Newport Beach Film Festival's Opening Night XIII. MATTERS WHICH COUNCIL MEMBERS HAVE ASKED TO BE PLACED ON A FUTURE AGENDA Volume 65 - Page 169 City of Newport Beach City Council Meeting October 26, 2021 Consideration of supporting Rep. Michelle Steel's legislation (Stopping Hazardous Incidents in the Pacific (SHIP) Act) seeking to ban cargo ships idling or anchoring 24 nautical miles or less off the Orange County coast (Dixon and O'Neill] The City Council unanimously concurred to bring the item back at a future meeting. • Consideration of requesting a resolution and supporting letter addressed to the California Redistricting Commission stating the desire of the City of Newport Beach to be a part of a Coastal Orange County Congressional District that includes all coastal Orange County cities that have shared community interests and face similar challenges [Muldoon] The City Council unanimously concurred to bring the item back at a future meeting. ■ Consideration of supporting the Water Infrastructure Act of 2022, a proposed legislative ballot initiative which calls for State general fund revenues to be annually allocated towards projects that create additional water supply for the State, helping to achieve short and long-term water resiliency [Muldoon] The City Council unanimously concurred to bring the item back at a future meeting. XIV. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON CONSENT CALENDAR Jim Mosher, addressing Items 6 and 11 (Resolution No. 2021-102: Formation of an Ad Hoc Residential Care Facilities Committee and Appointments to the Aviation Committee) discussed an alternative to have a committee of citizens versus Council Members. and questioned Council Member Duffield's Aviation Committee appointment. Regarding Item 6. Laura Curran reminded Council that other group home types exist beyond drug and alcohol facilities, questioned the scope of 32 licensed homes, emphasized the need to address licensed and unlicensed homes, thanked Council Members Brenner, Dixon, and Duffield for convening a community meeting on October 11, 2021, where government officials discussed drug rehabilitation facilities and group residential homes, believed the Ad Hoc Committee is a step on a path to a long-term management plan, and suggested an ongoing management plan with expert legal counsel and lobbying resources to work with County and legislators to pursue policy and build relationships with the new Director of the Department of Health Care Services (DHCS). Addressing Item 6, Erica Keane thanked Council for the recent town hall meeting, and requested the ad hoc committee involve the neighboring residents so their voices can be included. In response to Council Member Brenner's questions, City Attorney Harp shared that the definition of residential care facilities is very broad and includes all the general licenses and unlicensed facilities, stated that if residents were to be included in the committee then it would become a Brown Act Committee, which then the membership terms would have to be amended and brought back to Council for approval, and confirmed that committee members can receive input from anyone necessary. Regarding Item 6. Denys Oberman thanked Council Members for bringing this topic forward and believed the lack of ongoing ordinance management and administration is contributing to the resurfacing of residential care facility issues. Steven Fasangola thanked Council on behalf of the Santa Ana Heights neighborhood for actions on this matter, and expressed the importance and desire for community involvement through focused discussions. Bill Lyon asked to be part of a committee to studA, rehabilitation and sober living homes. Volume 65 - Page 170 City of Newport Beach City Council Meeting October 26, 2021 XV. CONSENT CALENDAR READING OF MINUTES AND ORDINANCES 1. Minutes for the October 12, 2021, City Council Regular Meeting [100-2021] Waive reading of subject minutes, approve as written, 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. ORDINANCE FOR ADOPTION 3. Ordinance No. 2021-22: Zoning Code Amendment Related to Setback Map Corrections (PA2020-006) [100-20211 a) Find this amendment statutorily exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 21065 of CEQA and State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15060(c)(2), 15060(c)(3) and 15378. The proposed action is also exempt pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) because it has no potential to a have a significant effect on the environment; and b) Conduct second reading and adopt Ordinance No. 2021-22, An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach, California, Adopting Zoning Code Amendment No. 02020-001 to Amend Title 20 (Planning and Zoning) of the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code Correcting Setback Map Errors (P42020-006). RESOLUTIONS FOR ADOPTION 4. Resolution No. 2021-100: Summary Vacation of a Portion of an Existing Storm Drain Easement at 23 Augusta Lane and 9 Greenbriar Lane [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) Adopt Resolution No. 2021-100, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach, California, Declaring the City's Summary Vacation of a Portion of an Existing Ten (10) Foot Wide Storm Drain Easement within a Portion of Lots 17 and 23 of Tract No. 7223 at 23 Augusta Lane and 9 Greenbriar Lane; c) Direct staff to process the summary vacation of said easement; and d) Direct the City Clerk to have the Resolution and summary vacation documents recorded by the Orange County Recorder. 