Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01 - Minutes - AmendedCity of Newport Beach Study Session and Regular Meeting January 26, 2021 February 9, 2021 Agenda Item No. 1 there may be different approaches in different parts of the City, the City is behind with technology, there is a lot of turnover in parking spaces and a lot more biking, a need to know the number of bike stalls that can be exchanged for a parking space, there may be a difference seasonally, and Council may not be at a point to initiate a Code change at this time. He expressed a desire for staff to hire a consultant and conduct outreach to study it. Council Member Brenner noted that residents are enjoying outside dining and would like to see that continue, stated that Corona del Mar is different from other areas, residents have stated they have been patient and want restaurants to thrive and survive, indicated that Council needs extensive public outreach, and believed that parking spaces for rideshare services need to be on Pacific Coast Highway, not in residential areas. Mayor Pro Tem Muldoon supported this moving forward as quickly as possible. Council Member Duffield supported staff's ideas and liked Council Member O'Neill's comments. Mayor Avery supported studying all the available options, ted that parking at the Newport Beach Pier is difficult in the summer and forces customers to use rideshare services and bikes, and stated that Council needs to consider areas separatelyjiLA e out where there is room to take away public parking and determine the deman4% Council Member O'Neill believed that option two, threeland four can move faster on the planning level, taking away public park ng w s now, but it may not work when people can return to dining inside restaurants, and mfe d that options one and five will be more site specific. Council Member Dixon indicated that there are many layers of questions and issues, the Peninsula has parking challenges during good weather, public outreach will be critical, and restaurant parking in residentialihigh density areas needs to work for residents, businesses, and the public. F, Jim Mosher indicated the only concern regarding use of sidewalks raised in the presentation was increased maintenance, discussed Council Member Dixon's concerns about the loss of public pgspace, discussed City Council Policy L-21, and thought it was a City goal to encouraged people to walk more. Following a str oll, City Attorney Harp noted that all Council Members expressed support for all the pointWTsented. Mayor Pro Tem Muldoon clarified that he supported any permanent work. SS3. Review of Commercial Parking Needs Community Development Director Jurjis and Principal Planner Schneider utilized a presentation to discuss commercial parking, the update to the parking code, overlays and activity nodes, the parking management overlay for Balboa Village coming to Council on February 9, 2021, standards for commercial centers, curbside management, and coastal restrictions, and requested direction regarding engaging a traffic/parking consultant to provide recommendations. Council Member Dixon supported using an outside consultant, briefly reviewed the history of the Balboa Village overlay, and believed an overlay can be a game changer to stimulate economic development in the many villages. In response to Council Member Dixon's question, Community Development Director Jurjis noted the California Coastal Commission modified the overlay. Volume 64 - Page 609 City of Newport Beach Study Session and Regular Meeting January 26, 2021 Council Member Blom thanked staff, expressed excitement about alternatives for moving forward, indicated that Council has to look toward the future regarding retail/commercial and revenue, expressed concern about empty office buildings and commercial spots, and noted that there is opportunity to work with some of those partnerships to find walkable areas and parking areas. Council Member O'Neill believed removing two public spaces for a valet plan gains 10 or 15 spots from people not parking in residential areas, the node idea stimulates private industry, putting in parking structures at locations such as at the Five Crowns Restaurant parking lot would help, designated spaces for rideshare services preventa double parking, Council has to consider how people are driving and getting dropped off, and encouraged people to use more rideshare programs. Council Member Brenner was intrigued by the idea of designating golf cart parking to create more spaces. Council Member O'Neill suggested adding a few other areas to bullet point C such as Bayside Drive, the Corona del Mar Plaza, and the Westcliff area tH 4it pt p :.t r P.4 R f+Ht Council Member Duffield indicated he just p aseeet-legal golf cart and is looking forward to using it to find a parking space. Following a straw poll, City Attorney Haiwoted tall Council Members expressed support for the bullet points in staff's presentatfn. III. PUBLIC COMMENTS - None i City Attorney Harp reported the City Council would adjourn to Closed Session to discuss the items listed in the Closed Session agenda and read the title. IV. CLOSED SESSION jJCi1 Chaml ers Conference Room A. