Newport Beach City Council
January 14, 2025

JOE STAPLETON, Mayor
LAUREN KLEIMAN, Mayor Pro Tem
MICHELLE BARTO, Councilmember
ROBYN GRANT, Councilmember
NOAH BLOM, Councilmember
SARA J. WEBER, Councilmember
ERIK WEIGAND, Councilmember
GRACE LEUNG, City Manager
AARON C. HARP, City Attorney
LEILANI BROWN , City Clerk

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
COUNCIL CHAMBERS - 100 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 CLOSED SESSION - 4:00 P.M.

REGULAR MEETING - 5:30 P.M.

JANUARY 14, 2025

NOTICE REGARDING PRESENTATIONS REQUIRING USE OF CITY EQUIPMENT Any presentation requiring the use of the City of Newport Beach ’s equipment must be submitted to the City Clerk 24 hours prior to the scheduled City Council meeting.

LEVINE ACT
Under the Levine Act, Section 84308 of the Government Code, a party to a proceeding before the City involving a contract (other than competitively bid, labor, or personal employment contracts ), franchise, license, permit, or other entitlement for use, is required to disclose on the record of the proceeding any contribution in an amount of more than five hundred dollars ($500) made within the preceding 12 months by the party or the party ’s agent to any elected or appointed officer of the City. If you have made a qualifying contribution, please ensure to make this disclosure on the record.

PUBLIC HEARINGS
If in the future, you wish to challenge in court any of the matters on this agenda for which a public hearing is to be conducted, you may be limited to raising only those issues which you (or someone else) raised orally at the public hearing or in written correspondence received by the City at or before the hearing.

NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC
Any times listed in this agenda are provided as a courtesy and the actual item may be heard before or after the time given.

This agenda was prepared by the City Clerk. Copies of the staff reports and supporting materials are on file with the City Clerk and are available for public inspection and copying at the City Clerk ’s Office or online at newportbeachca.gov/agendas. For questions or to request copies of any staff reports or other documentation related to items on this agenda, please contact the City Clerk’s Office at 949-644-3005.

The City of Newport Beach ’s goal is to fully comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). If you require special assistance to participate in this meeting, we will attempt to accommodate you in every reasonable manner .

Please contact City Clerk staff prior to the meeting at 949-644-3005 or cityclerk@newportbeachca .gov so that reasonable accommodations can be made. 1
January 14, 2025

City Council Meeting
I. ROLL CALL - 4:00 p.m.

II. PUBLIC COMMENTS
The City Council of Newport Beach welcomes and encourages community participation .

Public comments are invited on items listed on the agenda and non -agenda items .

Speakers must limit comments to three minutes per person to allow everyone to speak .

Written comments are encouraged as well. The City Council has the discretion to extend or shorten the time limit on agenda or non-agenda items.

III. CLOSED SESSION - Council Chambers Conference Room

CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS
(Government Code § 54957.6): 1 matter
A.

Agency Designated Representatives: Grace K. Leung, City Manager, Barbara Salvini, Human Resources Director, and Jonathan Holtzman, Esq., Negotiators.

Employee Organizations: Association of Newport Beach Ocean Lifeguards (ANBOL); Newport Beach City Employees Association (NBCEA); Newport Beach Employees League (NBEL); Newport Beach Firefighters Association (NBFA); Newport Beach Fire Management Association (NBFMA); Newport Beach Lifeguard Management Association (NBLMA); Newport Beach Police Association (NBPA); Newport Beach Police Management Association (NBPMA); Newport Beach Professional and Technical Employees Association (NBPTEA); and Part Time Employees Association of Newport Beach (PTEANB).

CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS
(Government Code § 54956.8): 1 matter
B.

Property: A portion of the public right -of-way adjacent to 929 Zurich Circle (423-282-04) and 944 Via Lido Nord (423-281-10) (approximately 1,105 square feet).

City Negotiators: Seimone Jurjis, Assistant City Manager, and Lauren Whitlinger, Real Property Administrator.

Negotiating Parties : Palmer Luckey on behalf of the 929 Zurich Circle Trust and the 944 Via Lido Nord Trust.

Under Negotiation: Instruction to City Negotiators regarding price and terms of payment.
2 January 14, 2025

City Council Meeting

CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION
(Government Code § 54956.9(d)(1)): 2 matters
C.

John Doe S.C. v. City of Newport Beach et al.

Orange County Superior Court Case No. 30-2022-01299631-CU-PP-CJC Barbara Salvini v. City of Newport Beach
Orange County Superior Court Case No. 30-2024-01442980-CU-OE-CJC IV. RECESS
V. RECONVENE AT 5:30 P.M. FOR REGULAR MEETING
VI. ROLL CALL
VII. CLOSED SESSION REPORT
VIII. INVOCATION - Pastor Phil Eyskens, Lighthouse of Costa Mesa Church of the Nazarene
IX. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Webelos Pack 108
X. PRESENTATION
History of Lower Castaways by Bill Lobdell·
Correspondence
XI. NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC
The City Council of Newport Beach welcomes and encourages community participation .

Public comments are generally limited to three minutes per person to allow everyone to speak. Written comments are encouraged as well. The City Council has the discretion to extend or shorten the time limit on agenda or non-agenda items.

XII. CITY COUNCIL ANNOUNCEMENTS AND ORAL REPORTS FROM CITY COUNCIL

ON COMMITTEE ACTIVITIES
XIII. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON CONSENT CALENDAR
This is the time in which Councilmembers may pull items from the CONSENT CALENDAR for discussion (ITEMS 1 - 18). Public comments are also invited on Consent Calendar items. Speakers must limit comments to three minutes. Before speaking, please state your name for the record. If any item is removed from the Consent Calendar by a Councilmember, members of the public are invited to speak on each item for up to three minutes per item.

All matters listed under CONSENT CALENDAR are considered to be routine and will all be enacted by one motion in the form listed below. Councilmembers have received detailed staff reports on each of the items recommending an action. There will be no separate discussion of these items prior to the time the City Council votes on the motion unless members of the City Council request specific items to be discussed and /or removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action.
3 January 14, 2025

City Council Meeting
XIV. CONSENT CALENDAR

READING OF MINUTES AND ORDINANCES
Minutes for the December 10, 2024 City Council Meeting1.

Waive reading of subject minutes, approve as written, and order filed.

Minutes
Written Comments
Reading of Ordinances2.

Waive reading in full of all ordinances under consideration, and direct the City Clerk to read by title only.

RESOLUTIONS FOR ADOPTION
Resolution No. 2025-1: Updating the List of Designated Employees for 2024 Under the City’s Conflict of Interest Code

3. 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. 2025-1, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach, California, Updating the Appendix of Designated Employees and Appendix of Disclosure Categories of the City of Newport Beach Conflict of Interest Code.

Staff Report
Attachment A - Resolution No. 2025-1
Attachment B - Exhibit 1 (redline)
4 January 14, 2025

City Council Meeting
Resolution Nos. 2025-2 and 2025-3: Amending the General Plan Advisory Committee and the General Plan Update Steering Committee

4. 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. 2025-2, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach, California, Amending the General Plan Advisory Committee to Update the Membership and Provide for Annual Appointment of Members at the First City Council Meeting Held in February; and
c) Adopt Resolution No. 2025-3, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach, California, Amending the General Plan Update Steering Committee’s Term of Membership, Responsibilities and Provide for the Annual Appointment of Members at the First City Council Meeting Held in February.

Staff Report
Attachment A - Resolution No. 2025-2
Attachment B - Resolution No. 2025-3
Written Comments
Resolution No. 2025-4: Approving an Amendment to the Key and Management Compensation Plan

5. 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. 2025-4; A Resolution of the City of Newport Beach, California, Approving an Amendment to the Key and Management Compensation Plan.

Staff Report
Attachment A - Resolution No. 2025-4
Written Comments
5 January 14, 2025

City Council Meeting
Resolution No. 2025-5: Creating the Ad Hoc Council Policy Review Committee

6. 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. 2025-5; A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach, California, Creating an Ad Hoc Committee to Review the City Council Policies and Make Recommendations to the City Council Regarding Revisions Thereto; and
c) Appoint Mayor Joe Stapleton, Mayor Pro Tem Lauren Kleiman and Councilmember Sara J. Weber to serve on the Ad Hoc Council Policy Review Committee.

Staff Report
Attachment A - Resolution No. 2025-5
Written Comments

CONTRACTS AND AGREEMENTS
Hillsborough Pump Station Rehabilitation - Notice of Completion for Contract No. 8758-2 (23W12)

7. a) Accept the completed work and authorize the City Clerk to file a Notice of Completion for the project.

Staff Report
Attachment A - Location Map
Storm Drain System Upgrades - Notice of Completion for Contract No . 9148-1 (23D02)

8. a) Accept the completed work and authorize the City Clerk to file a Notice of Completion for the project.

Staff Report
Attachment A - Location Map
6 January 14, 2025

City Council Meeting
2023-2024 Facilities Painting Project - Notice of Completion for Contract No . 9393-1 (24F02)

9. a) Accept the completed work and authorize the City Clerk to file a Notice of Completion for the project.

Staff Report
Attachment A - Location Map
38th Street and Lake Avenue Landscape Improvement Project - Notice of Completion for Contract No. 9008-1 (24L01)

10. a) Accept the completed work and authorize the City Clerk to file a Notice of Completion for the project.

Staff Report
Attachment A - Location Map
Police Department Parking Lot Maintenance - Award of Contract No. 7901-1 (25F02)

11. a) Find this project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15301 (Existing Facilities) of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, because this project has no potential to have a significant effect on the environment;
b) Approve the project plans and specifications;
c) Award Contract No. 7901-1 to Elegant Construction Inc ., for the total bid price of $585,000 for the Police Department Parking Lot Maintenance, and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the contract; and
d) Establish a contingency of $88,000 (approximately 15% of total bid) to cover the cost of unforeseen work not included in the original contract.

Staff Report
Attachment A - Location Map
7 January 14, 2025

City Council Meeting
Approval of Maintenance and Repair Services Agreements with EverFence Corporation and Red Hawk Services, Inc. for On-Call Fencing

12. 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 a Maintenance and Repair Services Agreement with EverFence Corporation for a five -year term and total not -to-exceed amount of $300,000, and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the agreement; and c) Approve a Maintenance and Repair Services Agreement with Red Hawk Services, Inc. for a five -year term and total not -to-exceed amount of $300,000, and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the agreement.

Staff Report
Attachment A - Everfence Corporation Agreement
Attachment B - Red Hawk Services, Inc. Agreement
Amendment No. Two to Professional Services Agreements for The Code Group dba VCA Code for Building Safety Related Services

13. 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 and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute Amendment No. Two to Professional Services Agreement with The Code Group, for Staff Augmentation and Plan Review Services to increase the contract amount by $250,000, not-to-exceed an amount of $1,270,000.

Staff Report
Attachment A – Amendment No. Two to Professional Services Agreement Attachment B – Amendment No. One to Professional Services Agreement Attachment C - The Code Group dba VCA Code Agreement
8 January 14, 2025

City Council Meeting
Memorandum of Agreement with the City of Long Beach Acting By and Through the Port of Long Beach Board of Harbor Commissioners Authorizing Disposal of Lower Bay Dredged Material Into the Port ’s Pier G Slip Fill Project

14. a) Find that, pursuant to Section 21166 of the California Public Resources Code and Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines, the certified Environmental Impact Report for the Piers G and J Terminal Redevelopment (SCH No. 2000-021021) addressed all environmental impacts associated with the City of Newport Beach entering into this Memorandum of Agreement, that there are no new or more severe impacts beyond those analyzed in that document, and, as a result, no further environmental review is required by CEQA;
b) Approve and execute the Memorandum of Agreement with the City of Long Beach acting by and through the Port of Long Beach Board of Harbor Commissioners authorizing disposal of Lower Bay dredged material into the Port ’s Pier G Slip Fill Project; and
c) Authorize the City Manager or her designee to execute any future amendments or agreements with the City of Long Beach acting by and through the Port of Long Beach Board of Harbor Commissioners as related to the disposal of Lower Bay dredged material to ensure the City of Newport Beach meets the strict delivery schedule imposed by the Port.

Staff Report
Attachment A - Memorandum of Agreement
Attachment B - Environmental Impact Report
On the Agenda
Correspondence
Written Comments

MISCELLANEOUS
Planning Commission Agenda for the January 9, 2025 Meeting15.

Receive and file.

Planning Commission Action Report
Planning Commission Agenda
Written Comments
9 January 14, 2025

City Council Meeting
Confirmation of Nominations to Fill an Unscheduled Vacancy on the Parks, Beaches & Recreation Commission

16. 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; and
b) Confirm the nominations of Kelly Denner and Travis Pirdy to fill the vacancy on the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission.

Staff Report
Attachment A - Applications
Written Comments
Confirmation of Mayor Joe Stapleton's Appointments17.
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) Confirm Mayor Joe Stapleton ’s appointments under City Council Policy A -2, as provided in the staff report.

Staff Report
On the Agenda
Written Comments
Ground Emergency Medical Transport Intergovernmental Transfer Voluntary Participation for Calendar Year 2025

18. 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 the City of Newport Beach ’s voluntary participation in the Public Provider GEMT Intergovernmental Transfer program per AB 1705 for Calendar Year 2025, and authorize the City Manager to execute the Public Provider Intergovernmental Transfer Program for Ground Emergency Medical Transportation Services Certification Forms and pay all necessary invoices.

Staff Report
Attachment A - Certification for CY 2025 Program
Attachment B - Public Notice
On the Agenda
ACTION: MOVE AFFIRMATIVE ACTION OF THE CONSENT CALENDAR, EXCEPT FOR

THOSE ITEMS REMOVED
10 January 14, 2025

City Council Meeting
XV. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR
XVI. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
Public comments are invited on non -agenda items generally considered to be within the subject matter jurisdiction of the City Council. Speakers must limit comments to three minutes. Before speaking, please state your name for the record.

XVII. MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
A motion to reconsider the vote on any action taken by the City Council at either this meeting or the previous meeting may be made only by one of the Councilmembers who voted with the prevailing side.

XVIII. ADJOURNMENT
Testimony given before the City Council is recorded.

The timer light will turn yellow when the speaker has one minute remaining.

The timer light will turn red when the speaker has 10 seconds remaining.

PLEASE TURN CELL PHONES OFF OR SET IN SILENT MODE.
11 From: Garrett, Errica
To: City Clerk"s Office
Subject: FW: Swimming pool Dover/PCH
Date: January 10, 2025 4:25:40 PM
Errica Garrett
Administrative Assistant to the Mayor and City Council
City Manager’s Office
Office: 949-644-3004
100 Civic Center Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92660
-----Original Message-----
From: diane saunders <[email protected]>
Sent: January 10, 2025 4:24 PM
To: Dept - City Council <[email protected]> Subject: Swimming pool Dover/PCH
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button above.

Please be advised that I, as a resident of Newport Beach, vehemently oppose the addition of a swimming pool at that very busy intersection. We already have traffic gridlock often, why would we want to add more congestion? If you feel compelled to add a swimming pool, look to the area near Bristol and the golf course ; not to the beach areas.

This is a stupid idea that should be tabled.

Thank you for your consideration.

Diane Saunders
818 6406433
Received after Agenda Printed
January 14, 2025
Presentation
12 From: Garrett, Errica
To: City Clerk"s Office
Subject: FW: Opposition of proposed Public Pool on Dover/PCH, Newport Beach Date: January 13, 2025 7:49:26 AM
Attachments: image001.png
image002.png
image003.png
image004.png
Errica Garrett
Administrative Assistant to
the Mayor and City Council
City Manager’s Office
Office: 949-644-3004
100 Civic Center Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92660
From:

Linda Laurance <[email protected]>
Sent: January 11, 2025 9:55 AM
To: Dept - City Council <[email protected]> Subject: Opposition of proposed Public Pool on Dover/PCH, Newport Beach [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button above.

Dear Members of the City Council,
I am writing on behalf of myself and many
concerned residents to express strong opposition
to the proposed public pool in [specific area].

While the intention to enhance community
amenities is appreciated, this project would
significantly disrupt our neighborhood and create
13 several problems that far outweigh any potential
benefits.

The area being considered for this project is
already heavily trafficked, with congested streets
and limited parking. Adding a public pool would
exacerbate these issues, leading to increased
traffic congestion, noise, and safety concerns for
pedestrians and residents. The chaos that would
result from an influx of visitors to the area,
particularly during peak seasons, would greatly
diminish the quality of life for those who live
here.

Additionally, the neighborhood lacks the
infrastructure to support such a facility. Increased
traffic and parking demands would likely spill
over into residential areas, creating frustration and
conflicts. This is particularly concerning given the
presence of families with young children and
elderly residents, whose safety and well-being
must be prioritized.

It is clear that the majority of residents in this area are strongly against this proposal. Instead of
pursuing this ill-advised plan, we urge the council
14 to consider alternative locations that are better
suited to handle the increased activity a public
pool would bring. A more appropriate site with
adequate infrastructure would allow the
community to enjoy the benefits of such a facility
without imposing undue burdens on any one
neighborhood.

We respectfully request that the council
reconsider this proposal and take into account the
voices of the residents who will be most directly
affected. A decision to proceed with this project in
its current location would be a serious mistake,
with lasting negative impacts on our community.

Thank you for considering our concerns. We look
forward to your thoughtful response

Linda Laurance
3004 Cliff Dr
Newport Beach 92663

15 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

City Council Minutes
Regular Meeting
December 10, 2024

Volume 66 - Page 217
I. ROLL CALL – 5:30 p.m.

Present: Mayor Will O’Neill, Mayor Pro Tem Joe Stapleton, Councilmember Brad Avery, Councilmember Noah Blom, Councilmember Robyn Grant, Councilmember Lauren Kleiman, Councilmember Erik Weigand

II. INVOCATION – Mayor O’Neill

III. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE – Councilmember Avery

IV. PUBLIC COMMENTS

Miles Patricola voiced frustration with post s about him on social media during the election and asked for political rhetoric to be toned down.

Adam Leverenz suggested that the Council consider greater flexibility regarding occupancy limits in relation to Item 10 ( Affordable Housing Loan Agreement to American Family Housing for the Travelodge North Homekey Project at 1400 Bristol Street, Costa Mesa).