5. Resolution No. 2021-101: Certifying Funding Listed in the Federal Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP) [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. 2021-101, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach, California, Certifying that the City of Newport Beach has the Resources to Fund the Projects in the Federal Transportation Lnprocement Program for Federal Fiscal Years 2022123 to 2027128 and Affirming its Commitment to Implement All Projects in the Program. 6. Resolution No. 2021-102: Formation of an Ad Hoc Residential Care Facilities Committee [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 any physical change to the environment, directly or indirectly: and b) Adopt Resolution No. 2021-102, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach, California, Forming an Ad Hoc Residential Care Facilities Committee. Volume 65 - Page 171 City of Newport Beach City Council Meeting October 26, 2021 CONTRACTS AND AGREEMENTS 7. Concrete Replacement Program (FY 2021-22) - Award of Contract No. 8722-1 (221106) [381100-202-11 a) Find this project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15301(c), Class 1 (maintenance of existing public facilities involving negligible or no expansion of use) of the CEQA Guidelines, because this project has no potential to have a significant effect on the environment; b) Approve the project drawings and specifications; c) Award Contract No. 8722-1 to Grigolla & Sons Construction Co., Inc. for the total bid price of $644,390, and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the contract; and d) Establish a contingency of $63.000 (approximately 10 percent of total bid) to cover the cost of unforeseen work not included in the original contract. 8. Cliff Drive Clubhouse Rehabilitation -Award of Contract No. 8695-1 (20F13) [381100-20211 a) Find this project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15301 (a) (minor interior or exterior alterations involving such things as partitions and plumbing) of the CEQA Guidelines. because this project has no potential to have a significant effect on the environment: b) Approve the project drawings and specifications, c) Award Contract No. 8695-1 to A2Z Construct, Inc. for the total bid price of $185,750, and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the contract; and d) Establish $27.850 (approximately 15 percent) contingency to cover the cost of unforeseen work not included in the original contract. 9. Professional Services Agreement with Priscila Davila & Associates, Inc. for CDBG Administration (C-7928-2) [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 City Manager and City Clerk to execute a four-year Professional Services Agreement with Priscila Davila & Associates. Inc. for CDBG program administration and affordable housing monitoring. 10. Tentative Agreements with. Newport Beach City Employees Association (C-2059) and Newport Beach Professional and Technical Employees Association (C-2051) [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) Receive and consider the Tentative Agreements between the City of Newport Beach and the Newport Beach City Employees Association (C-2059) and the City of Newport Beach and the Newport Beach Professional and Technical Employees Association (C-2051). MISCELLANEOUS 11. Appointments to the Aviation Committee [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; W Confirm Council Member Duffy Duffield's appointment of Elizabeth Braley as the District 3 Member to the Aviation Committee: and c) Confirm Mayor Pro Tem Kevin Muldoon's appointment of Ron Rubino as the District 4 Member to the Aviation Committee. 12. Grants and Donations Report for the Quarter Ending September 30, 2021 [100-2022] a) Determine this action is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act. (CEQA) pursuant to Sections 15060(c)(2) and 15060(c)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines because this action will not result in a physical change to the environment. directly or indirectly: and Volume 65 - Page 172 City of Newport Beach City Council Meeting October 26, 2021 b) Receive and file. Motion by Mayor Pro Tem_ Muldoon, seconded by Council Member O'Neill, to approve the Consent Calendar. The motion carried unanimously. XVI. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR — None XVII. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON -AGENDA ITEMS Shana Conzelman stated she attended the Harbor Commission meeting and noted concerns of inaccuracies in the information presented, and questioned why the Harbor Commission did not allow Palmer Luckey's team to present a viable alternative to Council. Brent Mardian, representing Palmer Luckey's team, suggested finding alternatives to the Confined Aquatic Disposal (CAD) that would not place contaminated material in the middle of lower Newport Bay, expressed concerns regarding the lack of public options, perceived conflicting messages throughout the process, and noted two alternative options that still remain for consideration. Jim Mosher asked for a review of the lobbyist registration system and expressed concern regarding the minimal number of registered individuals and the lack of indication of who or what they are lobbying for or against. David Tanner discussed the effects of COVID on business and commerce and highlighted post-COVID opportunities. He also suggested the City look for alternatives to placing material in the Harbor and invite the Palmer Luckey team to present their alternatives. Nancy Scarbrough shared a California initiative, the Tripartisan Land L?se Initiative. that will likely be on the November 2022 ballot that intends to return local land use and zoning control to cities, and an opportunity for the City to write a resolution in support. In response to Ms. Scarbrough's comments, City Attorney Harp added that Council Member Brenner previously requested an item for the consideration of a resolution supporting this, which will be on the next agenda. An unidentified speaker provided comments regarding the Planning Commission's approval of a 76 Service Station project, and requested a traffic ordinance study and community input prior to the November 16, 2021 City Council meeting. In response to the unidentified speaker's comments, City Attorney Harp added the 76 Service Station project will be brought for review before the City Council at the next meeting, Gina Cruz thanked staff and everyone involved who shared a fantastic presentation with the California Coastal Commission. Mayor Pro Tem Devin Muldoon cautioned Council to be thoughtful of what is said about the Santa Ana Heights issues, believed that funds could be allocated to government relations in Sacramento. and requested a future agenda item to consider persuading legislators to step up and do the right thing. XVIII. PUBLIC HEARING 13. Ordinance No. 2021-23: Fifth Amendment to the Hoag Development Agreement (C- 2512) (PA2021-184) [38/100-2021] Mayor Pro Tem Muldoon discussed the purpose of development agreements, noted his personal opposition to this development agreement with Hoag and his preference that every dollar be spent on better community health care, and suggested the amount be cut in half. Volume 65 - Page 173 City of Newport Beach City Council Meeting October 26, 2021 Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Muldoon seconded by Council Member Duffield, to a) determine that Final EIR No. 142, which was certified by the City of Newport Beach in 1992, fully addresses the potential environmental effects associated with the Hoag Hospital Master Plan development program; and b) waive full reading, direct the City Clerk to read by title only, introduce Ordinance No. 2021-23, An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach, California, Amending a Development Agreement between the City of Newport Beach and Koag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian (Development Agreement Amendrnent No. DA2021-001), and pass to second reading on November 16, 2021, noting the amendment to the Development Agreement so that the amount to be paid is decreased to $1.5 million over the next 10 years. Council Member Dixon stated that the Development Agreement preserves and protects the entitlement rights for future development by Hoag in the lower planned community area, and proceeds of the agreement are static for 20 years through 2010 and will be directed to the City's homeless programs at the Bridge Shelter. In response to Council Member Blom's questions, City Attorney Harp clarified that the City previously extended the agreement for 10 years, which Hoag has already paid $600,000 of the $3 million, and that this extension is for another 10 years for a proposed additional $3 million; however, the motion is to decrease this amount to $1.5 million, leaving the original $3 million alone. Council Member Brenner highlighted that the money received from the Development Agreement will be used to help the homeless and Be Well van program, which is a community resource intended to support all mental health issues. Mayor Pro Tem Muldoon clarified that Hoag approached the City with the intent to preserve and protect their current and future right to build on their property for facility use so subsequent Councils cannot