Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/27/2021 - Study Session / Regular MeetingCITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 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 Closed 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 County 2nd District Supervisor Foley, commented regarding the vaccination rate of those living in zip code 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 Town Hall on July 15, 2021. He invited communications with him at avery.counts@ocgov.com or 714-559-8364. Mayor Pro Tem Muldoon announced that he will recuse himself on Closed Session Item IILA due to potential business interest conflicts City Attorney Harp announced that Council Member Blom will recuse himself on Closed Session Item III.A 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. Volume 65 - Page 99 City of Newport Beach City Council Meeting July 27, 2021 B. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS (Government Code § 54957.6): 1 matter 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 announced that opponents to Assessment District No. 124 presented an ex parte application to the court seeking to restrain the City of Newport Beach from holding the public hearing; however, the court ruled in favor of the City and noted that, based on the evidence, the City was likely to prevail on the merits. 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)[100-20211 Mayor Pro Tem Muldoon recused himself due to potential business interest conflicts Council Member Blom recused 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 Moloney, Balboa Island Preservation Association Chair, appreciated staff trying to reduce costs by taking the project back from SCE, advised that his cost for 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 not submit a ballot when sealed ballots were supposed to be opened during the hearing, and expressed his disdain that 306 property owners could decide whether almost 1,000 property owners are responsible for the assessment. City Attorney Harp related that the ballot envelopes were numbered and staff can determine who voted based on the number on the envelope. Jim Mosher discussed the general and special benefits 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 attention. An unidentified speaker questioned the need to change Balboa Island, indicated a lot of people love Balboa Island's sweet lifestyle, and expressed the concern that there is no money for this. Patti Janssen stated her main concern and priority is safety because homes are 6-feet apart, undergrounding has proven to be the 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 safer community. 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 Council 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 Engineer's Report, Levying Assessments without Modification, Approving and Ordering the Work and Improvements for the 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 from 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 No. 67502-941027 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 Administration, 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-8627-2), for necessary_ Assessment Engineering services not -to -exceed an additional $112,800 fee. With Mayor Pro Tern Muldoon and Council Member Blom recusing themselves and Council Member Duffield absent (left the meeting after recusing himself from Item No. 12), the motion carried 4-0. XI. STUDY SESSION - 6:00 p.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: Supporting Local Schools as they Return to Normal and Parental Choice in Deciding Whether Children Should be Masked or Vaccinated at School) Mayor Pro Tem Muldoon: • Highlighted Council Member Duffield's participation in Transpac 2021 Mayor Avery: • Attended a meeting of the Ad Hoc Committee on Homelessness, the Be Kind luncheon, a Corona del Mar Library Foundation event, the Corona del Mar Residents Association (CdMRA) Board meeting, the Mayor's Reception, the Orange County Fair 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 clarified that Item 9 (Approval of an Exclusive Negotiating Agreement with Lido House Hotel, LLC for the Lease of Property at 475 32nd Street (PA21-00712)) is not a final agreement. Regarding Item 9, Jim Mosher 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 [100-20211 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 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) [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) Adopt Resolution No. 2021-66, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach, California, Approving Cooperative Agreement C-1-3246 Between the Orange County Transportation Authority and the City of Newport Beach 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 the 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) [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; 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 Allocation Program; 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. 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- 20211 Continue to the August 24, 2021 City Council meeting. Volume 65 - Page 104 City of Newport Beach City Council Meeting July 27, 2021 CONTRACTS AND AGREEMENTS Corporation Yard Re -Roofing Project - Notice of Completion for Contract No. 7880-1 (21F02) [381100-20211 a) Accept the completed work and authorize the City Clerk to file a Notice of Completion for the project; b) Authorize the City Clerk to release the Labor and Materials Bond 65 days after 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) [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) 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) [381100-20211 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 California Code of Regulations Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3 ("CEQA Guidelines"); and b) Approve an Exclusive Negotiating Agreement with Lido House Hotel, LLC. Council Member Blom recused himself on Item 9 due to real property interest conflicts. MISCELLANEOUS 10. Planning Commission Agenda for the July 22, 2021 Meeting [100-20211 Receive and file. 11. FY 2020-21 Donations Report for the Quarter Ending June 30, 2021, and Annual District Discretionary Grant Report [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) 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 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. Volume 65 - Page 105 City of Newport Beach City Council Meeting July 27, 2021 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 Planning Commission's Approval of a Mixed - Use Project at 2510 West Coast Highway (PA2019-249) [100-20211 Council Member Duffield recused himself due to business interest conflicts. Council Member Blom recused himself due to real property interest conflicts. Community Development Director Jurjis related that 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 Community Development Director Campbell utilized a presentation to review changes to the project, the mixed -use project, site plan, perspective renderings, materials and colors, parking, elevations, density bonus, tentative parcel map, visual simulations, traffic, the Housing Accountability Act (HAA), California Coastal Commission appeal jurisdiction, California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review, recommended actions, and revised conditions of approval. In response to Council Member O'Neill's questions, City Attorney Harp advised that the letter from the Coalition to Protect Mariners' Mile does not affect staffs recommendations and reflects some confusion regarding Density Bonus Law and HAA requirements. He clarified that the Density Bonus Law allows concessions for 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. 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. Volume 65 - Page 106 City of Newport Beach City Council Meeting July 27, 2021 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 precedent, 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 of the public and delay consideration of the project until the General Plan Update is complete or until the Coastal Commission can address the coastal issues. Charles Klobe stated the applicant's letter has not been posted on the City website, and in his opinion, Council has sufficient information to make a decision on the project. 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 explanation of the height waiver. Sandra Ayres related that residents support responsible revitalization of Mariners' Mile and provided information for why Council 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 opinion 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 over property lines, for at least ten years, buildings have not been constructed over 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 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. Volume 65 - Page 107 City of Newport Beach City Council Meeting July 27, 2021 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 committee 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 with the applicant holding only one community meeting, and indicated that the State has tied Council's hands as to what it can and cannot approve. She emphasized that Mariners' Mile and the industrial area of Newport Heights need immediate attention in terms of land use planning. Council Member O'Neill reviewed the HAA's requirements for denial and noted that Council's efforts to push back on the City's RHNA allocation have not worked, 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 the HAA. In response to Mayor Pro Tem Muldoon'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 HAA, a Council decision to deny a project or reduce the density of a project shifts the burden of proof to the City, and the project seems to comply with the objective criteria. In response to Mayor Avery's question, City Attorney Harp advised that compliance with the Coastal Act is separate from compliance with the 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 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 Volume 65 - Page 108 City of Newport Beach City Council Meeting July 27, 2021 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 standards for views. Motion by Council Member O'Neill seconded by Mayor Pro 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; and b) adopt Resolution No. 2021-70, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach, California, 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. AH2O21-001 for a Mixed -Use Project Located at 2510 and 2530 West Coast Highway (PA2019- 249), including the amended Conditions. Mayor Avery expressed concern that widening Avon Street could increase vehicle speeds, noted slowing traffic is better because many people cross at Tustin Avenue, discussed how businesses in Mariners' Mile have changed over time, pointed out that Pacific Coast Highway is not pedestrian - friendly, the scale of future development is both exciting and daunting, the 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. 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 Br ve y [ayor Volume 65 - Page 109