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS (Government Code § 54957.6): 1 matter Agency Designated Representatives: Barbara Salvini, Human Resources Director, Labor Negotiator. Employee Organizations: Association of Newport Beach Ocean Lifeguards (ANBOL); Newport Beach City Employees Association (NBCEA); Newport Beach Firefighters Association (NBFA); Newport Beach Fire Management Association (NBFMA); Newport Beach Employees League (NEEL); Newport Beach Lifeguard Management Association (NBLMA); Part Time Employees Association of Newport Beach (PTEANB); Newport Beach Police Association (NBPA); Newport Beach Police Management Association (NBPMA); and Newport Beach Professional and Technical Employee Association (NBPTEA). V. RECESSED - 5:00 p.m. Volume 64 - Page 610 City of Newport Beach Study Session and Regular Meeting January 26, 2021 MISCELLANEOUS S. Planning Commission Agenda for the January 21, 2021 Meeting [100-2021] Receive and file. 9. Accept the 2019 Emergency Management Performance Grant (C-8075-6) [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) Accept the grant funding in the amount of $11,038 to be used in support of the City's emergency management program; and c) Approve Budget Amendment No. 21-024 to accept grant funds from the FEMA through the County of Orange, increase revenue estimates by $11,038 in account 01035352-431250 and increase expenditures appropriations by $11,038 in account 0103511-821005. 10. Grants and Donations Report for the Quarter Ending December 31, 2020 [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, dir ly directly; and b) Receive and file. A Motion by Mavor Pro Tem Muldoon, seconded by Council Member O'Neill, to approve the Consent Calendar; and noting the amendments to Item 1, the recusal by Council Member Duffield to Item 3, and the "no" votes to Items 3 and 4 by Mayor Pro Tem Muldoon. The motion carried unanimously. skv Orange County Head of the District 2 Supervisor Transition Staff Tim Whitacre provided the County's check related to Item 7, and Mayor Avery 174ged receipt of the check. Mr. Whitacre advised that this is not the last funding opportunity County since the Supervisors are exploring additional o ways to help everyone recover and F. %ess. In response to Council Member Dixon's question, Mr. Whitacre reported the Othena website is challenging and available only to people eligible for Tier lA COVID-19 vaccinations and encouraged people to continue checking the website or call 714-834-2000 or 714-834-3220. XV. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR - None XVI. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON -AGENDA ITEMS - None XVII. PUBLIC HEARINGS 119. Ordinance Nos. 2021-1 and 2021-2: Land Use Entitlement Applications for the Residences at 4400 Von Karman Project (PA2020-061) (C-7904-2) [381100-2021] Council Member O'Neill recused himself due to his membership at the Pacific Club located at 4110 MacArthur Boulevard. Council Member Brenner disclosed ex parte communications with The Picerne Group (TPG), 444 Stop Polluting Our Newport (SPON) representatives, Derek Ostenstein, Melanie Schlotterbeck, and Adriana and Fred Fourcher. Council Member Dixon disclosed ex -parte communications with the applicant, nearby business owners, TPG, Derek Ostens"n, Dwight Belden, and the Fourchers. Council Member Blom disclosed ex -parte communications with TPG and Olen Properties. Volume 64 - Page 614 City of Newport Beach Study Session and Regular Meeting January 26, 2021 Council Member Duffield disclosed ex -parte communications with TPG and a property owner at Mr. Belden's building. Mayor Pro Tem Muldoon disclosed ex -parte communications with the applicant, TPG, and parties objecting to the application, including members of the condominium group. Mayor Avery disclosed ex -parte communications with TPG and SPON. Deputy Community Development Director Campbell utilized a presentation to discuss the airport area, the 2006 General Plan, responses to comments, minor changes to the project such as the separation between buildings and the location of the freestanding parking structure, and the memorandum from Kimley Horn, the City's environmental consultant. In response to Council Member Dixon's questions, Deputy Community Development Director Campbell reported that the parking structure changed from four stories to five stories, its footprint is smaller but taller, the changes do not affect the outcome &the environmental analysis, the changes resulted from negotiations with business owners in t ea, the Planning Commission reviewed the materials for the project, and noted that the park tly wider. Mayor Avery opened the public hearing. Greg Nakahira, on behalf of the applicant, thanked staff, the Planning Commission, the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission (PB&R), Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC), Koll Company, and community groups, and utilized a presentation to introduce TPG. Ken Picerne used a presentation to proviexelfve summary, the project history, how the Integrated