take the entitlement away, Council Member Duffield emphasized health as a priority and embarrassment over the City's lack of promotion of Hoag Hospital when it does so much for the community. Mayor Avery opened the public hearing. Jim Mosher questioned why Hoag would pay to protect itself from future changes made by Council and requested clarification of the Development Agreement as it relates to possible State or Federal law changes that invalidate City zoning. Dr. Robert Braithwaite, CEO of Hoag Hospital, reported that the hospital provides the highest quality health care, delivers 7,000 babies per year, serves over 30,000 in -patients and over 500,000 out-patients per year, supports partner agencies in extending their health care missions, responds to the changes and advances in medicine. technology, and research, was named Orange County's top hospital for the fifth consecutive year, is ranked ninth in the State, and is one of 11 hospitals in the country to rank in the top decile of all surgeries, procedures. and chronic conditions as measured by Medicare. He further stated that the entire team at Hoag loves the community, the action of Council at this meeting will help assure that Hoag can continue to provide optimal, cutting edge. state-of-the-art health care services to the community for many generations, and thanked Council for their partnership and support. Council Member Brenner clarified that decisions made on this amendment by Council are not a reflection of their collective love and support for Hoag. There being no fitr-ther testimony, Mayor Avery closed the public hearing. With Council Member Brenner voting "no." the motion carried 6-1. Volume 65 - Page 174 City of Newport Beach City Council Meeting October 26, 2021 XIX. CURRENT BUSINESS 14.. Calling an Election for a Proposed Charter Amendment to Provide for the Direct Election of the Mayor of the City of Newport Beach ,39/100-20211 Council Member Blom expressed his appreciation for the community providing their thoughts and opinions on the proposed Charter amendment, stated the ability to give every community member a voice is the reason he placed the item on the agenda, and advocated for democracy in a directedly- elected Mayor process. Council Member O'Neill thanked everyone who shared their opinion, Council Member Blom for bringing the item forward. and fellow Council Members for their consideration. He utilized a presentation to discuss voter choice to elect the Mayor; favorable public opinions of electing the Mayor; ballot text relative to a directly -elected Mayor and term limits; agenda setting discussion rules; basic functions of Council related to setting public policy; agenda setting by a directly -elected Mayor; reasons for placing the measure on the primary election ballot versus the general election ballot; and a comparison of local city populations and relative budget sizes. He discussed his trust in voters to elect Council Members and a Mayor. Shana Conzelman supported the direct election of the Mayor seat for consistency, follow-through. and completion. Susan Skinner opposed the direct election of the Mayor and opined that the decision would contribute to long-term damage to the City by eliminating the City Manager's ability to put items on the agenda as the voice of the day-to-day operations, create a dependency on the Mayor, attract a second-rate City Manager versus a top-notch candidate. affect employee morale, meet the needs of one person and remake the City's form of government, reshape the balance of power on the City Council, and put an abnormally powerful Mayor in charge. Mike Posey, Huntington Beach Council Member, supported the direct election of the Mayor because it brings continuity to the office and service, predictability, and enhanced relationships with County, State, Federal representatives and council colleagues. Beverly Jones opposed the direct election of the Mayor because she thinks it is unwarranted, uncalled for, and unnecessarily risky, will have no oversight by Council Members. and gives one person too much power with the potential for corruption. Cindy Dillion supported the direct election of the Mayor. and believed that being Mayor for one year is not conducive to the learning curve of the position, does not feel represented in who is running the City as Mayor with the current process. and Council Members may be at odds with representing the whole of the City as Mayor as opposed to the district from which they were elected. Heather Ignatin, Parks, Beaches, and Recreation Commissioner, supported the direct election of the Mayor because she thinks it enhances the democratic process, continuity of leadership, and progress. John O'Hara supported public choice either in support or in opposition to the direct election of the Mayor and recommended a 2006 article in the Yale Law Journal outlining the history and evolution of government models. An unidentified speaker supported