V. CITY COUNCIL ANNOUNCEMENTS AND ORAL REPORTS FROM CITY COUNCIL ON

COMMITTEE ACTIVITIES

Councilmember Grant:
 Recognized the Newport Beach Police Department (NBPD) for solving both a long-standing cold case and a more recent significant crime
• Thanked the community, local Chambers of Commerce, and local businesses for their participation in upcoming holiday events

Mayor Pro Tem Stapleton:
 Wished Fire Chief Boyles a happy birthday
• Attended the Restoration Hardware Grand Opening Party, Corona del Mar (CdM) Christmas Walk, and Boat Parade

VI. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON CONSENT CALENDAR

Jim Mosher recommended not changing the term of Finance Committee members in Item 5 (Amending the Term for Finance Committee Members ) and suggested establishing a written commitment for landscaping upkeep on the private property noted in Items 7 (Approval of Reimbursement Agreement with Cameo Community Association for East Coast Highway Beautification) and 8 (East Coast Highway Beautification – Shore Cliffs Landscaping).

VII. CONSENT CALENDAR

READING OF MINUTES AND ORDINANCES

1. Minutes for the November 12, 2024 and November 19, 2024 City Council Meetings 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.

Draft
January 14, 2025
Agenda Item No. 1
16 City of Newport Beach
City Council Meeting
December 10, 2024

Volume 65 - Page 218

ORDINANCES FOR ADOPTION

3. Ordinance No. 2024 -29: Amending Title 21 ( Local Coastal Implementation Plan ) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code Related to the Lido House Hotel Site (PA2020 -068) a) Find this action is consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Pursuant to Section 15062 of the CEQA Guidelines, the changes authorized under the project are not substantial, as they do not involve new significant effects or a subs tantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects, and therefore, a subsequent Environmental Impact Report (EIR) does not need to be prepared; and
b) Conduct second reading and adopt Ordinance No. 2024 -29, An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach, California, Adopting a Local Coastal Program Amendment to Change the Development Limit Specified for the Lido House Hotel Located at 3300 Newport Boulevard and 475 32nd Street (PA2020-068).

Councilmember Blom recused himself from Item 3 due to real property interest conflicts.

4. Ordinance Nos. 2024 -30 to 2024 -32: Establishing a Development Impact Fee Program (PA2021-127)
a) Determine the adoption of these ordinances is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Sections 15060(c)(2), 15060(c)(3), 15273, and 15378(b)(4) of the CEQA Guidelines because this action will not result in a physical c hange to the environment, directly or indirectly;
b) Conduct second reading and adopt Ordinance No. 2024 -30, An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach, California, Repealing and Replacing Chapter 14.33 (Water and Sewer Capital Improvement Fee) to the Newport Beach Municipal Code Authorizing Collection of Development Impact Fees for Water and Sewer Service Facilities, including the amended exhibit; c) Conduct second reading and adopt Ordinance No. 2024 -31, An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach, California, Adding Chapter 15.43 (Recreation Facilities Improvement Fee) to the Newport Beach Municipal Code Authorizing Collection of Development Impact Fees for Recreation Facilities; and
d) Conduct second reading and adopt Ordinance No. 2024 -32, An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach, California, Adding Chapter 15.44 (Public Safety Development Impact Fee) to the Newport Beach Municipal Code Authorizing Collection of Development Impact Fees for Police and Fire Service Facilities.

RESOLUTION FOR ADOPTION

5. Resolution No. 2024-91: Amending the Term for Finance Committee Members to Provide that any Seat on the Finance Committee Held by a Councilmember or the Councilmember’s Citizen Appointee is Automatically Vacated Once the Councilmember is No Longer a Member of the City Council
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. 2024 -91, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach, California, Amending the Term for Finance Committee Members to Provide that any Seat on the Finance Committee Held by a Councilmember or the Councilmember’s Citizen Appointee is Automatically Vacated Once the Councilmember is No Longer a Member of the City Council.

CONTRACTS AND AGREEMENTS

6. Newport Coast Pickleball Courts (Project No. 22P13) – Notice of Completion for Contract No. 9018-2
a) Accept the completed work and authorize the City Clerk to file a Notice of Completion for the project.

Draft
17 City of Newport Beach
City Council Meeting
December 10, 2024

Volume 65 - Page 219

7. Approval of Reimbursement Agreement with Cameo Community Association for East Coast Highway Beautification (C-9804-1)
a) Find this project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15301 (h) (rehabilitation of existing landscape) of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, because this project has no p otential to have a significant effect on the environment; and
b) Approve a Reimbursement Agreement with the Cameo Community Association for Irrigation and Landscape Improvements in the City of Newport Beach and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the agreement.

Councilmember Kleiman recused herself from Item 7 due to potential financial benefit conflicts.

8. East Coast Highway Beautification – Shore Cliffs Landscaping (C-9805-1) a) Find this project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15301 (h) (rehabilitation of existing landscape) of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, because this project has no p otential to have a significant effect on the environment; and
b) Authorize the expense for landscape and irrigation improvements of up to $125,000 within the public right -of-way and on the private properties located at 301, 321, 341 and 345 Evening Canyon Road.

Councilmember Kleiman recused herself from Item 8 due to potential financial benefit conflicts.

9. Purchase of 2025 North Star 234-5 Command Vehicle
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 the selection and purchase of a 2025 North Star 234 -5 Command Vehicle, from Braun Northwest Inc., using cooperative selection and pricing under H-GAC agreement #AM10-23, and authorize the City Manager to execute a purchase order in the amount of $382,625.42.

10. Pulled from the Consent Calendar

11. Amendment No. Four to the Professional Services Agreement with Psomas for Environmental Services Related to the Newport Village Mixed-Use Project (PA2022-0166) (C-8605-1A)
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. Four to the Professional Services Agreement with Psomas for Environmental Impact Report for Newport Village Mixed -Use Development to extend the termination date to December 31, 2025, and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execut e the Amendment.

MISCELLANEOUS

12. Planning Commission Action Report for the November 21, 2024 Meeting and Agenda for the December 5, 2024 Meeting
Receive and file.

13. First Quarter Budget Update
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; Draft
18 City of Newport Beach
City Council Meeting
December 10, 2024

Volume 65 - Page 220
b) Approve Budget Amendment No. 25 -024, adjusting revenue estimates and expenditure appropriations as outlined in the report; and
c) Receive and file the report of budget amendments for the first quarter.

Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Stapleton, seconded by Councilmember Avery , to approve the Consent Calendar, except for Item 10 ; and noting the recusal by Councilmember Kleiman to Items 7 and 8 and Councilmember Blom to Item 3 , the amendments to Item 1 , and the amended exhibit to Ordinance No. 2024-30 (Item 4).

The motion carried unanimously.

VIII. ITEM REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR

10. Affordable Housing Loan Agreement to American Family Housing for the Travelodge North Homekey Project at 1400 Bristol Street, Costa Mesa (C- 9806-1)

Councilmember Kleiman relayed that she has questions and concerns about the agreement terms, especially the practical application of local priorities relative to homelessness and affordable housing, and asked that she and Councilmember Grant work with staff on the tenant plan and final agreement terms.

Noa Tuliau, Policy Fellow at County Supervisor Katrina Foley’s office, discussed the Homekey in a Box Program and expressed Supervisor Foley’s commitment to working with the City to solve the homelessness crisis.

Motion by Councilmember Kleiman, seconded by Councilmember Grant, to a) find this project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15301 (Existing facilities) and Section 15302 (Replacement or Reconstruction) of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, b ecause this project has no potential to have a significant effect on the environment; b) approve Budget Amendment No. 25 -047, appropriating $3,000,000 for increased expenditures in the Permanent Supportive Housing Account No. 01201925- 980000-22M15; c) authorize the City Manager to finalize negotiations and authorize the City Manager and City Clerk to execute the Affordable Housing Loan Agreement between the City of Newport Beach and American Family Housing, LLC, to loan $3,000,000 to convert the property at 1400 Bristol Street, Costa Mesa, into permanent supportive housing, provided the terms of the Agreement are substantially similar with the Agreement attached to the staff report, wh ich terms shall be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney’s Office, and to take any other action necessary to implement the Agreement, including, but not limited to, approving and executing additional documents related thereto ; and d) allow Councilmember Kleiman and Councilmember Grant to work with staff on finalizing the terms of the agreement.

The motion carried unanimously.

IX. PUBLIC COMMENTS REGARDING CITY COUNCIL REORGANIZATION

Dennis Bress thanked the outgoing members of Council for their service and noted continued efforts to work with the Aviation Committee to have aircrafts flyer high, slower, and quieter.

Noa Tuliau congratulated the newly elected and reelected members of the City Council on behalf of County Supervisor Katrina Foley, expressed gratitude to the outgoing Councilmembers, noted Supervisor Foley’s intent to work collaboratively with the City , and provided her contact information.

He provided Certificates of Recognition for distribution to the outgoing, newly elected, and reelected Councilmembers.

Draft
19 City of Newport Beach
City Council Meeting
December 10, 2024

Volume 65 - Page 221
X. CITY COUNCIL REORGANIZATION

PRESENTATIONS

• Presentation of Gavel Plaque to Mayor Will O’Neill

Mayor Pro Tem Stapleton recognized Mayor O'Neill’s accomplishments and contributions to the City during his time on Council , displayed photos, and thanked Mayor O’Neill and his family for his service.

Mayor Pro Tem Stapleton presented Mayor O’Neill with a gavel plaque and custom challenge coin holder in recognition of his service as Mayor during 2024.

• Presentations to Outgoing Councilmembers

Costa Mesa Mayor John Stephens read and presented a commendation to Mayor O’Neill.

Former Senator Janet Nguyen, 34 th District, presented Senate Resolutions to Mayor O’Neill and Councilmember Avery.

Cooper Strull from Assembly Member Diane Dixon’s office, 72 nd District, presented Certificates of Recognition to Mayor O’Neill and Councilmember Avery.

Councilmember Weigand presented gifts to Mayor O’Neill and Councilmember Avery, and thanked them for their service.

Mayor Pro Tem Stapleton presented commemorative clocks to Mayor O’Neill and Councilmember Avery on behalf of the City.

• Remarks by Outgoing Councilmembers

Councilmember Avery noted his eight years of service on Council, stated that it was an honor to serve the citizens of a thriving City, noted collaborative efforts with fellow members of Council, and expressed his gratitude to City Manager Leung and her team, the police and fire departments, and City staff. He stated that he plans to follow the work of the City Council due to his continued interest in the City affairs, and expressed interest in exploring other opportunities to serve. He relayed his gratitude for his wife’s emotional support, thanked Will O’Neill for his leadership, and congratulated the new Councilmembers.

Mayor O’Neill thanked his wife Jenny, his children, the voters, Council colleagues, Councilmember Avery, and City staff. He shared the story of Alexis Portillo’s request for ADA “wrap around” swings and thanked her for being an example . He stated that the City benefits when citizens help solve problems, noted the honor it has been to recognize the helpers in the community, gifted each Councilmember with custom artwork from M Street Artwork , and extended a blessing to the new Council and the City.

CERTIFICATION OF GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION RESULTS

14. Resolution No. 2024-92: Certification of General Municipal Election Results

City Clerk Brown provided a report and announced that the City’s voter turnout was over 82%.

Motion by Council member Weigand, seconded by Councilmember Grant, 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) adopt Resolution No. 2024-92, A Resolution Draft
20 City of Newport Beach
City Council Meeting
December 10, 2024

Volume 65 - Page 222
of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach, California, Reciting the Facts of the General Municipal Election held on Tuesday, November 5, 2024, and Declaring the Result and Such Other Matters as Provided by Law.

The motion carried unanimously.

Mayor O’Neill and Councilmember Avery stepped down from the dais.

REORGANIZATION

15. Administration of Oath of Office

City Clerk Brown calle d reelected Councilmember Noah Blom forward. His wife, Marin , administered the Oath of Office prescribed in the State Constitution, and City Clerk Brown presented a Certificate of Election to Councilmember Blom.

City Clerk Brown called newly elected Council member Michelle Barto forward. Former Mayor Will O’Neill administered the Oath of Office prescribed in the State Constitution , and City Clerk Brown presented a Certificate of Election to Councilmember Barto.

City Clerk Brown called the newly elected Councilmember Sara J. Weber forward. Former Mayor Will O’Neill administered the Oath of Office prescribed in the State Constitution , and City Clerk Brown presented a Certificate of Election to Councilmember Weber.

16. Election of Mayor

City Clerk Brown, in presiding, placed all members of the City Council on an equal basis to nominate and elect.

Councilmember Kleiman nominated Councilmember Stapleton for the position of Mayor.

Motion by Councilmember Grant, seconded by Councilmember Barto, to close nominations.

The motion carried unanimously.

Councilmember Stapleton was selected unanimously as the Mayor of the City of Newport Beach for 2024-2025 and took his place at the Council dais.

17. Election of Mayor Pro Tem

Mayor Stapleton, in presiding, placed all members of the City Council on an equal basis to nominate and elect.

Councilmember Blom nominated Councilmember Kleiman for the position of Mayor Pro Tem.

Motion by Councilmember Blom, seconded by Mayor Stapleton, to close nominations.

The motion carried unanimously.

Councilmember Kleiman was selected unanimously as the Mayor Pro Tem of the City of Newport Beach for 2024-2025 and took her place at the Council dais.

18. Seating Arrangements for City Council

Councilmembers decided on the seating arrangement for the Council dais pursuant to City Council Policy A-1. The following seating order was determined (left to right):

Draft
21 City of Newport Beach
City Council Meeting
December 10, 2024

Volume 65 - Page 223
Noah Blom - Sara J. Weber - Lauren Kleiman - Joe Stapleton - Robyn Grant - Michelle Barto - Erik Weigand

19. Remarks

Elected Councilmember Remarks:

Councilmember Blom thanked his wife and shared that he got involved in the City to make a difference, expressed gratitude for his colleagues , thought that Newport Beach ha d the greatest Council, and looked forward to taking care of City staff, especially the firefighters, police officer s, and lifeguards.

Councilmember Barto expressed her gratitude for being part of the City , the public support she received, and her family, and looked forward to serving on Council.

Councilmember Weber thanked Will O’Neill and Brad Avery for their service and keeping Newport Beach the best City in the world. She also thanked her friends, the voters, her husband, her parents, and her daughters, and extended congratulations to Mayor Stapleton and Mayor Pro Tem Kleiman.

New Mayor Remarks:

Mayor Stapleton thanked former Mayors O’Neill and Avery for their service to the community, relayed Newport Beach’s uniqueness, acknowledged his mentors, expressed his sincere gratitude, thanked the voters and his colleagues for their trust in him, and noted that he appreciated working with a group of leaders working towards a common goal. He recognized that this was the first female majority City Council in the history of Newport Beach and thanked his friends, family, and his wife, Julie. He announced his 2025 theme as Mayor to be “Celebrate Newpor t.” He relayed a plan to recognize the past, present, and future contributors to the City and spoke on initiatives that support public safety, technology, community infrastructure, transportation, trash collection , future leadership development, collaboration, celebration, growth, and community.

XI. PUBLIC COMMENTS

Jim Mosher suggested that new members of the City Council read through the Consent Calendar and suggested adding the City Council meeting location to the resolution for Item 20 (Resolution No. 2024- 93: Setting City Council Regular Meeting Dates for Calendar Year 2025 ). He also asked Council to consider a City Council meeting start time that is convenient for more members of the public to attend.

Craig Sheets utilized a presentation to discuss offshore oil wells, weapon storage, stack freight containers, oil tankers, children from other countries learning to use weapons, and the sun.

Supervisor Don Wagner, 3rd District, extended his support to the City and congratulated Council.

Huntington Beach Councilmember Tony Strickland congratulated Mayor Stapleton, Mayor Pro Tem Kleiman, Councilmember Weber, Councilmember Barto, and former Mayor O’Neill , and expressed his excitement to work with the City.

XII. MATTERS WHICH COUNCIL MEMBERS HAVE ASKED TO BE PLACED ON A FUTURE AGENDA

• Consider directing City staff to make a recommendation to the City Council regarding a new ordinance designating portions of Corona del Mar, including, but not limited to, Pirate's Cove, Corona del Mar State Beach, Little Corona del Mar Beach, Ocean Boulevard, and the surrounding neighborhoods, as a Safety Enhancement Zone for the 4th of July holiday weekend, and at other times deemed appropriate [Kleiman ]

Draft
22 City of Newport Beach
City Council Meeting
December 10, 2024

Volume 65 - Page 224
Council unanimously concurred to bring the matter back at a future meeting.

• Consider creating an ad hoc committee to review and make recommendations for revisions to the City Council Policy Manual [Kleiman]

Mayor Stapleton, Mayor Pro Tem Kleiman, and Councilmembers Barto, Blom , Grant, and Weber concurred to bring the matter back at a future meeting.

XIII. CONSENT CALENDAR

RESOLUTION FOR ADOPTION

20. Resolution No. 2024 -93: Setting City Council Regular Meeting Dates for Calendar Year 2025

Councilmember Weigand requested a change to the April 2025 dates to April 15 and April 29, 2025.

Motion by Council member Weigand, seconded by Council member Grant, 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 indire ctly; and b) adopt amended Resolution No. 2024-93, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach, California, Setting the Time and Dates of City Council Regular Meetings for Calendar Year 2025.

The motion carried unanimously.

XIV. MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION – None

XV. ADJOURNMENT – 6:57 p.m.

The agenda was posted on the City's website and on the City Hall electronic bulletin board located in the entrance of the City Council Chambers at 100 Civic Center Drive on December 5, 2024, at 4:00 p.m.

_________________________________________
Joe Stapleton
Mayor

________________________________________
Leilani I. Brown
City Clerk
Draft
23 January 14, 2025, City Council Agenda Comments
The following comments on items on the Newport Beach City Council agenda are submitted by:

Jim Mosher ( [email protected] ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach 92660 (949-548-6229) Item III.B CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS
This appears to be at least the tenth time a closed session has been announced for the Council to privately discuss “price and terms of payment” regarding public right-of-way adjacent to the identical properties, the first announcement having been as Item IV.A on February 23, 2021.

And the only change has been the initial “approximately 845 square feet” increasing to the “approximately 1,105 square feet” when it came back as Item IV.A on November 12, 2024.

And while the purpose of the announcement is, in theory, to invite public comment to guide the Council in its decision, at no time has there been any public disclosure of why a sale or lease is being considered. This may be contrasted with earlier, more transparent announcements, for example Item IV.C from July 26, 2011, where it was at least disclosed that “price and terms of payment” needed to be discussed “with respect to resolution of boundary dispute between Tidelands and Uplands.”
Why is public property in play adjacent to 929 Zurich Circle and 944 Via Lido Nord? Item 1. Minutes for the December 10, 2024 City Council Meeting The passages shown in italics below are from the draft minutes with suggested corrections shown in strikeout underline format. The page numbers refer to Volume 66.

their service and noted continued efforts to work with the Aviation Committee to have aircrafts flyer high aircraft fly higher, slower, and quieter.” [See video. “Aircraft” is recognized as a noun that does not require an “s” to make it plural, and Mr Bress did not add one. Similarly, he add “er” to “high” not “fly.”]