Conceptual Development Pla* CDPp granted the ability to develop residences, compliance with the Koll Center Cants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs), Planning Commission approved design, commum y outreach, a statement from SPON, Koll Center building owner outreach, response to community input, the prior request versus the height of the current project, height comparisons, ark design comparison, typical building separations, proposed building separations, the off rking replacement plan, the freestanding garage setback from the closest office buildNDe Tim Stanley, Picent President, reported the purpose of the project is to provide housing through n investment and utilized a presentation to discuss elevations, and the park design, corm Jtivity, and perspective. Tony Petros, LSA President and Chief Operating Officer, utilized a presentation to discuss the office parking replacement plan, the LSA Parking Accumulation Study, conclusion that existing parking is adequate for both office and residential uses, Koll Center's acceptance of the findings and the interim parking plan. He further reiterated replacement of all existing office parking, compliance with parking standards, and shuttle and valet service if needed. Mr. Picerne advised that TPG is pleased to assist the City with implementing its housing plan. Jim Mosher noted the Planning Commission did not hold a study session on the project, the PB&R reviewed the park twice, and noted concerns about the park and parking. Adriana Fourcher, Von Karman building owner and president of the Von Karman owners association, utilized a presentation to discuss the proposed parking garage versus the existing garage, stated that the supplemental memo does not address enhancements and materials, and noted that she would like to work with the applicant regarding landscaping, lighting, and screening for the parking structure. Volume 64 - Page 615 City of Newport Beach Study Session and Regular Meeting January 26, 2021 Julie Ault, Olen Properties, indicated the setback is not large enough and there will be a parking deficit during Phase 2 of construction, requested a minimum 75 -foot setback, and conditions requiring that there be no parking deficiency and the addition of a small retail component. Geoff Willis, representing Olen Properties, believed the project violates General Plan Policy 6.15.6, that the use of an addendum for CEQA is inappropriate, that the study measured Level of Service (LOS) rather than Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT), and that COVID-19 triggers a supplemental Environmental Impact Report (EIR). He requested Council deny the project. Fred Fourcher believed that the project violates CC&Rs, the City is taking away existing private property rights, the project negatively impacts private property owners, the project creates a 265 -stall parking deficiency, the proposed parking garage is too far away from the offices it serves, and asked City to direct Koll to address owners' concerns. Bill Salamandrakis, Affordable Housing Access President, stated the project would create 300 new housing units in Newport Beach, supported the project as a mode for infill development, and hoped to identify subsidy resources for affordable housing. Bradley Lofgren, Principal at Peregrine Realty Partners, indicate fill reuse project is unique and shared his analysis of the development plan and its i act ori j ent office buildings. Mike Alcala related that the project is consistent t� General Plan, fulfills the goals of the ICDP, and provides market -rate and affordable hoear public transportation. Paul Fruchbom, Principal with KDF Communities, behmAd the project will help the City meet its Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHN4) requirement and urged Council to approve the project. Paul supported the project, especiallyarnd noted the importance of housing near work for staff retention. Nicole Criste, representing Olel"F) . r , indicated she submitted written comments previously, the project is not consistent with the-Veneral Plan, and an addendum is not an appropriate document for envir9y cental re jWf this project. Elizabeth Hapsburg, People for ousing OC, supported the project because it brings many amenities to the business park and reuses commercial space. Dwight Belden commended TPG for listening to the owners' concerns, supported TPG's direction and intent with the project, and asked Council to direct the applicant to continue working with neighbors and nearby property owners. Michael Costa, President of Highridge Costa Development Company, commended TPG for addressing almost all of the neighbors' concerns and utilizing a density bonus to provide 13 affordable housing units, and supported approval of the project. Jennifer Hernandez, representing the applicant, advised that the project implements the City's General Plan amendment and the ICDP, objections to the project were not submitted timely, denying the application+A based on neighbors' opinions is unconstitutional, and using an addendum is appropriate. Hearing no further testimony, Mayor Avery closed the