the direct election of the Mayor because the current system confuses the voters. Logan Malcuf supported the direct election of the Mayor because he thinks it allows for freedom of choice, rewards earned success. and lets the voters decide. Volume 65 - Page 175 City of Newport Beach City Council Meeting October 26, 2021 Marlene Dandler supported the direct election of the Mayor because of the importance in selecting the tone and leadership of the City, noted that different job descriptions and skill sets exist for Council Members versus Mayor, and encouraged consideration and remedy of all issues should the item pass. Chet Harrison opposed the direct election of the Mayor because voters within the Mayor -elect's district get two votes and people outside the district will only get one vote. Peggy Stewart opposed the direct election of the Mayor because, by electing seven representatives to the City Council, each District gets a chance to be represented by a Mayor and, in collaboration with a City Manager, provides expertise in urban planning. Jason Gilboa supported the direct election of the Mayor so a candidate who is social media savvy can be elected and fight for the City as needed. Elizabeth Stahr opposed the direct election of the Mayor because the special election would be expensive, time consuming, and unnecessary; the current system is fair and reasonable with every Council Member getting a turn as Mayor; and expressed the opinion that a Mayor should be viewed as equal to Council Members and not superior. Carolyn Reed supported the direct election of the Mayor because citizens should be heard through the voting process. Tom Edwards opposed the direct election of the Mayor, expressing the opinion that the proposal is a solution in search of a problem, strong leadership already exists through demonstrated action, and increased responsibility for each Council Member will decrease power with the reduction of districts. Roy Englebrecht opposed the direct election of the Mayor because it presents an unfair advantage with incumbents that are hard to beat during an election and expressed the opinion that this a political ploy. An unidentified speaker opposed the direct election of the Mayor because a four-year term will net a disproportion of power in one person with no oversight, high risk variables are present, voters often vote thoughtlessly, and the current Mayoral appointment considers applied experience. Elizabeth Adams opposed the direct election of the Mayor because 13 of 15 South Orange County cities elect Council Members and Mayor in the City's current fashion regardless of population, and requested the petition effort continue and additional studies are done before moving forward with a decision. Rosalee Paleo opposed the direct election of the Mayor because people are allowed to run for Mayor who have not lived in Newport Beach for a long period of time and who do not have a great knowledge base of the community and the City's history. Homer Bludau noted a lack of clarity in Charter Sections 404(c) and 404(d) and expressed the opinion that the provisions are very general and subject to interpretation, making it unclear what the people are voting for. Kimberly, Pete, Smith, and Erin Clark expressed support for directly electing the Mayor to give voters' the choice. Gary Cruz questioned why this Charter amendment is being proposed and why now, with 65% of similar sized cities being governed using the current model, believed more vetting is necessary before making a decision, and expressed concerns about retaining a quality City Manager, term limits, and excess power for one person. Volume 65 - Page 176 City of Newport Beach City Council Meeting October 26, 2021 Bud Reveley expressed concern that past issues would remain unresolved because no spokesman would be present, and added that 97% of the 468 California cities employ the Council Manager form of government with executive responsibilities of a municipal government placed under the day-to- day supervision and control of a Council appointed City Manager, and only in the very largest five California cities does the form of Mayor -Council or strong Mayor form of government exist. Charles Klobe expressed concern that the amendment is being considered with no other Council or citizen involvement, is a consolidation of power and breeds corruption, and seven Council Members with an equal vote works to spread out power. David Simmons commented that current Council Members are doing a good job and understand the complexity of the City and how to get votes, suggested continuing the current rotation process, and asked about the risk of adding a bad Mayor. Nathan Holthouser supported the direct election of the Mayor because it would make the City better and give power to residents and stakeholders. James Lehigh believed the younger demographic in the City is capable of voting intelligently and active in the voting