“His wife, Marin, administered the Oath of Office …”
“Former Mayor Will O’Neill administered the Oath of Office …” [Comment: I am not much of a believer in loyalty oaths, but it does seem reasonable for citizens to have some assurance those elected to office are committed to upholding the rules under which governments are expected to operate. Indeed, the first page of the official minutes of our City Council begins with Notary Public Clyde Bishop administering the Oath of Office1 to the five newly-elected trustees at their first meeting on September 3, 1906.
1 The oath, in Article XX, Section 3 of the California Constitution at that time consisted solely of: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be,) that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California, and that I will faIthfully discharge the duties of the office of ___, according to the best of my ability."
Received After Agenda Printed
January 14, 2025
Written Comments
24 January 14, 2025, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 2 of 6 Since then, through 2012, it seems to have been the invariable practice for the City Clerk to administer the oaths. However, in 2014, with the election of “Team Newport,” Orange County Superior Court Judge James E. Rogan administered the oaths. And after that, a variety of judges continued to perform this role with the exception of 2020, when former Mayor Evelyn Hart administered the oath to re-elected Council Member Brad Avery, and 2022, when former Mayor Steve Rosansky administered the oath to newly-elected Council Member Robyn Grant. This new practice of having the oath of office administered by private citizens who, whether

former

elected

officials

or

not,

do

not

seem

authorized

by

law

to

do

so,
2 seems

a

bit

like

attending

a

wedding

at

which

a

private

party

administers

the

vows

while

the

minister,

judge

or

government

clerk

sits

to

the

side

as

an

observer

rather

than

a

participant.

It seems strange to me. Is it a new trend?
3 ]
Item XIII. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON CONSENT CALENDAR Since I believe this may be a first in the City’s history, it seems noteworthy that the public portion of

the

current

agenda

contains

no

items

requiring

a

Council

decision

other

than

those

on

the

Consent

Calendar.
4 As a result those watching the meeting without access to the agenda will be at loss to know what,

if

any,

City

business

was

conducted.

It might be noted that Newport Beach didn’t always have a Consent Calendar.

And, as I have noted before, there is at least one other California city, Benecia, where the Mayor reads the titles of the items on the Consent Calendar so that the public at least knows what their Council is consenting to. There are likely others with similar practices. For example, in Del Mar, the City Clerk reads the consent calendar item titles. In both cases, not only the council members,

but

members

of

the

public

are

invited

to

pull

items

for

discussion

by

their

elected

representatives.

It

also

appears

other

cities

may

be

more

judicious

in

what

items

they

place

on

their

consent

calendar

for

approval

without

discussion.

It seems to me the consent calendar may be overused in Newport Beach, for it seems unlikely none

of

the

seven

Council

members

would

have

any

questions

about

any

of

the

items

on

the

Consent

Calendar,

or

that

all

would

agree

each

of

those

items

should

be

approved

exactly

as

presented.

As

a

result,

the

public

is

left

with

the

impression

that

information

is

being

exchanged,

4 I

recall

one

or

two

previous

agendas

where

all

the

business

items

were

on

the

consent

calendar,

but

I

believe

the

agenda

included

either

a

study

session

or

suggestions

for

future

agenda

items,

where

Council

input

was

solicited.

3 For a fee of $125, the Santa Cruz County Clerk offers to appoint private citizens 18 or older as “Deputy Commissioner

of

Marriage

for

a

Day,"

authorized

to

officiate

at

a

specified

wedding

anywhere

in

California

(as

do
Los Angeles County, Nevada County, San Diego County and likely more). At one time ,

the

Orange

County

Clerk-Recorder

offered

this

service,

as

well.

It

is

unclear

if

he

still

does.

2 In 2022, Krista Weigand administered the oath to newly-elected Council Member Erik Weigand, but she did

so

as

a

Trustee

of

the

Newport-Unified

School

District.

The

law,
Government Code Sections 1360 -
1369, is ambiguous, saying only the oath must be taken “before” a person authorized to administer oaths.

25 January 14, 2025, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 3 of 6 and decisions made, outside public view. In other words, that the public’s business is not being done

in

public.

Item 4. Resolution Nos. 2025-2 and 2025-3: Amending the General Plan

Advisory

Committee

and

the

General

Plan

Update

Steering

Committee
This seems to me to be an example of the overuse of the consent calendar. As the staff report explains, this is on the agenda because, pursuant to City Council Policy A-1, at the November 19, 2024, meeting, the previous Council voted, without discussion, to bring the subject back at a future

meeting

“
for

discussion

and/or

action
.”

Yet,

staff

has

placed

it

on

the

consent

calendar,

where

a

specific

proposal

that

has

never

been

publicly

discussed

is

expected

to

be

approved,

again

without

any

discussion.

One might think that, at a minimum, before voting the Council members would want to ask about

the

status

of

the

General

Plan

Update

and

its

expected

timeline.

If

they

did

so,

they

might

learn

that

the

entire

process

is

expected

to

be

completed,

and

the

advisory

committees

dissolved,

before

the

end

of

the

current

year.

Given that context, establishing a procedure by which the advisory committees’ membership will be

reassessed

each

February

seems

strange

–

because

there

will

be

no

future

Februaries

other

than

the

coming

one.

As to changing the composition this February, as a current GPAC member, but commenting as a private

citizen,

I

have

seen

no

reason

offered

for

what

seems

both

unnecessary

and

disruptive.

While

the

process

to

date

has

been

a

very

imperfect

one,

and

could

have

been

better,

changing

the

participants,

but

not

the

structure,

in

the

final

months

hardly

seems

likely

to

produce

a

better

result.

On a more technical note, the Council may wish to know how the City Clerk plans to advertise the

unscheduled

vacancies

and

how

long

the

application

period

will

be

left

open.

Finding

20 to
30 new members will be difficult, and Government Code Section 54974 requires only that at least 10 working days elapse between the posting and the appointment, but does not seem to say

how

long

the

invitation

to

apply

needs

to

be

“open.”
As to the existing members, there seems to be a discrepancy between the proposed resolutions,

whose

Attachment

A’s

say

“
Members

who

are

in

good

standing

at

the

time

their

term

has

expired

are

eligible

for

reappointment

and

need

not

reapply
”

and

the

staff

report,

which

says

“
As

drafted,

if

a

current

GPAC

or

GPUSC

member

is

in

good

standing

with

an

application

on

file

that

is

no

more

than

two

years

old

at

the

time

of

City

Council’s
appointments, there would be no need to submit a new application .” The City’s GPAC page indicates most of the current members were appointed on November 15, 2022, and its GPUSC page indicates all three members were appointed on April 12, 2022. All of these people’s applications would now be more than two years old, and they would need to reapply according to

the

staff

report,

but

not

according

to

what

would

seem

to

be

the

plain

language

of

the

resolutions.

Which

is

correct?

26 January 14, 2025, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 4 of 6 Additionally, the Council members may wish to discuss whether the rules for achieving geographic

and

institutional

diversity

in

appointments

to

the

GPAC

detailed

in

the

table

on

page

4-6

of

the

staff

report

is

still

appropriate,

and

how

the

table

should

be

used.

In

particular,

many

applicants

will

have

multiple

affiliations

and

it

is

not

clear

how

the

limitations

to

“not

more

than

one”

from

each

“sample”

is

intended

to

apply

to

them.

As to the substance of what the committees do, there is an existing uncertainty in that the GPAC is

instructed

to

make

recommendations

to

the

GPUSC,

but

there

is

no

provision

as

what

the

GPUSC

is

supposed

to

do

with

them.

Are

they

obligated

to

pass

them

on

to

the

City

Council?

Or

does

the

GPUSC

have

veto

power

over

the

GPUSC

recommendations?

Item 5. Resolution No. 2025-4: Approving an Amendment to the Key and

Management

Compensation

Plan
The staff report (page 5-1) implies the maximum bonus available for scholastic achievement is

8.5%,

however

the

actual

proposed

language

on

page

5-6

shows

a

7%

bonus

for

achieving

the

BA/BS

level,

and

a

separate

8.5%

bonus

for

the

MA/MS/JD

level

without

making

it

clear

if

members

can

qualify

for

only

one

or

for

both.

Will

that

be

a

problem?

Also shouldn’t there be a requirement that the achievement is in a field related to the employee’s

work?
More generally, the amendment is offered to the Council for approval as a snippet without being able

to

see

the

context

in

which

it

will

occur

or

the

prior

language

it

replaces.

Compounding

that

problem,

the

public

does

not

seem

to

be

able

to

easily

see

or

review

the

current

Key

&
Management Compensation Plan. Instead, on the HR Department’s MOUs & Benefit Summaries page one finds a 2022 version and what seem to be 12 adjustments to it, some of which are not machine searchable, making it particularly challenging to piece together what the current plan is. However, as best I can tell, the (non-machine-readable) Sixth Amendment made Policy Safety Key & Management employees eligible for the same scholastic achievement benefits

as

members

of

the

Police

Management

Association,

with

language

essentially

identical

to

that

for

Fire

Safety

Key

&

Management

employees.

What

was

wrong

with

that?

Is

Fire

Safety

Management

eligible

for

a

larger

benefit

than

Police

Safety

Management?

If

so,

how

large

is

the

change?

And

why

wouldn’t

Police

Management

want

the

same

benefit?
The report does not seem very transparent.

Item 6. Resolution No. 2025-5: Creating the Ad Hoc Council Policy Review

Committee
This is another case where, rather than being on the consent calendar, one might think the Council

members

would

want

to

discuss

the

matter

to

give

direction

to

the

committee

as

to

the

scope

of

their

assignment,

and

possibly

as

to

who

should

be

on

it.

Although I cannot find it mentioned in either the staff report or the proposed resolution, the last comprehensive review of the Council Policy Manual took place in 2018, and culminated in the massive 338-page Item 18 on the August 8, 2017, agenda, making changes that neither the

27 January 14, 2025, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 5 of 6 public nor the Council members not on the committee had time to thoughtfully consider or review.

I would strongly recommend the present committee be asked to review the policies in more digestible

pieces,

and

through

a

more

public

process

–

including,

for

example,

presentation

at

a

study

session

at

a

meeting

prior

to

the

meeting

at

which

adoption

is

proposed.

Item 14. Memorandum of Agreement with the City of Long Beach Acting

By

and

Through

the

Port

of

Long

Beach

Board

of

Harbor

Commissioners

Authorizing

Disposal

of

Lower

Bay

Dredged

Material

Into

the

Port’s

Pier

G

Slip

Fill

Project
Part (2) of Condition 8 on page 14-8, causing the Agreement to terminate on “ the commencement

of

the

placement

of

the

Newport

Bay

Material

at

a

site

other

than

the

Project
”

seems

slightly

strange.

Does

this

mean

that

if

any

of

the

“
approximately

225,000

cubic

yards

of

material

from

the

Lower

Newport

Bay

channels
”

identified

as

“
Newport

Bay

Material
”

is

found

to

be

suitable

for

disposal

outside

the

Port

of

Long

Beach,

and

disposed

of

at

some

alternate

location,

the

Port

will

refuse

to

accept

any

more?
Also, if the Port of Long Beach location becomes unavailable before all the unsuitable material has

been

disposed

of,

does

the

City

have

a

plan

to

construct

a

smaller

CAD

than

was

originally

planned?

And,

finally,

how

does

this

Agreement

affect

the

private

homeowners

who

were

promised

use

of

the

CAD?

Item 15. Planning Commission Agenda for the January 9, 2025 Meeting
Those new to the Council may be wondering why they are receiving a report on the actions of the

Planning

Commission

and

not

of

any

of

the

City’s

other

boards

or

commissions.

Originally,

this

was

not

on

the

consent

calendar,

but

scheduled

as

a

full

discussion

item.

And

its

purpose,

then

as

now,

was

to

apprise

Council

members

of

the

Planning

Commission’s

decisions,

so

they
would have a chance to call for review, as allowed, currently, by Municipal Code Chapter 20.64. 5 In the present case, the Council is receiving reports of two Planning Commission decisions, both

of

which

seem

problematic

to

me.

In the first, the PC approved remodeling of a warehouse as a fitness training facility for exclusive

use

by

students

of

a

neighboring

high

school,

even

though

the

property

is

designated

for

industrial

uses

and

and

other

uses

“ancillary”

or

“accessory”

to

the

primary

industrial

uses.

While,

as

staff

indicated,

fitness

facilities

are

allowed

“by

right”

in

this

area,

the

assumption

is

they

will

be

serving

the

needs

of

the

primary

industrial

users.

A

facility

serving

exclusively

students

from

a

neighboring

district

is

clearly

not

supporting

the

industrial

uses.

Staff

seems

to

be

reading

“ancillary”

or

“accessory”

not

as

“supporting,”

but

rather

as

anything

that

occupies

5 One might still wonder why the Council does not receive similar reports regarding decisions by the Harbor

Commission,

since

there

is

a

parallel

call

for

review

provision

in

NBMC
Chapter 17.65, Or for
decisions

of

the

Parks,

Beaches

and

Recreation

Commission,

even

though

the

opportunity

to

review

is

found

only

in

Council

Policies.

28 January 14, 2025, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 6 of 6 less than a majority of the district. To me, that seems clearly not to have been the intent of the code.

In the second hearing, the PC had to deal with a tennis club consisting of two separately-owned parcels,

but

originally

approved

and

allowed

to

be

subdivided

only

under

the

assumption

they

would

be

operated

together.

Without

making

any

changes

to

that

existing

permit

for

the

two

parcels

to

operate

together,

and

without

seeing

any

evidence

of

consent

by

the

owner

of

one

of

the

parcels,

the

PC

approved

a

staff-proposed,

new,

separate

permit

for

the

second

parcel,

allowing

it

to

be

used

as

a

separate

pickleball

facility.

The

result

seems

to

be

both

to

have

caused

the

other

parcel

to

become

landlocked,

and

to

have

transferred

to

it

all

the

entitlements

of

the

original

permit.

Additionally,

it

seems

quite

possible

the

approval

will

create

land

use

incompatibilities,

with

noise

from

the

pickleball

activity

disturbing

future

guests

at

the

neighboring

hotel

and,

possibly,

residents

across

Jamboree

Road

at

Sea

Island.

I

took

some

grief

from

the

Commissioners

for

suggesting

City

staff

did

not

have

the

expertise

to

independently

verify

the

conclusions

of

the

applicant

noise

analysis

(which

nowhere

addressed

the

highly

impulsive

nature

of

pickleball

noise),

but

I

do

believe

that

to

be

the

case.

Council members may wish to consider calling one of both of these decisions up for review.

Item 16. Confirmation of Nominations to Fill an Unscheduled Vacancy on

the

Parks,

Beaches

&

Recreation

Commission
Since the Council is being asked to “confirm” just two nominations, it would have been helpful to at

least

list

the

names

of

any

other

citizens

who

might

have

applied.

It

would

seem

they

deserve

at

least

that

minimal

recognition,
6 and

other

Council

members

may

wish

to

propose

adding

some

of

the

names

from

that

list.

Item 17. Confirmation of Mayor Joe Stapleton's Appointments Since this item is scheduled to be adopted without discussion, it presumably involved some non-public

discussion

of

who

wanted

to

serve

on

what

committees.

While

that

is

not

necessarily

illegal,

it

would

seem

like

a

discussion

that

could

better

have

taken

place

at

the

public

meeting.

That said, I have, for a number of years, been puzzled by the continuing appointment of a Council member as chair of the Environmental Quality Affairs Committee, especially considering that committee has not met since August 16, 2016 (and before that, on November 20, 2014) and currently has no members other than the Council appointee (of which there are actually supposed

to

be

two).

I see from the minutes of the similar Item 12 from January 10, 2023, that I raised the same puzzlement, and that year’s appointee, Mayor Blom, volunteered that “ as Chair of EQAC, he will assess the future of EQAC .” But as Item 11 on January 9, 2024, he was reappointed as Chair, and, as I noted then, one might wonder how long the assessment will take? One continues to wonder. 6 In other cities, such as Costa Mesa and Laguna Beach, I believe the full council publicly interviews all the

applicants

before

making

appointments.

29 3-1

NEWPORT BEACH

City Council Staff Report

COUNCIL STAFF REPORT

CITY OF

January 14, 2025
Agenda Item No. 3

ABSTRACT:

The City of Newport Beach updates its Conflict of Interest Code annually.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

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. 2025-1, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach, California, Updating the Appendix of Designated Employees and Appendix of Disclosure Categories of the City of Newport Beach Conflict of Interest Code.

DISCUSSION:

The City’s Conflict of Interest Code was first adopted in 1977 in response to the enactment of the 1974 Political Reform Act (Act). In February 1990, the City updated its Conflict of Interest Code pursuant to Section 18730 of the regulations adopted by the Fair Political Practices Commission. The City’s Conflict of Interest Code consists of two basic parts:

1. The body of the code contains the provisions required by Section 87302 of the Act, such as the manner of reporting financial interests and the method to be used by designated positions when they are required to disqualify themselves from making or participating in the making of decisions; and

2. The Appendix to the code lists the positions of those designated employees within the agency who make or participate in the making of decisions which may foreseeably have a material effect on economic interests. It includes the corresponding disclosure categories for each position , specifying which kinds of economic interests are reportable by designated employees in their Statement of Economic Interests.

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: Leilani I. Brown, City Clerk - 949-644-3005,
[email protected]
PREPARED BY: Leilani I. Brown, City Clerk
TITLE: Resolution No. 2025-1: Updating the List of Designated Employees for 2025 Under the City’s Conflict of Interest Code
30 Resolution No. 2025-1: Updating the List of Designated Employees for 2025 Under the City’s Conflict of Interest Code
January 14, 2025

3-2

Prior to the time the Statement of Economic Interests are submitted to the City Clerk on an annual basis, the list of “Designated Employees” is reviewed with the City’s department directors to determine if there are additions or deletions that need to be made. The positions on the Designated Employees List (included as Exhibit 1 to Attachment A) were determined in cooperation with the department directors by evaluating each position to determine their job duties and corresponding disclosure categories.

The disclosure categories are listed beside each position and indicate the different financial interests within the City which must be disclosed and reported on each Designated Employee’s Statement of Economic Interests depending upon whether the duties involve a broad range of duties or involve specific duties , such as contracting or decisions which might affect real property interests.

FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no fiscal impact related to this item.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

Staff recommends the City Council find this action is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Sections 15060(c)(2) (the activity will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the enviro nment) and 15060(c)(3) (the activity is not a project as defined in Section 15378) of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, because it has no potential for resulting in physical change to the environment, directly or indirectly.

NOTICING:

The agenda item has been noticed according to the Brown Act (72 hours in advance of the meeting at which the City Council considers the item).