public hearing. Deputy Community Development Director Campbell clarified that the park has a 150 -foot dimension along Von Karman and meets the General Plan standard, the General Plan does not mandate retail space for the project, the State Density Bonus Law requires the City to accept density Volume 64 - Page 616 City of Newport Beach Study Session and Regular Meeting January 26, 2021 In response to Council Member O'Neill's question, Assistant Planner Whelan advised that staff has no reason to dispute the findings of the noise study. Assistant Planner Whelan further presented information regarding noise related conditions and additional conditions and recommendation from the Planning Commission. In response to Mayor Avery's question, Assistant Planner Whelan stated the project will not reduce onsite parking, meets the Code requirements for parking, and added that the applicant is working to keep the existing pine trees, but she would confirm that. In response to Council Member Dixon's question, Assistant Planner Whelan indicated the applicant is requesting 15 feet setbacks when the Zoning Code requires 30 feet, and noted that staff is not aware of another intersection with two car washes in Newport Beach. Mayor Avery opened the public hearing. Steve Rosansky, Newport West, presented information regarding the design team and history of the service station, provided site pictures, and discussed property rights, architectural drawings, elevations, car washes, parking spaces, retaining trees, 10 -foot wall and hedge extensions, and hours of operation. He shared a demonstration video and discussed equipment placement, the sound study, ambient noise measurement locations, projectdLcar wash noise levels, Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) noise comp ar sons, and rea to approve the car wash project. He stated that the project complies with the 30 -foot setback J' um Hills Road and Jamboree Road, and the setback is geared toward the main traveh s Mark Coleman opposed the project becau ack reduct on, the car wash provides no measurable benefit for the City, the burden�o nyon residential neighborhood, and Council's goal of maintaining the quality of life. a + Joan Coleman read comments from David Kuhn, Jr. who opposed the project because he believed there is no need for a car wash, and noted that the applicant has previously received three conditional use permits. Gerald Gianninid Council to correct the Planning Commission's recommendation to approve the project, ind cat other projects have been denied because they encroached into the setback, and urged Council to de the application. Joyce Sciarra relate at her home is directly adjacent to the service station, the noise would impact her young son and elderly father, and urged Council not to ruin the neighborhood. Leonard Simon asked Council to deny the application because the noise level of the car wash is not acceptable to adjacent residents and the car wash will not increase sales or employment, and acknowledged petitions from all residents in Canyon Mesa opposing the project. Hearing no further testimony, Mayor Avery closed the public hearing. Council Member O'Neill believed the core issues are density and setback, a car wash will not overburden the site, staffs discussion of the setback is convincing, noise is not a reasonable factor to consider in denying the project given the noise study and the noise ordinance, and the right thing is to support the project, a business, and an additional amenity. Council Member Blom noted public comments regarding a five-year process and the hydrogen plant, which required Federal approval, this is about a business owner and property rights whether he agrees with it or not, he is a Big Canyon resident, noise in Big Canyon is not that loud, the car wash across the street has a competitive advantage, Council cannot play favorites because this location is near homes rather than apartments, this is not about the noise, business owners do not want to go through a five-year process, and Council's job is to consider the law. Volume 64 - Page 619 City of Newport Beach Study Session and Regular Meeting January 26, 2021 In response to Council Member Dixon's questions, Mr. Rosansky related that sound measurements were taken at 2 p.m., a measurement was not taken at closing time, and noise from the car wash is less than 40 decibels. Community Development Director Jurjis indicated neither the General Plan nor the community has referred to a need for more car washes in Newport Beach and that staff has not received any complaints related to the car wash across the street. Council Member Dixon recalled public comment comparing repetitive noise to a vacuum cleaner, and noise is a quality -of - life issue, indicated that the Beacon Bay car wash is not adjacent to residential properties, there are a number of car washes in Newport Beach, a 15 -foot setback is a significant adjustment, the petitions are impressive, and stated that she cannot support the project because of the setback encroachment and the potential noise issues during the evening hours. Council Member Duffield