process. Walter Stahr opposed the direct election of the Mayor, suggested having a process where choices are not limited, study groups are used to identify related issues, and issues like the role of Mayor, term limits, and more details are publicly discussed. David Tanner shared information from an unidentified source regarding an unconfirmed vision and master plan for the City by a potential future candidate for Mayor if this item passes. Shannon Papazis stated that acquiring experience as a Council Member and then election into the position of Mayor should be valued and is necessary for influencing change and setting policy. An unidentified speaker asked what the problem was with the current process and suggested following the initiative process. Gina Unsworth questioned the necessity of change and asked Council to put fear aside and be willing to approach this decision differently. Leonard Simon inquired about amendment inclusions, the City's plan to deliberate on the Charter amendment or push it through as proposed, and the requirements for circulating an initiative petition for inclusion on the ballot. Richard Cabin supported working out the details over time as a better approach. Phillip Greer urged Council to table the item for a few months, establish an ad hoc committee, return with public input, add more defined language, and include a plan to avoid disenfranchising people with the consolidation of seven districts into six districts. Nancy Skinner supported postponing the vote until more discussion of the problems and current initiative take place. Tom Baker asked Council to let the citizens vote on the decision An unidentified speaker opposed the direct election of the Mayor and opined that residents have spoken by not signing the petition. Andy supported the direct election of the Mayor and the right to vote Volume 65 - Page 177 City of Newport Beach City Council Meeting October 26, 2021 Jim Mosher indicated that the current Charter includes the Mayor serving for two-year rotations. stated that the proposed method gives the people only one choice of election, and noted the primary election or general election comes at a cost. An unidentified speaker supported placing the direct election of the Mayor on the ballot as a valid way to move forward. Make Janz supported the direct election of the Mayor by putting the power in the hands of the people. An unidentified speaker opposed the direct election of the Mayor, shared his confusion, and stated that problems with the initiative should be worked out before placing it on the ballot. Council Member Dixon related that Council has been asked to consider placing this initiative on the ballot, there have been many letters received and voices for and against the proposal, discussed the foundational process of a democratic system of government. and Council's promise by oath to inform the public and assist the people in making informed decisions. She expressed interest in having the community engaged in a robust discussion on how the City should be governed, and asked for the matter to be opened up to the community with transparency, and thorough exploration to ensure that the community and Council are completely knowledgeable of the consequences to property values, the business environment. and overall reputation with an elected Mayor form of government. Motion by Council Member Dixon seconded by Council Member Brenner, to form a Brown Act citizen committee to review the City Charter for potential reform. with broad community participation, and bring back recommendations to the City Council to possibly place a measure on the November 8, 2022 General Municipal Election ballot. Council Member Blom believed that power should be given back to the people, related that many residents have been unaware about the Mayor appointment process, stated that the initiative is to give the people a voice and power instead of Council. noted his dislike for politics, opined that the rising young population and growth of the City makes this a necessity with a changing future both at the local and State levels with new laws and regulations that requires strength, governance, and experience. Mayor Pro Tem Kevin Muldoon stated his desire to not vote against something that will let the people decide. In response to Mayor Pro Tem Muldoon's questions, City Attorney Harp confirmed that current language will not change regarding residency requirements, decision making an interpreting policy, or legislative platform; stated that the Mayor can take on different pieces of legislation as the primary while not being exclusively responsible for interpreting the City's policies, programs, and needs. In response to Mr. Bludau's statement regarding Charter Sections 404(b) and 404(c). City Attorney Harp confirmed that the Sections include the original language and have not been changed. In response to Mayor Pro Tem Muldoon's questions. City Attorney Harp confirmed