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment A – Resolution No. 2025-1 with Exhibits
Attachment B – Exhibit 1 (redline)

31 ATTACHMENT A
3-3
32 3-4
33 3-5
34 3-6
35 3-7
36 3-8
37 3-9
38 3-10
39 3-11
40 3-12
41 EXHIBIT 1

APPENDIX OF DESIGNATED POSITIONS
(including elected officials and consultants)
Departments/Positions
Disclosure
Categories
City Council GC §87200
Office of the City Attorney
City Attorney GC §87200
Assistant City Attorney 1
Deputy City Attorney 1
Paralegal 2, 3
Office of the City Clerk
City Clerk 1
Deputy Assistant City Clerk 1
Office of the City Manager
City Manager GC §87200
Assistant City Manager 1
Deputy City Manager 1
Public Information Manager 1
Management Analyst 2
IT Manager 2
IT Supervisor 2
Community Development Department
Community Development Director 1
Deputy Community Development Director 1
Systems & Administrator Manager 2
Administrative Analyst 2, 3, 4
Building Division:

Real Property Administrator 3, 4
Senior Plan Check Engineer 3, 4
Principal Building Inspector 3, 4
Senior Building Inspector 3, 4
Building Inspector II 3, 4
Permit Specialist II 3, 4
Permit Specialist 3, 4
Principal Civil Engineer 3, 4
Senior Civil Engineer 3, 4
Civil Engineer 3, 4
EMS Plans Examiner 3, 4
Principal Engineer 3, 4
Senior Plan Check Engineer 3, 4
Planning Technician 3, 4
Permit Technician II 3, 4
Permit Technician Supervisor 3, 4
Permit Specialist II 3, 4

ATTACHMENT B
3-13
42 Department/Positions
Disclosure
Categories

Planning Division:

Planning Manager 1
Principal Planner 1
Senior Planner 2, 3, 4
Associate Planner 2, 3, 4
Assistant Planner 3, 4
Code Enforcement Supervisor 3, 4
Code Enforcement Officer, Senior 3, 4
Code Enforcement Officer I 3, 4
Code Enforcement Officer Trainee 3, 4

Finance Department
Finance Director/City Treasurer GC §87200
Deputy Finance Director 1
Revenue Manager 2, 3
Finance Manager 2, 3
Purchasing and Contracts Administrator 2
Senior Accountant 2
Senior Buyer 2
Buyer 2

Fire Department
Fire Chief 1
Assistant Fire Chief 1
Assistant Fire Chief of Lifeguard Operations 1
EMS Division Chief 1
Fire Marshal 1
EMS Captain 2
Administrative Manager 2
Assistant Management AssistantAnalyst 2
Life Safety Specialist IIIDeputy Fire Marshal 3, 4
Life Safety Specialist IISenior Fire Inspector 3, 4
Life Safety Specialist IFire Inspector 3, 4
Fire Services Coordinator 2
Recreation Coordinator 2

Harbor Department
Harbormaster/Director 1
Deputy Harbormaster 1

Human Resources Department
Human Resources Director 1
Human Resources Manager 2

Library Services Department
Library Services Director 1
Library Services Manager 2
Adult Services Coordinator (Librarian III) 2
Branch and Youth Services Coordinator (Librarian III) 2 Circulation and Technical Processing Coordinator (Librarian III) 2

3-14 43

Department/Positions
Disclosure
Categories

Police Department
Chief of Police 1
Deputy Chief of Police 1
Support Services Administrator 1
Executive Officer to the Chief of Police 2
Support Services Lieutenant 2
Police Fiscal Service/Facility Manager 2

Public Works Department
Administration and Finance Division:

Public Works Director 1
Public Works Finance/Administrative Manager 1
Administrative Analyst 2
Analyst 2
Management Specialist 2

Engineering and Transportation Division:

Deputy Public Works Director/City Engineer – Public Works 1 Administrative Manager 12, 3, 4
Assistant City Engineer 2, 3, 4
City Traffic Engineer 1
Principal Civil Engineer 2, 3, 4
Senior Civil Engineer 2, 3
Senior Civil Engineer-Plan Check 3, 4
Associate Civil Engineer 2, 3, 4
Associate Civil Engineer-5% 2
Associate Civil Engineer-Plan Check 2, 3, 4
Senior Public Works Inspector 2, 3, 4
Public Works Inspector 2, 3, 4
Public Works Inspector II 2, 3, 4
Senior Engineer 2, 3, 4
Construction Manager 2, 3, 4
Water Conservation Coordinator 3, 4
Municipal Operations Division:

Deputy Public Works Director – Municipal Operations 1
Assets Maintenance Manager 2, 4
City Arborist 2, 3, 4
Refuse Manager 2, 3, 4
Field Maintenance Manager 2, 3
Parks and Trees Manager 2, 3, 4
Equipment Maintenance Supervisor 2
Facilities Maintenance Supervisor 2, 4
Landscape Maintenance Supervisor 2

Recreation and Senior Services Department
Recreation and Senior Services Director 1
Deputy Recreation and Senior Services Director 2
Recreation and Senior Services Manager 2

3-15
44 Department/Positions
Disclosure
Categories

Utilities Department
Utilities Director 1
Field Superintendent II 2
Operations Support Superintendent 2
Senior Management Analyst 2

Boards, Commissions and Committees
Disclosure
Categories

Boards, Commissions and Committees
Board of Library Trustees 2
Building and Fire Board of Appeals 3, 4
City Arts Commission 2
Civil Service Board 3
Finance Committee 1
Harbor Commission 3, 4
Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission 4
Planning Commission GC §87200

Consultants

Consultants shall be included in the list of designated employees and shall disclose pursuant to the broadest disclosure category in the code subject to the following limitation:

The Department Director may determine in writing that a particular consultant, although a “designated position,” is hired to perform a range of duties that is limited in scope and thus is not required to fully comply with the disclosure requirements descri bed in this section.

Such written determination shall include a description of the consultant’s duties and, based upon that description, a statement of the extent of disclosure requirements. The Department Director’s determination is a public record and shall be retained for public inspection in the same manner and location as this conflict of interest code.
1 3-16
45 4-1

NEWPORT BEACH

City Council Staff Report

COUNCIL STAFF REPORT

CITY OF

January 14, 2025
Agenda Item No. 4
ABSTRACT:

For the City Council’s consideration is the adoption of resolutions to amend the Rules of Procedures for the General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC) and the General Plan Update Steering Committee (GPUSC) to include a requirement for members to be appointed and/or reappointed annually . The number of GPAC members would also be revised to include a range from no less than 20 to a maximum of 30.

RECOMMENDATIONS:
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. 2025-2, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach, California, Amending the General Plan Advisory Committee to Update the Membership and Provide for Annual Appointment of Members at the First City Council Meeting Held in February; and
c) Adopt Resolution No. 2025-3, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach, California, Amending the General Plan Update Steering Committee’s Term of Membership, Responsibilities and Provide for the Annual Appointment of Members at the First City Council Meeting Held in February.

DISCUSSION:

On November 19, 2024 , former Mayor Will O’Neill requested to amend the resolutions governing the General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC) and the General Plan Update Steering Committee (GPUSC) to provide for the annual appointment of members at the first meeting in February of each year, pursuant to City Council Policy A -1. The City Council voted unanimously, via a straw poll, in favor of staff returning with an item.

At the suggestion of then Mayor Pro Tem Joe Stapleton, it was determined that the item should come back for the City Council’s consideration at the first meeting of 2025.

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: Seimone Jurjis, Assistant City Manager/Community Development Director - 949-644-3232, [email protected]
PREPARED BY: Benjamin M. Zdeba, AICP, Planning Manager - 949-644-3253, [email protected]
TITLE: Resolution Nos. 20 25-2 and 202 5-3: Amending the General Plan Advisory Committee and the General Plan Update Steering Committee
46 Amending the General Plan Advisory Committee and
the General Plan Update Steering Committee
January 14, 2025

4-2
For the City Council’s discussion and consideration are resolutions to revise the Rules of Procedures for the GPAC and the GPUSC , requiring annual reappointment of members for those committees. If the City Council adopts the resolutions, t he City Clerk would publish the Notice of Vacancies for the GPAC and GPUSC to allow for new applications to be filed . As drafted, if a current GPAC or GPUSC member is in good standing with an application on file that is no more than two years old at the time of City Council’s appointments, there would be no need to submit a new application.

To further streamline the appointment process and to ensure GPAC membership is confirmed at the first City Council meeting held in February, the resolutions also remove the GPUSC’s recommendation of members from the selection process. The mayor or mayor’s designee will have discretion to determine the process for selecting GPAC members for the City Council’s confirmation.

Since the GPAC is a large group consisting of up to 30 members, it has had a challenge in keeping all members engaged and in good standing. In addition to the annual reappointment, staff is recommending that the GPAC’s membership be revised to include a range of between 20 and 30 members. This will serve to clarify that the GPAC can operate wit h a lesser number of members and will remove the need to constantly fill vacant seats.

FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no fiscal impact related to this item.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

Staff recommends the City Council find this action is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Sections 15060(c)(2) (the activity will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment) and 15060(c)(3) (the activity is not a project as defined in Secti on 15378) of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, because it has no potential for resulting in physical change to the environment, directly or indirectly.

NOTICING:

The agenda item has been noticed according to the Brown Act (72 hours in advance of the meeting at which the City Council considers the item).

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment A – Resolution No. 2025-2
Attachment B – Resolution No. 2025-3
47 RESOLUTION NO. 2025-_

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY

OF NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE

GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE TO UPDATE

THE MEMBERSHIP AND PROVIDE FOR ANNUAL

APPOINTMENT OF MEMBERS AT THE FIRST CITY

COUNCIL MEETING HELD IN FEBRUARY
WHEREAS, based on the recommendations of the General Plan Update Steering Committee ("Steering Committee"), on September 13, 2022, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2022-59, establishing the General Plan Advisory Committee ("GPAC"), to review and help guide the comprehensive Newport Beach General Plan Update; WHEREAS, GPAC is a relatively large group consisting of up to thirty members who were previously recommended for membership by the Steering Committee and confirmed by the City Council;
WHEREAS, on August 22, 2023, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2023- 51, amending the GPAC by establishing an attendance policy for members; and WHEREAS, the City Council now desires to amend the GPAC to update the number of members, provide for the annual appointment of members, who will be appointed by the Mayor and confirmed by the City Council, at the first City Council meeting held in February of each year, and revise the term of membership to expire upon the date of the first City Council meeting held in February each year unless reappointed by the City Council.

NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Newport Beach resolves as follows:

Section 1: The City Council hereby amends the GPAC as set forth in Attachment "A," attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.

Section 2: The City Council hereby repeals all previous resolutions related to the GPAC that conflict with this resolution.

Section 3: The recitals provided in this resolution are true and correct and are incorporated into the operative part of this resolution. 2 ATTACHMENT A
4-3
48 4-4
49 4-5
50 4-6
51 4-7
52 4-8
53 4-9
54 4-10
55 Attachment B
Resolution Amending the GPUSC
4-11
56 3
4-12
57 4-13
58 4-14
59 4-15
60 4-16
61 4-17
62 4-18
63 January 14, 2025, City Council Agenda Comments
The following comments on items on the Newport Beach City Council agenda are submitted by:

Jim Mosher ( [email protected] ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach 92660 (949-548-6229) Item III.B CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS
This appears to be at least the tenth time a closed session has been announced for the Council to privately discuss “price and terms of payment” regarding public right-of-way adjacent to the identical properties, the first announcement having been as Item IV.A on February 23, 2021.

And the only change has been the initial “approximately 845 square feet” increasing to the “approximately 1,105 square feet” when it came back as Item IV.A on November 12, 2024.

And while the purpose of the announcement is, in theory, to invite public comment to guide the Council in its decision, at no time has there been any public disclosure of why a sale or lease is being considered. This may be contrasted with earlier, more transparent announcements, for example Item IV.C from July 26, 2011, where it was at least disclosed that “price and terms of payment” needed to be discussed “with respect to resolution of boundary dispute between Tidelands and Uplands.”
Why is public property in play adjacent to 929 Zurich Circle and 944 Via Lido Nord? Item 1. Minutes for the December 10, 2024 City Council Meeting The passages shown in italics below are from the draft minutes with suggested corrections shown in strikeout underline format. The page numbers refer to Volume 66.

their service and noted continued efforts to work with the Aviation Committee to have aircrafts flyer high aircraft fly higher, slower, and quieter.” [See video. “Aircraft” is recognized as a noun that does not require an “s” to make it plural, and Mr Bress did not add one. Similarly, he add “er” to “high” not “fly.”]

“His wife, Marin, administered the Oath of Office …”
“Former Mayor Will O’Neill administered the Oath of Office …” [Comment: I am not much of a believer in loyalty oaths, but it does seem reasonable for citizens to have some assurance those elected to office are committed to upholding the rules under which governments are expected to operate. Indeed, the first page of the official minutes of our City Council begins with Notary Public Clyde Bishop administering the Oath of Office1 to the five newly-elected trustees at their first meeting on September 3, 1906.
1 The oath, in Article XX, Section 3 of the California Constitution at that time consisted solely of: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be,) that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California, and that I will faIthfully discharge the duties of the office of ___, according to the best of my ability."
Received After Agenda Printed
January 14, 2025
Written Comments
64 January 14, 2025, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 2 of 6 Since then, through 2012, it seems to have been the invariable practice for the City Clerk to administer the oaths. However, in 2014, with the election of “Team Newport,” Orange County Superior Court Judge James E. Rogan administered the oaths. And after that, a variety of judges continued to perform this role with the exception of 2020, when former Mayor Evelyn Hart administered the oath to re-elected Council Member Brad Avery, and 2022, when former Mayor Steve Rosansky administered the oath to newly-elected Council Member Robyn Grant. This new practice of having the oath of office administered by private citizens who, whether

former

elected

officials

or

not,

do

not

seem

authorized

by

law

to

do

so,
2 seems

a

bit

like

attending

a

wedding

at

which

a

private

party

administers

the

vows

while

the

minister,

judge

or

government

clerk

sits

to

the

side

as

an

observer

rather

than

a

participant.

It seems strange to me. Is it a new trend?
3 ]
Item XIII. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON CONSENT CALENDAR Since I believe this may be a first in the City’s history, it seems noteworthy that the public portion of

the

current

agenda

contains

no

items

requiring

a

Council

decision

other

than

those

on

the

Consent

Calendar.
4 As a result those watching the meeting without access to the agenda will be at loss to know what,

if

any,

City

business

was

conducted.

It might be noted that Newport Beach didn’t always have a Consent Calendar.

And, as I have noted before, there is at least one other California city, Benecia, where the Mayor reads the titles of the items on the Consent Calendar so that the public at least knows what their Council is consenting to. There are likely others with similar practices. For example, in Del Mar, the City Clerk reads the consent calendar item titles. In both cases, not only the council members,

but

members

of

the

public

are

invited

to

pull

items

for

discussion

by

their

elected

representatives.

It

also

appears

other

cities

may

be

more

judicious

in

what

items

they

place

on

their

consent

calendar

for

approval

without

discussion.

It seems to me the consent calendar may be overused in Newport Beach, for it seems unlikely none

of

the

seven

Council

members

would

have

any

questions

about

any

of

the

items

on

the

Consent

Calendar,

or

that

all

would

agree

each

of

those

items

should

be

approved

exactly

as

presented.

As

a

result,

the

public

is

left

with

the

impression

that

information

is

being

exchanged,

4 I

recall

one

or

two

previous

agendas

where

all

the

business

items

were

on

the

consent

calendar,

but

I

believe

the

agenda

included

either

a

study

session

or

suggestions

for

future

agenda

items,

where

Council

input

was

solicited.

3 For a fee of $125, the Santa Cruz County Clerk offers to appoint private citizens 18 or older as “Deputy Commissioner

of

Marriage

for

a

Day,"

authorized

to

officiate

at

a

specified

wedding

anywhere

in

California

(as

do
Los Angeles County, Nevada County, San Diego County and likely more). At one time ,

the

Orange

County

Clerk-Recorder

offered

this

service,

as

well.

It

is

unclear

if

he

still

does.

2 In 2022, Krista Weigand administered the oath to newly-elected Council Member Erik Weigand, but she did

so

as

a

Trustee

of

the

Newport-Unified

School

District.

The

law,
Government Code Sections 1360 -
1369, is ambiguous, saying only the oath must be taken “before” a person authorized to administer oaths.

65 January 14, 2025, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 3 of 6 and decisions made, outside public view. In other words, that the public’s business is not being done

in

public.

Item 4. Resolution Nos. 2025-2 and 2025-3: Amending the General Plan

Advisory

Committee

and

the

General

Plan

Update

Steering

Committee
This seems to me to be an example of the overuse of the consent calendar. As the staff report explains, this is on the agenda because, pursuant to City Council Policy A-1, at the November 19, 2024, meeting, the previous Council voted, without discussion, to bring the subject back at a future

meeting

“
for

discussion

and/or

action
.”

Yet,

staff

has

placed

it

on

the

consent

calendar,

where

a

specific

proposal

that

has

never

been

publicly

discussed

is

expected

to

be

approved,

again

without

any

discussion.

One might think that, at a minimum, before voting the Council members would want to ask about

the

status

of

the

General

Plan

Update

and

its

expected

timeline.

If

they

did

so,

they

might

learn

that

the

entire

process

is

expected

to

be

completed,

and

the

advisory

committees

dissolved,

before

the

end

of

the

current

year.

Given that context, establishing a procedure by which the advisory committees’ membership will be

reassessed

each

February

seems

strange

–

because

there

will

be

no

future

Februaries

other

than

the

coming

one.

As to changing the composition this February, as a current GPAC member, but commenting as a private

citizen,

I

have

seen

no

reason

offered

for

what

seems

both

unnecessary

and

disruptive.

While

the

process

to

date

has

been

a

very

imperfect

one,

and

could

have

been

better,

changing

the

participants,

but

not

the

structure,

in

the

final

months

hardly

seems

likely

to

produce

a

better

result.

On a more technical note, the Council may wish to know how the City Clerk plans to advertise the

unscheduled

vacancies

and

how

long

the

application

period

will

be

left

open.

Finding

20 to
30 new members will be difficult, and Government Code Section 54974 requires only that at least 10 working days elapse between the posting and the appointment, but does not seem to say

how

long

the

invitation

to

apply

needs

to

be

“open.”
As to the existing members, there seems to be a discrepancy between the proposed resolutions,

whose

Attachment

A’s

say

“
Members

who

are

in

good

standing

at

the

time

their

term

has

expired

are

eligible

for

reappointment

and

need

not

reapply
”

and

the

staff

report,

which

says

“
As

drafted,

if

a

current

GPAC

or

GPUSC

member

is

in

good

standing

with

an

application

on

file

that

is

no

more

than

two

years

old

at

the

time

of

City

Council’s
appointments, there would be no need to submit a new application .” The City’s GPAC page indicates most of the current members were appointed on November 15, 2022, and its GPUSC page indicates all three members were appointed on April 12, 2022. All of these people’s applications would now be more than two years old, and they would need to reapply according to

the

staff

report,

but

not

according

to

what

would

seem

to

be

the

plain

language

of

the

resolutions.