shared his noise observations from trash bins being emptied at the site, noted the other car wash being near commercial activity rather than homes, the doors at the Irvine car wash remaining open regularly, and the noise levels from the Irvine car wash. He questioned what will happen if it is built and is noisier than the study, believed that the residents are already overburdened, and stated that he does not support the project. Council Member Brenner commended Mr. Rosansky's representation of the owner, requested the motion include a condition that the trash cans be moved closer to tl�e street because they are detrimental to the residents' quality of life, expressed concern regarding the potential for sound from the car wash and traffic bouncing off the wall and ii&Lthe residences because of the reduced setback, noted that the car wash should probably be IocJTd elsewhere, advised that the General Plan indicates only a service station on the site, but thg-City has allowed three conditional use permits for two mini -marts and the hydrogen fueling station, which the Chevron does not have. She indicated that she could not see why Council ould allow a car wash across the street from an existing car wash. I Council Member O'Neill reported that bouncing off the wall is discussed on page 12-67 of the agenda packet, expressed concernforWole �iving in the apartments and not wanting them to think Council does not value theire compared to homeowners, advised that the Newport Beach Municipal Code (NB MC exterior noise levels between 7 a.m. and 10 p.m. and between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. AWK study found compliance with the standards, added that the car wash operatW louder than allowed would be a violation of the conditional use permit or the NBMC, so the peAFcould be revoked or a citation issued, and believed that basing the vote on noise is a disservice. Motion by Council Member O'Neill, seconded by Council Member Blom, to a) find this project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15303 under Class 3 (New Construction or Conversion of small structures) of the CEQA guidelines, because it has no potential to have a significant effect on the environment; and b) adopt Resolution No. 2021- 7, AResolution of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach, California, Approving General Plan Amendment No. GP2018-001 and Conditional Use Permit No. UP2016-025 for the Addition of a Car Wash to the Existing Vehicle Service Station Located at 1600 Jamboree Road (PA2016-093). Mayor Avery believed that no one would want a car wash next to their home, this has been a five- year concern, the emotion behind this issue should be considered, and a car wash is normally a benign use, but residents oppose this project. He questioned whether Council should support the residents despite the facts, noted the ambient traffic noise at the intersection, and stated that Council also represents businesses, however he empathized with the residents. Council Member O'Neill stated it is Council's job to never throw the NBMC out but to ensure the law does not change from item to item, and urged Council Members to consider the principale of legitimacy that comes with *44P e R4R44n Council following the law. With Mayor Avery, Mayor Pro Tem Muldoon, and Council Members Brenner, Dixon and Duffield voting "no," the motion failed 5-2. Volume 64 - Page 620 City of Newport Beach Study Session and Regular Meeting January 26, 2021 XVIII. City Attorney Harp advised that staff can bring back a resolution of denial at the next meeting. Motion by Council Member Dixon, seconded by Council Member Brenner, to bring back a Resolution of Denial at the February 9, 2021 City Council meeting. With Council Member O'Neill voting "no," the motion carried 6-1. 13. Residential Solid Waste and Recycling Franchise Update to Comply with State Organics Recycling Mandates - Request for Council Action on Franchise Extension Options (C-5649 and C-3942) [38/100-2021] Public Works Director Webb summarized the cost and changes to residential services in order to comply with State mandates. Council Member Dixon noted residents will begin sorting wastAo three carts, the proposed rate is comparable to rates charged in other cities, and residents and the General Fund will bear the increased expense. In response to Council Member Dixon's question, Deluty Public Works Director Martin utilized a presentation to demonstrate comparable rates, contract costs, recycling fees, the three -cart option, and proposed collection/processioig modifications. Public Works Director Webb added that most of the other cities have been using three carts for many years, the City has to buy carts and equipment, and the negotiations resulted in an acceptable deal for the City. He added that the cost to the General Fund will increase by several million dollars a year and, of the two options, staff recommends Option 1. City Manager Leung reported the annual increase to the General Fund will be $2.8 million, and an adjustment of the recycling fee would cover only $1.4 million of the $2.8 million. Motion by Council