a democratic process as it relates to interpretations on policy, programming or City government needs and pointed out that decisions will be made by the majority of the City Council and the Mayor will not have extra representation. Substitute motion by Mayor Pro Tem Muldoon, seconded by Council Member Blom, to a) determine that the 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 it will not result in a physical change to the environment. directly or indirectly; b) adopt Resolution No. 2021-103, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach, California, Calling &- the Holding of a Special Municipal Election to be Held on. Tuesday, June 7, 2022, and Ordering that a Proposed AmendnienI to the City Charter be Submitted to the Voters of the City; c) adopt Resolution No. 2021- 104, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach., Californ.i.a, Requesting the Board of Supervisors of the County of Orange to Consolidate a Special Municipal Election to be Held on Tuesday, June 7, 2022, with the Statewide Prinaa.iy Election to be Held on the Sain.e Date Pursuant to California Elections Code Section 10403 for the Purpose of Submitting ra Proposed Charter Volume 65 - Page 178 City of Newport Beach City Council Meeting October 26, 2021 Arnendment to the Voters; d) adopt Resolution No. 2021-105, A Resolution of the City Council. of the City of Newport Beach, California., Setting Priorities for Filing YVritten Arguments Regarding a City Measure and Directing the City Attorney to Prepare an Impartial Analysis; e) adopt Resolution No. 2021-106, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach, California, Providing for the Filing of Rebuttal Arguments for the City Measure Submitted to the Voters at the Special Municipal Election to be Held on Tuesday, June 7, 2022, Pursuant to California Elections Code Section 9285; f) designate Council Members Blom and O'Neill to draft a Direct Argument for the ballot measure, and Council Members Brenner and Dixon to draft a Direct Argument against the ballot measure and any Rebuttal Argument, if needed; and g) approve Budget Amendment No. 22- 020, allocating $215.000 to Account 01010101-81100$ (Election). Council Member Duffield supported the people's right to vote, noted his experience of new Mayors seeking the advice of former Mayors in the past, and indicated the heightened personal attention from officials in Washington D.C. when an individual represents a City as a Mayor versus as a Council Member. Council Member O'Neill clarified that candidates running for election means the candidates each live in a district but are running Citywide. and emphasized there would still be representation by seven people under the proposed system. Council Member Brenner related that the amendment is a complex issue with much to consider, and conversation is required. She supported Council Member Dixon's proposal to form a citizen group to review all Charter issues, expressed the opinion the measure is not ready to assure the City's success without more discussion and modification, and noted the potential for creating a legacy of having turned the City over to politicians with personal gain intentions. Council Member Dixon stated that moving forward with the amendment should be because it is the right thing to do, district realignment is a huge topic and issue requiring discussion, the Mayor in the current form of government is the first among equals, the City Charter states that the Mayor has protected ceremonial power and presides over Council meetings, the words may take on a different meaning when coupled with an elected Mayor, history of the current form of government comes from the Mayor form of government to a professionally managed City with many roles to disperse power amongst Council Members. Substitute to the substitute motion. by Council Member Dixon seconded by Council Member Brenner, to bring back the original motion. In response to Council Member Dixon's question, City Attorney Harp clarified that the motion limit allowed on the floor at one time is up to three different motions and a Council Member cannot make a motion and place it above a substitute motion or move the motion to be voted on first. Council Member Dixon modified the substitute to the substitute motion by adding a review of the district form of government. Motion by Council Member O'Neill seconded by Council Member Blom, to table the substitute to the substitute motion. With Mayor Avery, Council Member Brenner, and Council Member Dixon voting"no," the motion carried 4-3. Mayor Pro Tem Muldoon withdrew his substitute motion. Council Member Brenner added a friendly amendment to Council Member Dixon's motion. Substitute to the substitute motion by Council Member Brenner, seconded by Council Member Dixon, to submit to the voters an option of directly electing the Mayor for two years with a maximum term of four years, continue having seven districts. and remove the remainder of the ballot text. Volume 65 - Page 179 City of Newport Beach City Council Meeting October 26, 2021 With Mayor Pro Tem Muldoon and Council Members Blom, Duffield, and O'Neill voting "no," the motion failed 3-4. Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Muldoon seconded by Council Member Blom, to a) determine that the 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 it will not result in a physical change to the environment, directly or indirectly; b) adopt Resolution No. 2021-103, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach, California, Calling for the Holding of a Special Municipal Election to be Held on Tuesday, June 7, 2022, and Ordering that a Proposed Amendment to the City Charter be Submitted to the Voters of the City; c) adopt Resolution No. 2021-104, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach, California, Requesting the Board of Supervisors of the County of Orange to Consolidate a Special Municipal Election to be Held on Tuesday, June 7, 2022, with. the Statewide Primary Election to be Held on the Same Date Pursuant to California Elections Code Section 1040.3 for the Purpose of Submitting a Proposed Charter Amendment to the Voters; d) adopt Resolution No. 2021-105, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach, California, Setting Priorities for Filing Written Arguments Regarding a City Measure and Directing the City Attorney to Prepare an Impartial Analysis; e) adopt Resolution No. 2021-106, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach, California, Providing for the Filing of Rebuttal Arguments for the City Measure Submitted to the Voters at the Special Municipal Election to be Held on Tuesday, June 7, 2022, Pursuant to California Elections Code Section 9285; f) designate Council Members .Blom and O'Neill to draft a Direct Argument for the ballot measure and any Rebuttal Argument, if needed, and Mayor Avery and Council Member Brenner to draft a Direct Argument against the ballot measure and any Rebuttal Argument, if needed; and g) approve Budget Amendment No. 22-020. allocating $215,000 to Account 01010101- 811008 (Election). With Mayor Avery, Council Member Brenner, and Council Member Dixon voting "no," the motion carried 4-3. Mayor Avery recessed the meeting at 10:09 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 10:17 p.m. with all members of the City Council in attendance. 15. Fiscal Year 2020-21 Year -End Budget Results [100-20211 Finance Director Catlett utilized a presentation to summarize the top three City revenues (property tax, sales tax, and transient occupancy tax), all of which are above projections, historical General Fund revenues, and General Fund results and surplus. Council Member O'Neill explained that the 3 -year surplus occurred because the council chose not to spend the prior two years of surplus, which had accumulated due to switching over from the past practice of spending the surplus money one full fiscal year after the surplus existed to using in the immediate fiscal year after the surplus existed/occurred. Finance Director Catlett continued the presentation to share recommended uses for surplus funds on hand with a deviation from the regular policy. City Manager Leung clarified that the recommendation is to allocate to the listed categories but the specific projects will be brought before Council at a later date. Council Member O'Neill added that the staff recommendation comes with the unanimous support of the Finance Committee, Nancy Scarbrough suggested encouraging staff to consider using part of the $15.5 million infrastructure money to help mitigate problems with RHNA, Volume 65 - Page 180 City of Newport Beach City Council Meeting October 26, 2021 Motion by Council Member O'Neill, seconded by Council Member Blom, to a) determine this action is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Sections 15060(c)(2) and 15060(c)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines because this action will not result in a physical change to the environment, directly or indirectly; b) approve staffs recommended allocation of $31 million of General Fund surplus funds on hand; c) approve the one-time waiver of policy elements C and D of City Council Policy F-5 - General Fund Surplus Utilization; d) approve Budget Amendment No. 22-019 to appropriate the surplus funds for the purposes outlined in the report; e) approve staffs recommended allocation of $10.1 million of American Rescue Plan Act Funds; and f) receive and file the report of budget amendments for the fourth quarter. The motion carried unanimously. XX. MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION - None XXI. ADJOURNMENT -Adjourned at 10:30 p.m. in memory of Paul Salata, David Niederhaus, and Police Sgt. Randy Parker 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 October 21, 2021, at 4:04 p.m. Vfi- - ... . -6. M_ Leilani I. Brown City Clerk Bra e Ma Volume 65 - Page 181