Which

is

correct?

66 January 14, 2025, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 4 of 6 Additionally, the Council members may wish to discuss whether the rules for achieving geographic

and

institutional

diversity

in

appointments

to

the

GPAC

detailed

in

the

table

on

page

4-6

of

the

staff

report

is

still

appropriate,

and

how

the

table

should

be

used.

In

particular,

many

applicants

will

have

multiple

affiliations

and

it

is

not

clear

how

the

limitations

to

“not

more

than

one”

from

each

“sample”

is

intended

to

apply

to

them.

As to the substance of what the committees do, there is an existing uncertainty in that the GPAC is

instructed

to

make

recommendations

to

the

GPUSC,

but

there

is

no

provision

as

what

the

GPUSC

is

supposed

to

do

with

them.

Are

they

obligated

to

pass

them

on

to

the

City

Council?

Or

does

the

GPUSC

have

veto

power

over

the

GPUSC

recommendations?

Item 5. Resolution No. 2025-4: Approving an Amendment to the Key and

Management

Compensation

Plan
The staff report (page 5-1) implies the maximum bonus available for scholastic achievement is

8.5%,

however

the

actual

proposed

language

on

page

5-6

shows

a

7%

bonus

for

achieving

the

BA/BS

level,

and

a

separate

8.5%

bonus

for

the

MA/MS/JD

level

without

making

it

clear

if

members

can

qualify

for

only

one

or

for

both.

Will

that

be

a

problem?

Also shouldn’t there be a requirement that the achievement is in a field related to the employee’s

work?
More generally, the amendment is offered to the Council for approval as a snippet without being able

to

see

the

context

in

which

it

will

occur

or

the

prior

language

it

replaces.

Compounding

that

problem,

the

public

does

not

seem

to

be

able

to

easily

see

or

review

the

current

Key

&
Management Compensation Plan. Instead, on the HR Department’s MOUs & Benefit Summaries page one finds a 2022 version and what seem to be 12 adjustments to it, some of which are not machine searchable, making it particularly challenging to piece together what the current plan is. However, as best I can tell, the (non-machine-readable) Sixth Amendment made Policy Safety Key & Management employees eligible for the same scholastic achievement benefits

as

members

of

the

Police

Management

Association,

with

language

essentially

identical

to

that

for

Fire

Safety

Key

&

Management

employees.

What

was

wrong

with

that?

Is

Fire

Safety

Management

eligible

for

a

larger

benefit

than

Police

Safety

Management?

If

so,

how

large

is

the

change?

And

why

wouldn’t

Police

Management

want

the

same

benefit?
The report does not seem very transparent.

Item 6. Resolution No. 2025-5: Creating the Ad Hoc Council Policy Review

Committee
This is another case where, rather than being on the consent calendar, one might think the Council

members

would

want

to

discuss

the

matter

to

give

direction

to

the

committee

as

to

the

scope

of

their

assignment,

and

possibly

as

to

who

should

be

on

it.

Although I cannot find it mentioned in either the staff report or the proposed resolution, the last comprehensive review of the Council Policy Manual took place in 2018, and culminated in the massive 338-page Item 18 on the August 8, 2017, agenda, making changes that neither the

67 January 14, 2025, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 5 of 6 public nor the Council members not on the committee had time to thoughtfully consider or review.

I would strongly recommend the present committee be asked to review the policies in more digestible

pieces,

and

through

a

more

public

process

–

including,

for

example,

presentation

at

a

study

session

at

a

meeting

prior

to

the

meeting

at

which

adoption

is

proposed.

Item 14. Memorandum of Agreement with the City of Long Beach Acting

By

and

Through

the

Port

of

Long

Beach

Board

of

Harbor

Commissioners

Authorizing

Disposal

of

Lower

Bay

Dredged

Material

Into

the

Port’s

Pier

G

Slip

Fill

Project
Part (2) of Condition 8 on page 14-8, causing the Agreement to terminate on “ the commencement

of

the

placement

of

the

Newport

Bay

Material

at

a

site

other

than

the

Project
”

seems

slightly

strange.

Does

this

mean

that

if

any

of

the

“
approximately

225,000

cubic

yards

of

material

from

the

Lower

Newport

Bay

channels
”

identified

as

“
Newport

Bay

Material
”

is

found

to

be

suitable

for

disposal

outside

the

Port

of

Long

Beach,

and

disposed

of

at

some

alternate

location,

the

Port

will

refuse

to

accept

any

more?
Also, if the Port of Long Beach location becomes unavailable before all the unsuitable material has

been

disposed

of,

does

the

City

have

a

plan

to

construct

a

smaller

CAD

than

was

originally

planned?

And,

finally,

how

does

this

Agreement

affect

the

private

homeowners

who

were

promised

use

of

the

CAD?

Item 15. Planning Commission Agenda for the January 9, 2025 Meeting
Those new to the Council may be wondering why they are receiving a report on the actions of the

Planning

Commission

and

not

of

any

of

the

City’s

other

boards

or

commissions.

Originally,

this

was

not

on

the

consent

calendar,

but

scheduled

as

a

full

discussion

item.

And

its

purpose,

then

as

now,

was

to

apprise

Council

members

of

the

Planning

Commission’s

decisions,

so

they
would have a chance to call for review, as allowed, currently, by Municipal Code Chapter 20.64. 5 In the present case, the Council is receiving reports of two Planning Commission decisions, both

of

which

seem

problematic

to

me.

In the first, the PC approved remodeling of a warehouse as a fitness training facility for exclusive

use

by

students

of

a

neighboring

high

school,

even

though

the

property

is

designated

for

industrial

uses

and

and

other

uses

“ancillary”

or

“accessory”

to

the

primary

industrial

uses.

While,

as

staff

indicated,

fitness

facilities

are

allowed

“by

right”

in

this

area,

the

assumption

is

they

will

be

serving

the

needs

of

the

primary

industrial

users.

A

facility

serving

exclusively

students

from

a

neighboring

district

is

clearly

not

supporting

the

industrial

uses.

Staff

seems

to

be

reading

“ancillary”

or

“accessory”

not

as

“supporting,”

but

rather

as

anything

that

occupies

5 One might still wonder why the Council does not receive similar reports regarding decisions by the Harbor

Commission,

since

there

is

a

parallel

call

for

review

provision

in

NBMC
Chapter 17.65, Or for
decisions

of

the

Parks,

Beaches

and

Recreation

Commission,

even

though

the

opportunity

to

review

is

found

only

in

Council

Policies.

68 January 14, 2025, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 6 of 6 less than a majority of the district. To me, that seems clearly not to have been the intent of the code.

In the second hearing, the PC had to deal with a tennis club consisting of two separately-owned parcels,

but

originally

approved

and

allowed

to

be

subdivided

only

under

the

assumption

they

would

be

operated

together.

Without

making

any

changes

to

that

existing

permit

for

the

two

parcels

to

operate

together,

and

without

seeing

any

evidence

of

consent

by

the

owner

of

one

of

the

parcels,

the

PC

approved

a

staff-proposed,

new,

separate

permit

for

the

second

parcel,

allowing

it

to

be

used

as

a

separate

pickleball

facility.

The

result

seems

to

be

both

to

have

caused

the

other

parcel

to

become

landlocked,

and

to

have

transferred

to

it

all

the

entitlements

of

the

original

permit.

Additionally,

it

seems

quite

possible

the

approval

will

create

land

use

incompatibilities,

with

noise

from

the

pickleball

activity

disturbing

future

guests

at

the

neighboring

hotel

and,

possibly,

residents

across

Jamboree

Road

at

Sea

Island.

I

took

some

grief

from

the

Commissioners

for

suggesting

City

staff

did

not

have

the

expertise

to

independently

verify

the

conclusions

of

the

applicant

noise

analysis

(which

nowhere

addressed

the

highly

impulsive

nature

of

pickleball

noise),

but

I

do

believe

that

to

be

the

case.

Council members may wish to consider calling one of both of these decisions up for review.

Item 16. Confirmation of Nominations to Fill an Unscheduled Vacancy on

the

Parks,

Beaches

&

Recreation

Commission
Since the Council is being asked to “confirm” just two nominations, it would have been helpful to at

least

list

the

names

of

any

other

citizens

who

might

have

applied.

It

would

seem

they

deserve

at

least

that

minimal

recognition,
6 and

other

Council

members

may

wish

to

propose

adding

some

of

the

names

from

that

list.

Item 17. Confirmation of Mayor Joe Stapleton's Appointments Since this item is scheduled to be adopted without discussion, it presumably involved some non-public

discussion

of

who

wanted

to

serve

on

what

committees.

While

that

is

not

necessarily

illegal,

it

would

seem

like

a

discussion

that

could

better

have

taken

place

at

the

public

meeting.

That said, I have, for a number of years, been puzzled by the continuing appointment of a Council member as chair of the Environmental Quality Affairs Committee, especially considering that committee has not met since August 16, 2016 (and before that, on November 20, 2014) and currently has no members other than the Council appointee (of which there are actually supposed

to

be

two).

I see from the minutes of the similar Item 12 from January 10, 2023, that I raised the same puzzlement, and that year’s appointee, Mayor Blom, volunteered that “ as Chair of EQAC, he will assess the future of EQAC .” But as Item 11 on January 9, 2024, he was reappointed as Chair, and, as I noted then, one might wonder how long the assessment will take? One continues to wonder. 6 In other cities, such as Costa Mesa and Laguna Beach, I believe the full council publicly interviews all the

applicants

before

making

appointments.

69 5-1

NEWPORT BEACH

City Council Staff Report

COUNCIL STAFF REPORT

CITY OF

January 14, 2025
Agenda Item No. 5
ABSTRACT:

To address recruitment and retention challenges associated with the City of Newport Beach’s sworn executive management personnel, the City Council wishes to amend the Key and Management Compensation Plan by amending the existing eligibility criteria for Scholastic Achievement Pay for Key and Management sworn police employees.

RECOMMENDATIONS:
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. 2025-4, A Resolution of the City of Newport Beach, California, Approving an Amendment to the Key and Management Compensation Plan.

DISCUSSION:

On November 12, 2024, the City Council approved offering Scholastic Achievement Pay to sworn Key and Management police, fire and lifeguard safety employees. The City Council wishes to clarify the eligibility criteria for sworn police Key and Management employees. If approved, Key and Management police safety employees are eligible to receive an additional 7%-8.5% of pay, depending on the degree obtained.

The Plan adjustments are intended to clarify the eligibility criteria for Key and Management sworn police employees and to provide parity with the eligibility criteria for Key and Management sworn fire employees. It is anticipated the adjustments will incentivize existing employees to stay and encourage and attract safety management candidates from outside agencies to apply when vacancies occur.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The estimated maximum cost to provide scholastic pay for eligible Key and Management sworn police employees is $39,400 for the remainder of Fiscal Year 2024-25.

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: Barbara J. Salvini, Human Resources Director - 949-644-3300, [email protected]
PREPARED BY: Barbara J. Salvini, Human Resources Director TITLE:

Resolution No. 202 5-4: Approving an Amendment to the Key and Management Compensation Plan

70 Resolution Approving an Amendment to the Key and Management Compensation Plan January 14, 2025

5-2

The Fiscal Year 2024 -25 budget includes sufficient savings to fund the cost of the proposed amendment to the Key and Management Compensation Plan.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

Staff recommends the City Council find this action is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Sections 15060(c)(2) (the activity will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the enviro nment) and 15060(c)(3) (the activity is not a project as defined in Section 15378) of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, because it has no potential for resulting in physical change to the environment, directly or indirectly.

NOTICING:

The agenda item has been noticed according to the Brown Act (72 hours in advance of the meeting at which the City Council considers the item).

ATTACHMENT:

Attachment A – Resolution No. 2025-4
71 ATTACHMENT A
4 5-3
72 5-4
73 EXHIBIT A
5-5
74 5-6
75 January 14, 2025, City Council Agenda Comments
The following comments on items on the Newport Beach City Council agenda are submitted by:

Jim Mosher ( [email protected] ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach 92660 (949-548-6229) Item III.B CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS
This appears to be at least the tenth time a closed session has been announced for the Council to privately discuss “price and terms of payment” regarding public right-of-way adjacent to the identical properties, the first announcement having been as Item IV.A on February 23, 2021.

And the only change has been the initial “approximately 845 square feet” increasing to the “approximately 1,105 square feet” when it came back as Item IV.A on November 12, 2024.

And while the purpose of the announcement is, in theory, to invite public comment to guide the Council in its decision, at no time has there been any public disclosure of why a sale or lease is being considered. This may be contrasted with earlier, more transparent announcements, for example Item IV.C from July 26, 2011, where it was at least disclosed that “price and terms of payment” needed to be discussed “with respect to resolution of boundary dispute between Tidelands and Uplands.”
Why is public property in play adjacent to 929 Zurich Circle and 944 Via Lido Nord? Item 1. Minutes for the December 10, 2024 City Council Meeting The passages shown in italics below are from the draft minutes with suggested corrections shown in strikeout underline format. The page numbers refer to Volume 66.

their service and noted continued efforts to work with the Aviation Committee to have aircrafts flyer high aircraft fly higher, slower, and quieter.” [See video. “Aircraft” is recognized as a noun that does not require an “s” to make it plural, and Mr Bress did not add one. Similarly, he add “er” to “high” not “fly.”]

“His wife, Marin, administered the Oath of Office …”
“Former Mayor Will O’Neill administered the Oath of Office …” [Comment: I am not much of a believer in loyalty oaths, but it does seem reasonable for citizens to have some assurance those elected to office are committed to upholding the rules under which governments are expected to operate. Indeed, the first page of the official minutes of our City Council begins with Notary Public Clyde Bishop administering the Oath of Office1 to the five newly-elected trustees at their first meeting on September 3, 1906.
1 The oath, in Article XX, Section 3 of the California Constitution at that time consisted solely of: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be,) that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California, and that I will faIthfully discharge the duties of the office of ___, according to the best of my ability."
Received After Agenda Printed
January 14, 2025
Written Comments
76 January 14, 2025, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 2 of 6 Since then, through 2012, it seems to have been the invariable practice for the City Clerk to administer the oaths. However, in 2014, with the election of “Team Newport,” Orange County Superior Court Judge James E. Rogan administered the oaths. And after that, a variety of judges continued to perform this role with the exception of 2020, when former Mayor Evelyn Hart administered the oath to re-elected Council Member Brad Avery, and 2022, when former Mayor Steve Rosansky administered the oath to newly-elected Council Member Robyn Grant. This new practice of having the oath of office administered by private citizens who, whether

former

elected

officials

or

not,

do

not

seem

authorized

by

law

to

do

so,
2 seems

a

bit

like

attending

a

wedding

at

which

a

private

party

administers

the

vows

while

the

minister,

judge

or

government

clerk

sits

to

the

side

as

an

observer

rather

than

a

participant.

It seems strange to me. Is it a new trend?
3 ]
Item XIII. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON CONSENT CALENDAR Since I believe this may be a first in the City’s history, it seems noteworthy that the public portion of

the

current

agenda

contains

no

items

requiring

a

Council

decision

other

than

those

on

the

Consent

Calendar.
4 As a result those watching the meeting without access to the agenda will be at loss to know what,

if

any,

City

business

was

conducted.

It might be noted that Newport Beach didn’t always have a Consent Calendar.

And, as I have noted before, there is at least one other California city, Benecia, where the Mayor reads the titles of the items on the Consent Calendar so that the public at least knows what their Council is consenting to. There are likely others with similar practices. For example, in Del Mar, the City Clerk reads the consent calendar item titles. In both cases, not only the council members,

but

members

of

the

public

are

invited

to

pull

items

for

discussion

by

their

elected

representatives.

It

also

appears

other

cities

may

be

more

judicious

in

what

items

they

place

on

their

consent

calendar

for

approval

without

discussion.

It seems to me the consent calendar may be overused in Newport Beach, for it seems unlikely none

of

the

seven

Council

members

would

have

any

questions

about

any

of

the

items

on

the

Consent

Calendar,

or

that

all

would

agree

each

of

those

items

should

be

approved

exactly

as

presented.

As

a

result,

the

public

is

left

with

the

impression

that

information

is

being

exchanged,

4 I

recall

one

or

two

previous

agendas

where

all

the

business

items

were

on

the

consent

calendar,

but

I

believe

the

agenda

included

either

a

study

session

or

suggestions

for

future

agenda

items,

where

Council

input

was

solicited.

3 For a fee of $125, the Santa Cruz County Clerk offers to appoint private citizens 18 or older as “Deputy Commissioner

of

Marriage

for

a

Day,"

authorized

to

officiate

at

a

specified

wedding

anywhere

in

California

(as

do
Los Angeles County, Nevada County, San Diego County and likely more). At one time ,

the

Orange

County

Clerk-Recorder

offered

this

service,

as

well.

It

is

unclear

if

he

still

does.

2 In 2022, Krista Weigand administered the oath to newly-elected Council Member Erik Weigand, but she did

so

as

a

Trustee

of

the

Newport-Unified

School

District.

The

law,
Government Code Sections 1360 -
1369, is ambiguous, saying only the oath must be taken “before” a person authorized to administer oaths.

77 January 14, 2025, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 3 of 6 and decisions made, outside public view. In other words, that the public’s business is not being done

in

public.

Item 4. Resolution Nos. 2025-2 and 2025-3: Amending the General Plan

Advisory

Committee

and

the

General

Plan

Update

Steering

Committee
This seems to me to be an example of the overuse of the consent calendar. As the staff report explains, this is on the agenda because, pursuant to City Council Policy A-1, at the November 19, 2024, meeting, the previous Council voted, without discussion, to bring the subject back at a future

meeting

“
for

discussion

and/or

action
.”

Yet,

staff

has

placed

it

on

the

consent

calendar,

where

a

specific

proposal

that

has

never

been

publicly

discussed

is

expected

to

be

approved,

again

without

any

discussion.

One might think that, at a minimum, before voting the Council members would want to ask about

the

status

of

the

General

Plan

Update

and

its

expected

timeline.

If

they

did

so,

they

might

learn

that

the

entire

process

is

expected

to

be

completed,

and

the

advisory

committees

dissolved,

before

the

end

of

the

current

year.