Member Dixon, 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) direct staff to proceed with preparation of an amended Residential Solid Waste Franchise contract with CR&R to replace their two existing Residential Solid Waste Collection & Recycling Contracts (C-5649 & C-3942), beginning on October 1, 2021 at an initial monthly rate of $24.08 per residential household, with an annual 2% CPI adjustment, and a contract term of 8 -years with one 2 -year extension option. In response to Counc7dember Brenner's question, Public Works Director Webb clarified that this item pertains to the contract with CR&R. Council Member Brenner described the challenges for the working group to understand the requirements and contract, the amount of work handled by working groups and Council committees, and commended staff and the consultants. She requested the working group review a constituent's letter regarding Amazon developing a trial program to recycle its boxes and packing materials. In response to Mayor Pro Tem Muldoon's question, Public Works Director Webb indicated this item will not directly increase residents' rates and stated that the General Fund will pay the difference. In response to Mayor Avery's question, Deputy Public Works Director Martin indicated no other Orange County city pays refuse costs directly. Mayor Avery believed this will encourage people to produce less trash and sort their waste. Jim Mosher discussed the appointment of the working group, the public's understanding of the contract, the lack of CR&R's proposal, a reduction in service for a higher cost, and ,"jam reconciling the proposal with the r�'�Municipal Code. The motion carried unanimously Volume 64 - Page 621 City of Newport Beach Study Session and Regular Meeting January 26, 2021 14. Approval of 2020 Residential Recycling Fee Study and Setting of Public Hearing for Residential Recycling Service Fee Rates [100-2021] Public Works Director Webb reviewed the annexation of Newport Coast, CR&R's successful bid to haul waste in Newport Coast in 2007, the fee study, adjustments to the recycling fees for the City and Newport Coast, notice requirements under Proposition 218, the $1.3 million increase in the fee to $2.3 million, and the fee increase covering 30% of the City's refuse cost. Motion by Council Member Blom, seconded by Council Member Dixon, 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 the 2020 Residential Recycling Fee Study; c) direct staff to send a notice of proposed Recycling Service Fee rates and public hearing date for consideration to all effected residential property owners in compliance with Proposition 218 State Law; and d) set the date of March 23, 2021 for the tabulation of protests votes and conduct a public hearing of proposed Recycling Service Fee rates pendinge result of the protest vote. Jim Mosher believed the study is not an actual fee study and shared his research into the history of trash collection fees in t4e 4-y's (44&+:te:Newport Beach. Mayor Pro Tem Muldoon clarified that this item and he pr are related but not dependent on each other. In response to Council Member Brenner's question ity Attorney Harp advised that he believes the ordinance adopted by the voters does not cover �a ecycling fee and increasing the recycling fee is appropriate. In response to Council Member Dixon's question, Public Works Director Webb indicated that Council denial of the rate increase will reduce the amount of funding to offset the CR&R contract in the previous item, and the General Fund will end up paying the full $2.8 million. With Mayor Pro Tem Muldoon voting "no," the motion carried 6-1. 15. Resolution No. -8: Amended and Restated Employment Agreements for City Manager, City At ney and City Clerk [38/100-2021] City Manager Leu City Attorney Harp, and City Clerk Brown recused themselves due to financial interest flicts. Council Member O'Neill reported the terms of the employment agreements are clear, and City Manager Leung, City Attorney Harp, and City Clerk Brown have agreed to the terms. In response to Jim Mosher's question, Human Resources Director Salvini clarified that the contribution is 1% of City Clerk Brown's base salary paid biweekly. Motion by Council Member Dixon. seconded by Mavor Avery, 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) adopt Resolution No. 2021-8, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach, California, Modifying the Salary Ranges for the City Manager, City Attorney and City Clerk; c) approve and authorize the Mayor to execute a Second Amended and Restated Employment Agreement between the City of Newport Beach and City Manager Grace K. Leung, subject to the terms and conditions approved by the City Council (C-8568-3); d) approve and authorize the Mayor to execute a Sixth Amended and Restated Employment Agreement between the City of Newport Beach and City Attorney Aaron Harp, subject to the terms and conditions approved by the City Council (C-7034-4); e) approve and authorize the Mayor to execute a Sixth Amended and Restated Employment Agreement between the City of Newport Beach and City Clerk Volume 64 - Page 622