Given that context, establishing a procedure by which the advisory committees’ membership will be

reassessed

each

February

seems

strange

–

because

there

will

be

no

future

Februaries

other

than

the

coming

one.

As to changing the composition this February, as a current GPAC member, but commenting as a private

citizen,

I

have

seen

no

reason

offered

for

what

seems

both

unnecessary

and

disruptive.

While

the

process

to

date

has

been

a

very

imperfect

one,

and

could

have

been

better,

changing

the

participants,

but

not

the

structure,

in

the

final

months

hardly

seems

likely

to

produce

a

better

result.

On a more technical note, the Council may wish to know how the City Clerk plans to advertise the

unscheduled

vacancies

and

how

long

the

application

period

will

be

left

open.

Finding

20 to
30 new members will be difficult, and Government Code Section 54974 requires only that at least 10 working days elapse between the posting and the appointment, but does not seem to say

how

long

the

invitation

to

apply

needs

to

be

“open.”
As to the existing members, there seems to be a discrepancy between the proposed resolutions,

whose

Attachment

A’s

say

“
Members

who

are

in

good

standing

at

the

time

their

term

has

expired

are

eligible

for

reappointment

and

need

not

reapply
”

and

the

staff

report,

which

says

“
As

drafted,

if

a

current

GPAC

or

GPUSC

member

is

in

good

standing

with

an

application

on

file

that

is

no

more

than

two

years

old

at

the

time

of

City

Council’s
appointments, there would be no need to submit a new application .” The City’s GPAC page indicates most of the current members were appointed on November 15, 2022, and its GPUSC page indicates all three members were appointed on April 12, 2022. All of these people’s applications would now be more than two years old, and they would need to reapply according to

the

staff

report,

but

not

according

to

what

would

seem

to

be

the

plain

language

of

the

resolutions.

Which

is

correct?

78 January 14, 2025, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 4 of 6 Additionally, the Council members may wish to discuss whether the rules for achieving geographic

and

institutional

diversity

in

appointments

to

the

GPAC

detailed

in

the

table

on

page

4-6

of

the

staff

report

is

still

appropriate,

and

how

the

table

should

be

used.

In

particular,

many

applicants

will

have

multiple

affiliations

and

it

is

not

clear

how

the

limitations

to

“not

more

than

one”

from

each

“sample”

is

intended

to

apply

to

them.

As to the substance of what the committees do, there is an existing uncertainty in that the GPAC is

instructed

to

make

recommendations

to

the

GPUSC,

but

there

is

no

provision

as

what

the

GPUSC

is

supposed

to

do

with

them.

Are

they

obligated

to

pass

them

on

to

the

City

Council?

Or

does

the

GPUSC

have

veto

power

over

the

GPUSC

recommendations?

Item 5. Resolution No. 2025-4: Approving an Amendment to the Key and

Management

Compensation

Plan
The staff report (page 5-1) implies the maximum bonus available for scholastic achievement is

8.5%,

however

the

actual

proposed

language

on

page

5-6

shows

a

7%

bonus

for

achieving

the

BA/BS

level,

and

a

separate

8.5%

bonus

for

the

MA/MS/JD

level

without

making

it

clear

if

members

can

qualify

for

only

one

or

for

both.

Will

that

be

a

problem?

Also shouldn’t there be a requirement that the achievement is in a field related to the employee’s

work?
More generally, the amendment is offered to the Council for approval as a snippet without being able

to

see

the

context

in

which

it

will

occur

or

the

prior

language

it

replaces.

Compounding

that

problem,

the

public

does

not

seem

to

be

able

to

easily

see

or

review

the

current

Key

&
Management Compensation Plan. Instead, on the HR Department’s MOUs & Benefit Summaries page one finds a 2022 version and what seem to be 12 adjustments to it, some of which are not machine searchable, making it particularly challenging to piece together what the current plan is. However, as best I can tell, the (non-machine-readable) Sixth Amendment made Policy Safety Key & Management employees eligible for the same scholastic achievement benefits

as

members

of

the

Police

Management

Association,

with

language

essentially

identical

to

that

for

Fire

Safety

Key

&

Management

employees.

What

was

wrong

with

that?

Is

Fire

Safety

Management

eligible

for

a

larger

benefit

than

Police

Safety

Management?

If

so,

how

large

is

the

change?

And

why

wouldn’t

Police

Management

want

the

same

benefit?
The report does not seem very transparent.

Item 6. Resolution No. 2025-5: Creating the Ad Hoc Council Policy Review

Committee
This is another case where, rather than being on the consent calendar, one might think the Council

members

would

want

to

discuss

the

matter

to

give

direction

to

the

committee

as

to

the

scope

of

their

assignment,

and

possibly

as

to

who

should

be

on

it.

Although I cannot find it mentioned in either the staff report or the proposed resolution, the last comprehensive review of the Council Policy Manual took place in 2018, and culminated in the massive 338-page Item 18 on the August 8, 2017, agenda, making changes that neither the

79 January 14, 2025, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 5 of 6 public nor the Council members not on the committee had time to thoughtfully consider or review.

I would strongly recommend the present committee be asked to review the policies in more digestible

pieces,

and

through

a

more

public

process

–

including,

for

example,

presentation

at

a

study

session

at

a

meeting

prior

to

the

meeting

at

which

adoption

is

proposed.

Item 14. Memorandum of Agreement with the City of Long Beach Acting

By

and

Through

the

Port

of

Long

Beach

Board

of

Harbor

Commissioners

Authorizing

Disposal

of

Lower

Bay

Dredged

Material

Into

the

Port’s

Pier

G

Slip

Fill

Project
Part (2) of Condition 8 on page 14-8, causing the Agreement to terminate on “ the commencement

of

the

placement

of

the

Newport

Bay

Material

at

a

site

other

than

the

Project
”

seems

slightly

strange.

Does

this

mean

that

if

any

of

the

“
approximately

225,000

cubic

yards

of

material

from

the

Lower

Newport

Bay

channels
”

identified

as

“
Newport

Bay

Material
”

is

found

to

be

suitable

for

disposal

outside

the

Port

of

Long

Beach,

and

disposed

of

at

some

alternate

location,

the

Port

will

refuse

to

accept

any

more?
Also, if the Port of Long Beach location becomes unavailable before all the unsuitable material has

been

disposed

of,

does

the

City

have

a

plan

to

construct

a

smaller

CAD

than

was

originally

planned?

And,

finally,

how

does

this

Agreement

affect

the

private

homeowners

who

were

promised

use

of

the

CAD?

Item 15. Planning Commission Agenda for the January 9, 2025 Meeting
Those new to the Council may be wondering why they are receiving a report on the actions of the

Planning

Commission

and

not

of

any

of

the

City’s

other

boards

or

commissions.

Originally,

this

was

not

on

the

consent

calendar,

but

scheduled

as

a

full

discussion

item.

And

its

purpose,

then

as

now,

was

to

apprise

Council

members

of

the

Planning

Commission’s

decisions,

so

they
would have a chance to call for review, as allowed, currently, by Municipal Code Chapter 20.64. 5 In the present case, the Council is receiving reports of two Planning Commission decisions, both

of

which

seem

problematic

to

me.

In the first, the PC approved remodeling of a warehouse as a fitness training facility for exclusive

use

by

students

of

a

neighboring

high

school,

even

though

the

property

is

designated

for

industrial

uses

and

and

other

uses

“ancillary”

or

“accessory”

to

the

primary

industrial

uses.

While,

as

staff

indicated,

fitness

facilities

are

allowed

“by

right”

in

this

area,

the

assumption

is

they

will

be

serving

the

needs

of

the

primary

industrial

users.

A

facility

serving

exclusively

students

from

a

neighboring

district

is

clearly

not

supporting

the

industrial

uses.

Staff

seems

to

be

reading

“ancillary”

or

“accessory”

not

as

“supporting,”

but

rather

as

anything

that

occupies

5 One might still wonder why the Council does not receive similar reports regarding decisions by the Harbor

Commission,

since

there

is

a

parallel

call

for

review

provision

in

NBMC
Chapter 17.65, Or for
decisions

of

the

Parks,

Beaches

and

Recreation

Commission,

even

though

the

opportunity

to

review

is

found

only

in

Council

Policies.

80 January 14, 2025, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 6 of 6 less than a majority of the district. To me, that seems clearly not to have been the intent of the code.

In the second hearing, the PC had to deal with a tennis club consisting of two separately-owned parcels,

but

originally

approved

and

allowed

to

be

subdivided

only

under

the

assumption

they

would

be

operated

together.

Without

making

any

changes

to

that

existing

permit

for

the

two

parcels

to

operate

together,

and

without

seeing

any

evidence

of

consent

by

the

owner

of

one

of

the

parcels,

the

PC

approved

a

staff-proposed,

new,

separate

permit

for

the

second

parcel,

allowing

it

to

be

used

as

a

separate

pickleball

facility.

The

result

seems

to

be

both

to

have

caused

the

other

parcel

to

become

landlocked,

and

to

have

transferred

to

it

all

the

entitlements

of

the

original

permit.

Additionally,

it

seems

quite

possible

the

approval

will

create

land

use

incompatibilities,

with

noise

from

the

pickleball

activity

disturbing

future

guests

at

the

neighboring

hotel

and,

possibly,

residents

across

Jamboree

Road

at

Sea

Island.

I

took

some

grief

from

the

Commissioners

for

suggesting

City

staff

did

not

have

the

expertise

to

independently

verify

the

conclusions

of

the

applicant

noise

analysis

(which

nowhere

addressed

the

highly

impulsive

nature

of

pickleball

noise),

but

I

do

believe

that

to

be

the

case.

Council members may wish to consider calling one of both of these decisions up for review.

Item 16. Confirmation of Nominations to Fill an Unscheduled Vacancy on

the

Parks,

Beaches

&

Recreation

Commission
Since the Council is being asked to “confirm” just two nominations, it would have been helpful to at

least

list

the

names

of

any

other

citizens

who

might

have

applied.

It

would

seem

they

deserve

at

least

that

minimal

recognition,
6 and

other

Council

members

may

wish

to

propose

adding

some

of

the

names

from

that

list.

Item 17. Confirmation of Mayor Joe Stapleton's Appointments Since this item is scheduled to be adopted without discussion, it presumably involved some non-public

discussion

of

who

wanted

to

serve

on

what

committees.

While

that

is

not

necessarily

illegal,

it

would

seem

like

a

discussion

that

could

better

have

taken

place

at

the

public

meeting.

That said, I have, for a number of years, been puzzled by the continuing appointment of a Council member as chair of the Environmental Quality Affairs Committee, especially considering that committee has not met since August 16, 2016 (and before that, on November 20, 2014) and currently has no members other than the Council appointee (of which there are actually supposed

to

be

two).

I see from the minutes of the similar Item 12 from January 10, 2023, that I raised the same puzzlement, and that year’s appointee, Mayor Blom, volunteered that “ as Chair of EQAC, he will assess the future of EQAC .” But as Item 11 on January 9, 2024, he was reappointed as Chair, and, as I noted then, one might wonder how long the assessment will take? One continues to wonder. 6 In other cities, such as Costa Mesa and Laguna Beach, I believe the full council publicly interviews all the

applicants

before

making

appointments.

81 6-1

NEWPORT BEACH

City Council Staff Report

COUNCIL STAFF REPORT

CITY OF

January 14, 2025
Agenda Item No. 6

ABSTRACT:

If adopted, Resolution No, 2025 -5, would establish the Ad Hoc Council Policy Review Committee comprised of three City Council members to review and make recommendations regarding revisions to the Council Policy Manual.

RECOMMENDATIONS:
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. 2025-5, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach, California, Creating an Ad Hoc Committee to Review the City Council Policies and Make Recommendations to the City Council Regarding Revisions Thereto; and c) Appoint Mayor Joe Stapleton, Mayor Pro Tem Lauren Kleiman and Councilmember Sara J. Weber to serve on the Ad Hoc Council Policy Review Committee.

DISCUSSION:

At the request of Mayor Pro Tem Lauren Kleiman pursuant to Council Policy A -1, at its December 10, 2024 meeting, the City Council considered forming an ad hoc committee to review and make recommendations for revisions to the City Council Policy Manual .

The City Council voted 6-1, via a straw poll, in favor of staff returning with an item.

If adopted, Resolution No. 2025 -5 would create the Ad Hoc Council Policy Review Committee (Committee) consisting of three Council members appointed by the Mayor and confirmed by the entire City Council. The Committee will be responsible for reviewing the City Council’s policies and submitting recommendations for potential revisions to the full Council for consideration. The Committee would be advisory and expire upon making a final recommendation to the City Council or December 31, 2025, whichever is earlier.

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: Grace K. Leung, City Manager - 949-644-3001,
[email protected]
PREPARED BY: Tara Finnigan, Assistant City Manager - 949-644-3035, [email protected]
TITLE: Resolution No. 2025-5: Creating the Ad Hoc Council Policy Review Committee
82 Resolution No. 2025-5: Creating the Ad Hoc Council Policy Review Committee January 14, 2025

6-2

Additionally, for the Council's consideration, are the appointments of Mayor Joe Stapleton, Mayor Pro Tem Lauren Kleiman and Councilmember Sara J. Weber to serve on the Committee.

FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no fiscal impact related to the adoption of Resolution No. 2025-5.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

Staff recommends the City Council find this action is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Sections 15060(c)(2) (the activity will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the enviro nment) and 15060(c)(3) (the activity is not a project as defined in Section 15378) of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, because it has no potential for resulting in physical change to the environment, directly or indirectly.

NOTICING:

The agenda item has been noticed according to the Brown Act (72 hours in advance of the meeting at which the City Council considers the item).

ATTACHMENT:

Attachment A – Resolution No. 2025-5

83 ATTACHMENT A
5 6-3
84 6-4
85 6-5
86 January 14, 2025, City Council Agenda Comments
The following comments on items on the Newport Beach City Council agenda are submitted by:

Jim Mosher ( [email protected] ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach 92660 (949-548-6229) Item III.B CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS
This appears to be at least the tenth time a closed session has been announced for the Council to privately discuss “price and terms of payment” regarding public right-of-way adjacent to the identical properties, the first announcement having been as Item IV.A on February 23, 2021.

And the only change has been the initial “approximately 845 square feet” increasing to the “approximately 1,105 square feet” when it came back as Item IV.A on November 12, 2024.

And while the purpose of the announcement is, in theory, to invite public comment to guide the Council in its decision, at no time has there been any public disclosure of why a sale or lease is being considered. This may be contrasted with earlier, more transparent announcements, for example Item IV.C from July 26, 2011, where it was at least disclosed that “price and terms of payment” needed to be discussed “with respect to resolution of boundary dispute between Tidelands and Uplands.”
Why is public property in play adjacent to 929 Zurich Circle and 944 Via Lido Nord? Item 1. Minutes for the December 10, 2024 City Council Meeting The passages shown in italics below are from the draft minutes with suggested corrections shown in strikeout underline format. The page numbers refer to Volume 66.

their service and noted continued efforts to work with the Aviation Committee to have aircrafts flyer high aircraft fly higher, slower, and quieter.” [See video. “Aircraft” is recognized as a noun that does not require an “s” to make it plural, and Mr Bress did not add one. Similarly, he add “er” to “high” not “fly.”]

“His wife, Marin, administered the Oath of Office …”
“Former Mayor Will O’Neill administered the Oath of Office …” [Comment: I am not much of a believer in loyalty oaths, but it does seem reasonable for citizens to have some assurance those elected to office are committed to upholding the rules under which governments are expected to operate. Indeed, the first page of the official minutes of our City Council begins with Notary Public Clyde Bishop administering the Oath of Office1 to the five newly-elected trustees at their first meeting on September 3, 1906.
1 The oath, in Article XX, Section 3 of the California Constitution at that time consisted solely of: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be,) that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California, and that I will faIthfully discharge the duties of the office of ___, according to the best of my ability."
Received After Agenda Printed
January 14, 2025
Written Comments
87 January 14, 2025, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 2 of 6 Since then, through 2012, it seems to have been the invariable practice for the City Clerk to administer the oaths. However, in 2014, with the election of “Team Newport,” Orange County Superior Court Judge James E. Rogan administered the oaths. And after that, a variety of judges continued to perform this role with the exception of 2020, when former Mayor Evelyn Hart administered the oath to re-elected Council Member Brad Avery, and 2022, when former Mayor Steve Rosansky administered the oath to newly-elected Council Member Robyn Grant. This new practice of having the oath of office administered by private citizens who, whether

former

elected

officials

or

not,

do

not

seem

authorized

by

law

to

do

so,
2 seems

a

bit

like

attending

a

wedding

at

which

a

private

party

administers

the

vows

while

the

minister,

judge

or

government

clerk

sits

to

the

side

as

an

observer

rather

than

a

participant.

It seems strange to me. Is it a new trend?
3 ]
Item XIII. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON CONSENT CALENDAR Since I believe this may be a first in the City’s history, it seems noteworthy that the public portion of

the

current

agenda

contains

no

items

requiring

a

Council

decision

other

than

those

on

the

Consent

Calendar.
4 As a result those watching the meeting without access to the agenda will be at loss to know what,

if

any,

City

business

was

conducted.

It might be noted that Newport Beach didn’t always have a Consent Calendar.

And, as I have noted before, there is at least one other California city, Benecia, where the Mayor reads the titles of the items on the Consent Calendar so that the public at least knows what their Council is consenting to. There are likely others with similar practices. For example, in Del Mar, the City Clerk reads the consent calendar item titles. In both cases, not only the council members,

but

members

of

the

public

are

invited

to

pull

items

for

discussion

by

their

elected

representatives.

It

also

appears

other

cities

may

be

more

judicious

in

what

items

they

place

on

their

consent

calendar

for

approval

without

discussion.

It seems to me the consent calendar may be overused in Newport Beach, for it seems unlikely none

of

the

seven

Council

members

would

have

any

questions

about

any

of

the

items

on

the

Consent

Calendar,

or

that

all

would

agree

each

of

those

items

should

be

approved

exactly

as

presented.

As

a

result,

the

public

is

left

with

the

impression

that

information

is

being

exchanged,

4 I

recall

one

or

two

previous

agendas

where

all

the

business

items

were

on

the

consent

calendar,

but

I

believe

the

agenda

included

either

a

study

session

or

suggestions

for

future

agenda

items,

where

Council

input

was

solicited.

3 For a fee of $125, the Santa Cruz County Clerk offers to appoint private citizens 18 or older as “Deputy Commissioner

of

Marriage

for

a

Day,"

authorized

to

officiate

at

a

specified

wedding

anywhere

in

California

(as

do
Los Angeles County, Nevada County, San Diego County and likely more). At one time ,

the

Orange

County

Clerk-Recorder

offered

this

service,

as

well.

It

is

unclear

if

he

still

does.

2 In 2022, Krista Weigand administered the oath to newly-elected Council Member Erik Weigand, but she did

so

as

a

Trustee

of

the

Newport-Unified

School

District.

The

law,
Government Code Sections 1360 -
1369, is ambiguous, saying only the oath must be taken “before” a person authorized to administer oaths.

88 January 14, 2025, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 3 of 6 and decisions made, outside public view. In other words, that the public’s business is not being done

in

public.

Item 4. Resolution Nos. 2025-2 and 2025-3: Amending the General Plan

Advisory

Committee

and

the

General

Plan

Update

Steering

Committee
This seems to me to be an example of the overuse of the consent calendar. As the staff report explains, this is on the agenda because, pursuant to City Council Policy A-1, at the November 19, 2024, meeting, the previous Council voted, without discussion, to bring the subject back at a future

meeting

“
for

discussion

and/or

action
.”

Yet,

staff

has

placed

it

on

the

consent

calendar,

where

a

specific

proposal

that

has

never

been

publicly

discussed

is

expected

to

be

approved,

again

without

any

discussion.

One might think that, at a minimum, before voting the Council members would want to ask about

the

status

of

the

General

Plan

Update

and

its

expected

timeline.

If

they

did

so,

they

might

learn

that

the

entire

process

is

expected

to

be

completed,

and

the

advisory

committees

dissolved,

before

the

end

of

the

current

year.

Given that context, establishing a procedure by which the advisory committees’ membership will be

reassessed

each

February

seems

strange

–

because

there

will

be

no

future

Februaries

other

than

the

coming

one.

As to changing the composition this February, as a current GPAC member, but commenting as a private

citizen,

I

have

seen

no

reason

offered

for

what

seems

both

unnecessary

and

disruptive.

While

the

process

to

date

has

been

a

very

imperfect

one,

and

could

have

been

better,

changing

the

participants,

but

not

the

structure,

in

the

final

months

hardly

seems

likely

to

produce

a

better

result.

On a more technical note, the Council may wish to know how the City Clerk plans to advertise the

unscheduled

vacancies

and

how

long

the

application

period

will

be

left

open.

Finding

20 to
30 new members will be difficult, and Government Code Section 54974 requires only that at least 10 working days elapse between the posting and the appointment, but does not seem to say

how

long

the

invitation

to

apply

needs

to

be

“open.”
As to the existing members, there seems to be a discrepancy between the proposed resolutions,

whose

Attachment

A’s

say

“
Members

who

are

in

good

standing

at

the

time

their

term

has

expired

are

eligible

for

reappointment

and

need

not

reapply
”

and

the

staff

report,

which

says

“
As

drafted,

if

a

current

GPAC

or

GPUSC

member

is

in

good

standing

with

an

application

on

file

that

is

no

more

than

two

years

old

at

the

time

of

City

Council’s
appointments, there would be no need to submit a new application .” The City’s GPAC page indicates most of the current members were appointed on November 15, 2022, and its GPUSC page indicates all three members were appointed on April 12, 2022. All of these people’s applications would now be more than two years old, and they would need to reapply according to

the

staff

report,

but

not

according

to

what

would

seem

to

be

the

plain

language

of

the

resolutions.

Which

is

correct?

89 January 14, 2025, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 4 of 6 Additionally, the Council members may wish to discuss whether the rules for achieving geographic

and

institutional

diversity

in

appointments

to

the

GPAC

detailed

in

the

table

on

page

4-6

of

the

staff

report

is

still

appropriate,

and

how

the

table

should

be

used.

In

particular,

many

applicants

will

have

multiple

affiliations

and

it

is

not

clear

how

the

limitations

to

“not

more

than

one”

from

each

“sample”

is

intended

to

apply

to

them.

As to the substance of what the committees do, there is an existing uncertainty in that the GPAC is

instructed

to

make

recommendations

to

the

GPUSC,

but

there

is

no

provision

as

what

the

GPUSC

is

supposed

to

do

with

them.

Are

they

obligated

to

pass

them

on

to

the

City

Council?

Or

does

the

GPUSC

have

veto

power

over

the

GPUSC

recommendations?

Item 5. Resolution No. 2025-4: Approving an Amendment to the Key and

Management

Compensation

Plan
The staff report (page 5-1) implies the maximum bonus available for scholastic achievement is

8.5%,

however

the

actual

proposed

language

on

page

5-6

shows

a

7%

bonus

for

achieving

the

BA/BS

level,

and

a

separate

8.5%

bonus

for

the

MA/MS/JD

level

without

making

it

clear

if

members

can

qualify

for

only

one

or

for

both.

Will

that

be

a

problem?

Also shouldn’t there be a requirement that the achievement is in a field related to the employee’s

work?
More generally, the amendment is offered to the Council for approval as a snippet without being able

to

see

the

context

in

which

it

will

occur

or

the

prior

language

it

replaces.

Compounding

that

problem,

the

public

does

not

seem

to

be

able

to

easily

see

or

review

the

current

Key

&
Management Compensation Plan. Instead, on the HR Department’s MOUs & Benefit Summaries page one finds a 2022 version and what seem to be 12 adjustments to it, some of which are not machine searchable, making it particularly challenging to piece together what the current plan is. However, as best I can tell, the (non-machine-readable) Sixth Amendment made Policy Safety Key & Management employees eligible for the same scholastic achievement benefits

as

members

of

the

Police

Management

Association,

with

language

essentially

identical

to

that

for

Fire

Safety

Key

&

Management

employees.

What

was

wrong

with

that?

Is

Fire

Safety

Management

eligible

for

a

larger

benefit

than

Police

Safety

Management?

If

so,

how

large

is

the

change?

And

why

wouldn’t

Police

Management

want

the

same

benefit?
The report does not seem very transparent.

Item 6. Resolution No. 2025-5: Creating the Ad Hoc Council Policy Review

Committee
This is another case where, rather than being on the consent calendar, one might think the Council

members

would

want

to

discuss

the

matter

to

give

direction

to

the

committee

as

to

the

scope

of

their

assignment,

and

possibly

as

to

who

should

be

on

it.

Although I cannot find it mentioned in either the staff report or the proposed resolution, the last comprehensive review of the Council Policy Manual took place in 2018, and culminated in the massive 338-page Item 18 on the August 8, 2017, agenda, making changes that neither the

90 January 14, 2025, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 5 of 6 public nor the Council members not on the committee had time to thoughtfully consider or review.

I would strongly recommend the present committee be asked to review the policies in more digestible

pieces,

and

through

a

more

public

process

–

including,

for

example,

presentation

at

a

study

session

at

a

meeting

prior

to

the

meeting

at

which

adoption

is

proposed.

Item 14. Memorandum of Agreement with the City of Long Beach Acting

By

and

Through

the

Port

of

Long

Beach

Board

of

Harbor

Commissioners

Authorizing

Disposal

of

Lower

Bay

Dredged

Material

Into

the

Port’s

Pier

G

Slip

Fill

Project
Part (2) of Condition 8 on page 14-8, causing the Agreement to terminate on “ the commencement

of

the

placement

of

the

Newport

Bay

Material

at

a

site

other

than

the

Project
”

seems

slightly

strange.

Does

this

mean

that

if

any

of

the

“
approximately

225,000

cubic

yards

of

material

from

the

Lower

Newport

Bay

channels
”

identified

as

“
Newport

Bay

Material
”

is

found

to

be

suitable

for

disposal

outside

the

Port

of

Long

Beach,

and

disposed

of

at

some

alternate

location,

the

Port

will

refuse

to

accept

any

more?
Also, if the Port of Long Beach location becomes unavailable before all the unsuitable material has

been

disposed

of,

does

the

City

have

a

plan

to

construct

a

smaller

CAD

than

was

originally

planned?

And,

finally,

how

does

this

Agreement

affect

the

private

homeowners

who

were

promised

use

of

the

CAD?

Item 15. Planning Commission Agenda for the January 9, 2025 Meeting
Those new to the Council may be wondering why they are receiving a report on the actions of the

Planning

Commission

and

not

of

any

of

the

City’s

other

boards

or

commissions.

Originally,

this

was

not

on

the

consent

calendar,

but

scheduled

as

a

full

discussion

item.

And

its

purpose,

then

as

now,

was

to

apprise

Council

members

of

the

Planning

Commission’s

decisions,

so

they
would have a chance to call for review, as allowed, currently, by Municipal Code Chapter 20.64. 5 In the present case, the Council is receiving reports of two Planning Commission decisions, both

of

which

seem

problematic

to

me.

In the first, the PC approved remodeling of a warehouse as a fitness training facility for exclusive

use

by

students

of

a

neighboring

high

school,

even

though

the

property

is

designated

for

industrial

uses

and

and

other

uses

“ancillary”

or

“accessory”

to

the

primary

industrial

uses.

While,

as

staff

indicated,

fitness

facilities

are

allowed

“by

right”

in

this

area,

the

assumption

is

they

will

be

serving

the

needs

of

the

primary

industrial

users.

A

facility

serving

exclusively

students

from

a

neighboring

district

is

clearly

not

supporting

the

industrial

uses.

Staff

seems

to

be

reading

“ancillary”

or

“accessory”

not

as

“supporting,”

but

rather

as

anything

that

occupies

5 One might still wonder why the Council does not receive similar reports regarding decisions by the Harbor

Commission,

since

there

is

a

parallel

call

for

review

provision

in

NBMC
Chapter 17.65, Or for
decisions

of

the

Parks,

Beaches

and

Recreation

Commission,

even

though

the

opportunity

to

review

is

found

only

in

Council

Policies.

91 January 14, 2025, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 6 of 6 less than a majority of the district. To me, that seems clearly not to have been the intent of the code.

In the second hearing, the PC had to deal with a tennis club consisting of two separately-owned parcels,

but

originally

approved

and

allowed

to

be

subdivided

only

under

the

assumption

they

would

be

operated

together.

Without

making

any

changes

to

that

existing

permit

for

the

two

parcels

to

operate

together,

and

without

seeing

any

evidence

of

consent

by

the

owner

of

one

of

the

parcels,

the

PC

approved

a

staff-proposed,

new,

separate

permit

for

the

second

parcel,

allowing

it

to

be

used

as

a

separate

pickleball

facility.

The

result

seems

to

be

both

to

have

caused

the

other

parcel

to

become

landlocked,

and

to

have

transferred

to

it

all

the

entitlements

of

the

original

permit.

Additionally,

it

seems

quite

possible

the

approval

will

create

land

use

incompatibilities,

with

noise

from

the

pickleball

activity

disturbing

future

guests

at

the

neighboring

hotel

and,

possibly,

residents

across

Jamboree

Road

at

Sea

Island.

I

took

some

grief

from

the

Commissioners

for

suggesting

City

staff

did

not

have

the

expertise

to

independently

verify

the

conclusions

of

the

applicant

noise

analysis

(which

nowhere

addressed

the

highly

impulsive

nature

of

pickleball

noise),

but

I

do

believe

that

to

be

the

case.

Council members may wish to consider calling one of both of these decisions up for review.

Item 16. Confirmation of Nominations to Fill an Unscheduled Vacancy on

the

Parks,

Beaches

&

Recreation

Commission
Since the Council is being asked to “confirm” just two nominations, it would have been helpful to at

least

list

the

names

of

any

other

citizens

who

might

have

applied.

It

would

seem

they

deserve

at

least

that

minimal

recognition,
6 and

other

Council

members

may

wish

to

propose

adding

some

of

the

names

from

that

list.

Item 17. Confirmation of Mayor Joe Stapleton's Appointments Since this item is scheduled to be adopted without discussion, it presumably involved some non-public

discussion

of

who

wanted

to

serve

on

what

committees.

While

that

is

not

necessarily

illegal,

it

would

seem

like

a

discussion

that

could

better

have

taken

place

at

the

public

meeting.

That said, I have, for a number of years, been puzzled by the continuing appointment of a Council member as chair of the Environmental Quality Affairs Committee, especially considering that committee has not met since August 16, 2016 (and before that, on November 20, 2014) and currently has no members other than the Council appointee (of which there are actually supposed

to

be

two).

I see from the minutes of the similar Item 12 from January 10, 2023, that I raised the same puzzlement, and that year’s appointee, Mayor Blom, volunteered that “ as Chair of EQAC, he will assess the future of EQAC .” But as Item 11 on January 9, 2024, he was reappointed as Chair, and, as I noted then, one might wonder how long the assessment will take? One continues to wonder. 6 In other cities, such as Costa Mesa and Laguna Beach, I believe the full council publicly interviews all the

applicants

before

making

appointments.

92 7-1

NEWPORT BEACH

City Council Staff Report

COUNCIL STAFF REPORT

CITY OF

January 14, 2025
Agenda Item No. 7
ABSTRACT:

On March 28, 2023 , the City Council awarded Contract No. 8758-2 for the Hillsborough Pump Station Rehabilitation project to Vicon Enterprise, Inc. of Anaheim.

The project replaced the existing pump and motor, added a new standalone motor starter, replaced valves and lighting, and added new electrical power, controls and panels at the water pump station adjacent to Hillsborough in the Spyglass Hill area . The work is now complete and staff requests City Council acceptance and close out of the contract.

RECOMMENDATION:
a) Accept the completed work and authorize the City Clerk to file a Notice of Completion for the project.

DISCUSSION:

Overall Contract Cost/Time Summary
Awarded Contract
Amount
Final Total Contract
Amount
Total Contract
Change Amount
Percent Contract
Cost Change
$354,000 $391,550.19 $37,550.19 10.6%
Allowed Contract Time +
Approved Extensions (Days) = 432 Actual Time Used (Days) 374

This project included pump, motor, valves, lighting, fan and pipe support installation at the Hillsborough water pump station . The contracted work has been completed to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department. A summary of the construction cost is as follows:

Original Bid Amount: $ 354,000.00
Actual Cost of Bid Items Constructed: $ 354,000.00
Total Change Orders: $ 37,550.19
Final Contract Cost: $ 391,550.19
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: David A. Webb, Public Works Director - 949-644-3311, [email protected]
PREPARED BY: Michael J. Sinacori, Assistant City Engineer - 949-644-3342, [email protected]
TITLE: Hillsborough Pump Station Rehabilitation – Notice of Completion for Contract No. 8758-2 (23W12)
93 Hillsborough Pump Station Rehabilitation –
Notice of Completion for Contract No. 8758-2 (23W12)
January 14, 2025

7-2

The final total contract amount was $391,550.19, which was approximately 10.6% higher than the original bid amount (City Council approved a 15% contingency allowance). This cost increase was primarily due to City-requested change order s, such as using a particular brand of valve and replacement of other pipeline determined necessary by the Utilities Department.

A summary of the project schedule milestones is as follows:

Although the Award of Contract staff report indicate d that the contractor would have 250 consecutive working days, the contractor was given 400 consecutive working days per Addendum No. 1 issued on February 8, 2023 , prior to bid opening . Change orders provided an additional 32 working days. The contractor needed time to procure materials and equipment as supply chain issues were still impacting water system materials . The project was completed ahead of the extended schedule.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The Hillsborough Pump Station Rehabilitation project was included within the FY 2022-23 Capital Improvement Program Budget. Funds for the construction contract were expended from the following account:

Account Description Account Number Amount
Water Capital Distribution/Piping 70201931-980000-23W12 $ 391,550.19 Total: $ 391,550.19
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

On March 28, 2023 , the City Council found 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, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, because it has no potential to have a significant effect on the environment.

NOTICING:

The agenda item has been noticed according to the Brown Act (72 hours in advance of the meeting at which the City Council considers the item).

ATTACHMENT:

Attachment A – Location Map
Estimated Start of Construction per Annual Baseline Schedule July 2, 2023 Actual Start of Construction Per Notice to Proceed May 1, 2023 Estimated Contract Completion Date with Approved Extensions January 31, 2025 Actual Substantial Construction Completion Date October 31, 2024 94 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENTHILLSBOROUGH PUMP STATION

REHABILITATION
Attachment A
LOCATION MAP C-8758-2 1/14/2025
7-3
95 8-1

NEWPORT BEACH

City Council Staff Report

COUNCIL STAFF REPORT

CITY OF

January 14, 2025
Agenda Item No. 8

ABSTRACT:

On July 23, 2024 , the City Council awarded Contract No. 9148-1 for the Storm Drain System Upgrades project to PALP, Inc. DBA Excel Paving Company. The project installed drainage improvements at two areas within the City of Newport Beach, at Iris and Jasmine Avenues and at Port Edward Circle. Storm drainpipes were installed at both areas to alleviate drainage concerns for nearby residents. The work is now complete and staff requests the City Council’s acceptance and close out of the contract.

RECOMMENDATION:
a) Accept the completed work and authorize the City Clerk to file a Notice of Completion for the project.

DISCUSSION:

Overall Contract Cost/Time Summary
Awarded Contract
Amount
Final Total Contract
Amount
Total Contract
Change Amount
Percent Contract
Cost Change
$463,828.00 $502,989.80 $39,161.80 8.4%
Allowed Contract Time +
Approved Extensions (Days) = 70 Actual Time Used (Days) 60

This project included the installation of storm drain piping, catch basins, and concrete pavement at the end of Iris and Jasmine Avenues, and installing a sub-drain system in Port Edward Circle that connected to an existing sub-drain line in Newport Hills Drive East.

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: David A. Webb, Public Works Director - 949-644-3311, [email protected]
PREPARED BY: Michael J. Sinacori, Assistant City Engineer - 949-644-3342, [email protected]
TITLE: Storm Drain System Upgrades – Notice of Completion for Contract No. 9148-1 (23D02)
96 Storm Drain System Upgrades – Notice of Completion for Contract No. 9148-1 January 14, 2025

8-2

The contracted work has been completed to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department. A summary of the construction cost is as follows:

Original Bid Amount: $ 463,828.00
Actual Cost of Bid Items Constructed: $ 463,828.00
Total Change Orders: $ 39,161.80
Final Contract Cost: $ 502,989.80

The final total contract amount was $502,989.80, which was approximately 8.4% higher than the original bid amount. This cost increase was primarily due to upgrading the drainage system to use HDPE piping and adding another sub-drainage lateral to the system that was found during construction to be contributing to the excess water in the area.

A summary of the project schedule milestones is as follows:

The contractor stayed on schedule throughout the project and completed all work in excellent condition.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The Storm Drain System Upgrades project was included within the Fiscal Year 2024-25 Capital Improvement Program Budget. Funds for the construction contract were expended from the following account(s):

Account Description Account Number Amount
Neighborhood Enhancement 53601-980000-23D02 $ 347,209.97 General Fund 01201926-980000-25D02 $ 155,779.83
Total: $ 502,989.80
The Neighborhood Enhancement Fund is used for projects that enhance neighborhood aesthetics and functionality and is funded via surplus general funds.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

On July 23, 2024 , the City Council found this project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15304 (minor alterations in the condition of land, water, and/or vegetation) of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, because it has no potential to have a significant effect on the environment.

Estimated Start of Construction per Annual Baseline Schedule August 12, 2024 Actual Start of Construction Per Notice to Proceed August 19, 2024 Estimated Contract Completion Date with Approved Extensions November 1, 2024 Actual Substantial Construction Completion Date November 8, 2024 97 Storm Drain System Upgrades – Notice of Completion for Contract No. 9148-1 January 14, 2025

8-3

NOTICING:

The agenda item has been noticed according to the Brown Act (72 hours in advance of the meeting at which the City Council considers the item).

ATTACHMENT:

Attachment A – Location Map

98 EDWARD

PORT LAURENT PLACE

PORT SUTTON DR
PORT

PORT EDWARD

PORT TOWNSEND CIR

PORT CARNEY PL

NEWPORT HILLS

SAN MIGUEL DR
CIR
PL
DR E

LARKSPUR AVE

SEAVIEW AVE

BAYVIEW DR

MARGUERITE AVENUE EAST COAST HWY<null>
IRIS

JASMINE

LARKSPUR

JASMINE AVE

IRIS AVE

HELIOTROPE AVE

BAYSIDE DRIVE
I:\Users\PBW\Shared\Contracts\FY23-24 CURRENT\200_STREETS_DRAINAGE\Strm Drn_Subdrn & Old Newport Blvd Imprv C-9148-1\PLANS & EXHIBITS\Location Map.dwg 06/27/24 - 5:38pm abaldenegro

STORM DRAIN SYSTEM UPGRADES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
C-9148-1 1/14/25LOCATION MAP
NTS

NEW SUBDRAIN
SYSTEM

PORT EDWARD CIR PROJECT AREA

IRIS AVENUE & JASMINE AVENUE PROJECT AREAS

ATTACHMENT A
8-4
99 9-1

NEWPORT BEACH

City Council Staff Report

COUNCIL STAFF REPORT

CITY OF

January 14, 2025
Agenda Item No. 9

ABSTRACT:

On August 27, 2024, the City Council awarded Contract No. 9393-1 for the 2023-2024 Facilities Painting Project to GCD Painting of Wilmington. The project addressed protective coatings at the City of Newport Beach Utilities Yard, Police Department Headquarters, and Balboa Yacht Basin. The work is now complete and staff requests City Council acceptance and close out of the contract.

RECOMMENDATION:
a) Accept the completed work and authorize the City Clerk to file a Notice of Completion for the project.

DISCUSSION:

Overall Contract Cost/Time Summary
Awarded Contract
Amount
Final Total Contract
Amount
Total Contract
Change Amount
Percent Contract
Cost Change
$174,000 $176,100 $2,100 1.21%
Allowed Contract Time +
Approved Extensions (Days) = 70 Actual Time Used (Days) 33

This project addressed protective coatings at the City’s Utilities Yard, Police Department Headquarters, and Balboa Yacht Basin to protect the various building materials from deterioration. This proactive approach shields the metal, wood and other building materials from damage that could result in more costly repair work in the future. The new paint provides an additional benefit of a more aesthetically pleasing appearance of these facilities.

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: David A. Webb, Public Works Director - 949-644-3311, [email protected]
PREPARED BY: Tom Sandefur, Assistant City Engineer - 949-644-3321, [email protected]
TITLE: 2023-2024 Facilities Painting Project – Notice of Completion for Contract No. 9393-1 (24F02)
100
2023-2024 Facilities Painting Project – Notice of Completion January 14, 2025

9-2
A summary of the contract construction cost is as follows:

Original Bid Amount:

$

174,000
Actual Cost of Bid Items Constructed: $ 174,000
Total Change Orders: $ 2,100
Final Contract Cost: $ 176,100

There was one change order for $2,100, which increased the original contract amount by

1.21% and was within the contingency allowance. This change order expanded the work scope to include painting of the cable wires supporting the City’s radio tower as the cables were showing signs of increased corrosion.

A summary of the project schedule milestones is as follows:

FISCAL IMPACT:

The 2023-2024 Facilities Painting Project was included within the F iscal Year 2023-24 Capital Improvement Program Budget. Funds for the construction contract were expended from the Facilities Maintenance Master Plan (General Fund) from the following accounts:

Account Description Account Number Amount
FMMP 57101-980000-24F02 $ 174,465.71
FMMP 57101-980000-22F02 $ 1,634.29
Total: $ 176,100.00

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

On August 27, 2024, the City Council found this project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Class 1 Section 15301(d) (rehabilitation of deteriorated facilities involving no expansion of existing use) of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, because it has no potential to have a significant effect on the environment.

NOTICING:

The agenda item has been noticed according to the Brown Act (72 hours in advance of the meeting at which the City Council considers the item).

ATTACHMENT:

Attachment A – Location Map
Estimated Start of Construction per Annual Baseline Schedule November 4, 2024 Actual Start of Construction Per Notice to Proceed October 14, 2024 Estimated Contract Completion Date with Approved Extensions February 4, 2025 Actual Substantial Construction Completion Date December 2, 2024 101
10471
I:\Users\PBW\Shared\Contracts\FY24-25 CURRENT\100_FACILITIES\FMMP\2023-2024 Facilities Painting Proj C-9393_24F02\COUNCIL MEMOS\Attachment A - Map Location.dwg 12/02/24 - 10:55am ncarstensen 2023-2024 FACILITIES PAINTING PROJECT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
C-9393-1 01/14/2524F02

ATTACHMENT A

LOCATION MAP
1 3
2 9-3
102

10-1

NEWPORT BEACH

City Council Staff Report

COUNCIL STAFF REPORT

CITY OF

January 14, 2025
Agenda Item No. 10
ABSTRACT:

On May 28, 2024, the City Council awarded Contract No. 9008-1 for the 38th Street and Lake Avenue Landscape Improvement Project to S&H Civilworks of Colton. This project included improving the appearance of the 38 th Street beach area and entrance to Newport Island, and providing better beach access. The work is now complete and staff requests the City Council acceptance and close out of the contract.

RECOMMENDATION:
a) Accept the completed work and authorize the City Clerk to file a Notice of Completion for the project.

DISCUSSION:

Overall Contract Cost/Time Summary
Awarded Contract
Amount
Final Total Contract
Amount
Total Contract
Change Amount
Percent Contract
Cost Change
$193,067.00 $205,144.99 $12,077.99 6.26%
Allowed Contract Time +
Approved Extensions (Days) = 60 Actual Time Used (Days) 56

The project included new stone cladding on the existing retaining walls to improve the appearance, new stairs for better beach access, a new higher landscaped planter area with a fence, a new foot -wash station, new landscaping, and new irrigation lines.

The c ontracted work has been completed to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department. A summary of the construction costs is as follows:

Original bid amount:

$

193,067.00
Actual Cost of Bid Items Constructed: $ 193,067.00
Total Change Orders: $ 12,077.99
Final contract cost: $ 205,144.99
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: David A. Webb, Public Works Director - 949-644-3311, [email protected]
PREPARED BY: Tom Sandefur, Assistant City Engineer - 949-644-3321, [email protected]
TITLE: 38th Street and Lake Avenue Landscape Improvement Project – Notice of Completion for Contract No. 9008-1 (24L01)
103
38th Street and Lake Avenue Landscape Improvement Project – Notice of Completion of Contract No. 9008-1 (24L01)
January 14, 2025

10-2

There were two change order s totaling $ 12,077.99. This amounted to 6.26% of the original contract amount and was within the contingency allowance. The added work covered additional sidewalk and fencing replacement and additional anti-graffiti coating.

A summary of the project schedule milestones is as follows:

FISCAL IMPACT:

The 38th Street and Lake Avenue Landscape Improvement Project was included within the F iscal Year 2023-24 Capital Improvement Program Budget. Funds for the construction contract were expen ded from the Facilities Maintenance Master Plan (General Fund) from the following accounts:

Account Description Account Number Amount
Neighborhood Enhancement 01201927-980000-24L01 $ 70,025.30 Oceanfront Encroachment 16701-980000-24L01 $ 135,119.69 Total: $ 205,144.99

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

On May 28, 2024 , the City Council found this project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Class 2 Section 15302(c) (replacement of public facilities involving negligible or no expansion of existing use) of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, because it has no potential to have a significant effect on the environment.

NOTICING:

The agenda item has been noticed according to the Brown Act (72 hours in advance of the meeting at which the City Council considers the item).

ATTACHMENT:

Attachment A – Location Map
Estimated Start of Construction per Annual Baseline Schedule August 8, 2024 Actual Start of Construction Per Notice to Proceed August 5, 2024 Estimated Contract Completion Date with Approved Extensions October 29, 2024 Actual Substantial Construction Completion Date October 25, 2024 104
38TH STREET

LAKE AVENUE

RIVER AVENUE
37TH STREET
36TH STREET
39TH STREET

THIRTY-EIGHTHSTREET PARK

MARCUS AVENUE

W BALBOA BLVD
I:\Users\PBW\Shared\Contracts\FY23-24 CURRENT\200_STREETS_DRAINAGE\LNDSCP ENHC\38th St & Lake Ave Lndscp Enhc C-9008-1_23L01\COUNCIL MEMOS\Attachment A - Map Location.dwg 03/06/24 - 5:19pm kaube 38TH STREET AND LAKE AVENUE

LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
C-9008-1 01/14/2523L01

ATTACHMENT A

LOCATION MAP

PROJECT LOCATION
10-3
105

11-1

NEWPORT BEACH

City Council Staff Report

COUNCIL STAFF REPORT

CITY OF

January 14, 2025
Agenda Item No. 11
ABSTRACT:

The City of Newport Beach received construction bids for the Police Department Parking Lot Maintenance project. Staff requests City Council approval to award the construction contract to Elegant Construction Inc ., of Irvine. This project will rehabilitate the existing employee parking lot and expand the front public parking area at the Police Department’s headquarters, located at 870 Santa Barbara Drive.

RECOMMENDATIONS:
a) Find this project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15301 (Existing Facilities) of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, because this project has no potential to have a significant effect on the environment;
b) Approve the project plans and specifications;
c) Award Contract No. 7901-1 to Elegant Construction Inc ., for the total bid price of $585,000 for the Police Department Parking Lot Maintenance , and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the contract; and
d) Establish a contingency of $88,000 (approximately 15% of total bid) to cover the cost of unforeseen work not included in the original contract.

DISCUSSION:

Maintenance and site modifications are needed at the Police Department facility, located at 870 Santa Barbara Dr ive, as part of the F iscal Year 2024-25 Facilities Maintenance Master Plan (FMMP) Program. Particularly, the Police Department has lacked adequate parking for employees and the public for many years, forcing some employees to park outside of the gated perimeter and on adjacent side streets, as well as requiring visitors to occasionally park across Santa Barbara Drive in the bank lot . The project includes slurry sealing the parking lot to keep it in good working condition, providing increased parking by restriping the lot, adding additional public parking to the front lot, and making additional upgrades to provide required Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) access from the public sidewalk.

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: David A. Webb, Public Works Director - 949-644-3311, [email protected]
PREPARED BY: Tom Sandefur, Assistant City Engineer - 949-644-3321, [email protected]
TITLE: Police Department Parking Lot Maintenance – Award of Contract No. 7901-1 (25F02)
106
Police Department Parking Lot Maintenance Project –
Award of Contract No. 7901-1 (25F02)
Agenda Item No. 11

11-2
On November 5, 2024, at 2 p.m., the City Clerk opened and read the following bids for this project:

BIDDER TOTAL BID AMOUNT
Low Elegant Construction Inc. $ 585,000
2nd Venture Construction & Management $ 699,500
3rd PaveWest Inc. $ 701,479

The City received three bids for this project . The apparent low bidder, Elegant Construction Inc., possesses a California State Contractor’s License Classification “ A”, as required by the project specifications. A review of the contractor’s references shows satisfactory completion of similar contracts for other public agencies including the City of Irvine, the City of Huntington Beach , and the South Orange County Community College District.

The apparent low bid received from Elegant Construction Inc. was approximately 46% over the engineer’s estimate of $400,000. This bid was identical to its previous bid that was rejected on October 8, 2024. Unlike in the first bidding effort, Elegant Construction Inc. now provided required documentation showing relevant experience. The low bid also came in higher than the engineer’s estimate due to higher than anticipated asphalt paving costs, which staff believes is likely associated with the smaller size o f the paving area.

Pursuant to the contract specifications, the contractor shall have 60 consecutive working days to complete the project. Work is scheduled to start in February 2025.

The project plans and specifications will be available for review at the January 14, 2025, City Council meeting or upon request.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The adopted Capital Improvement Program budget includes sufficient funding for the award of this contract. It will be expensed to the Facilities Maintenance Master Plan (General Funds) accounts in the Public Works Department, 57101-980000-25F02.

The following funds will be expended:

Account Description Account Number Amount
Facilities Maintenance Master Plan 57101-980000-25F02 $ 675,000

Proposed fund uses are as follows:

Vendor Purpose Amount
Elegant Construction Inc. Construction Contract $ 585,000 Elegant Construction Inc. Construction Contingency $ 88,000 Various Printing & Incidentals $ 2,000
Total: $ 675,000

Staff recommends establishing $88,000 (approximately 15% of total bid) for contingency purposes and unforeseen conditions associated with construction. 107
Police Department Parking Lot Maintenance Project –
Award of Contract No. 7901-1 (25F02)
Agenda Item No. 11

11-3

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

Staff recommends the City Council find this project exempt from the Califor nia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15301 (Existing Facilities) of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, because it has no potential to have a significant effect on the environment.

NOTICING:

The agenda item has been noticed according to the Brown Act (72 hours in advance of the meeting at which the City Council considers the item).

ATTACHMENT:

Attachment A – Location Map
108
0 ;o
Newport Beach Police Station
Video Surveillance System
Replacement

LOCATION MAP

ATTACHMENT A

NOTTO SCALE PROJECT LIMITS

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
C-9500-1 7/9/2024
11-4 109

12-1

NEWPORT BEACH

City Council Staff Report

COUNCIL STAFF REPORT

CITY OF

January 14, 2025
Agenda Item No. 12
ABSTRACT:

The City of Newport Beach ’s current agreements for on-call fencing maintenance and repair services expire on March 23, 2025. Based on the results of a Request for Proposals (RFP) process, staff recommends awarding five -year agreements for these services to EverFence Corporation and Red Hawk Services, Inc., with a not-to-exceed (NTE) limit of $300,000 for each agreement.

RECOMMENDATIONS:
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 a Maintenance and Repair Services Agreement with EverFence Corporation for a five -year term and total not -to-exceed amount of $ 300,000, and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the agreement; and
c) Approve a Maintenance and Repair Services Agreement with Red Hawk Services, Inc. for a five -year term and total not -to-exceed amount of $300,000, and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the agreement.

DISCUSSION:

The City’s current on-call fencing maintenance and repair services agreements expire on March 23, 2025. Based on the results of a n RFP, staff recommends awarding new agreements to EverFence Corporation and Red Hawk Services, Inc. as the two highest scoring proposers, for five-year terms and an NTE of $300,000 for each agreement.

The contractors provide as-needed maintenance and repair services for a variety of different types of fencing and related items at City parks, trails, beaches and facilities.

Occasionally, they may also provide temporary or minor permanent fencing services that arise on capital improvement program (CIP) projects. Major CIP project fencing needs are included as part of the project bid and therefore funded by the CIP project.

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: David A. Webb, Public Works Director - 949-644-3311, [email protected]
PREPARED BY: John Salazar, Streets & Beaches Superintendent - 949-718-3460, [email protected]
TITLE: Approval of Maintenance and Repair Services Agreement s with EverFence Corporation and Red Hawk Services, Inc. for On -Call Fencing
110
Approval of Maintenance and Repair Services Agreement with EverFence Corporation and Red Hawk Services, Inc. for On-Call Fencing January 14, 2025

12-2
Awarding two on-call agreements ensures the City can efficiently address both emergent and planned work without being restricted by a single contractor’s schedule and availability. It also ensures responsiveness, competitive pricing, and quality service, while reducing the risks associated with relying on single providers and potential contractor failure or underperformance. When services are needed, staff will request letter proposals from each contractor to secure the best pricing for each project.

Combined on -call fencing service e xpenditures from 2020 -2024 under current agreements averaged approximately $100,000 per year with billing rates remaining static during that time . New billing rates, approximately 20% higher than current rates , align with inflation increases based on the Los Angeles -Long Beach -Anaheim-area consumer price index (CPI) during that time.

RFP No. 24-82 was published on August 15, 2024, and the City received three complete proposals. A three-member staff panel first evaluated proposals technically based on qualifications and demonstrated experience, with a maximum possible score of 60 points.

All three proposals earned the minimum 70% technically required and were then scored on a combination of various service costs, with a maximum possible score of 40 points.

Overall evaluation results are shown in the table below.

Proposer Technical Score Cost Score Total Score Rank
EverFence Corporation 45.00 39.07 84.07 1
Red Hawk Services, Inc. 55.00 27.60 82.60 2
Harris Steel Fence Co., Inc. 53.00 14.41 67.41 3
FISCAL IMPACT:

The adopted budget includes sufficient funding for these agreements . Work will be expensed to the appropriate accounts in the Public Works Department Operating and/or CIP budgets depending on its nature and location.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

Staff recommends the City Council find this action is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Sections 15060(c)(2) (the activity will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the enviro nment) and 15060(c)(3) (the activity is not a project as defined in Section 15378) of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, because it has no potential for resulting in physical change to the environment, directly or indirectly.

NOTICING:

The agenda item has been noticed according to the Brown Act (72 hours in advance of the meeting at which the City Council considers the item).

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment A – Maintenance and Repair Agreement with Everfence Corporation Attachment B – Maintenance and Repair Agreement with Red Hawk Services, Inc. 111

ATTACHMENT A
12-3
112
12-4
113
12-5
114
12-6
115
12-7
116
12-8
117
12-9
118
12-10
119
12-11
120
12-12
121
12-13
122
12-14
123
12-15
124
12-16
125
12-17
126
12-18
127
12-19
128
12-20
129
12-21
130
12-22
131
12-23
132
12-24
133
12-25
134
12-26
135
12-27
136
12-28
137
12-29
138
12-30
139
12-31
140
12-32
141
12-33
142
12-34
143
12-35
144
12-36
145
12-37
146

ATTACHMENT B
12-38
147
12-39
148
12-40
149
12-41
150
12-42
151
12-43
152
12-44
153
12-45
154
12-46
155
12-47
156
12-48
157
12-49
158
12-50
159
12-51
160
12-52
161
12-53
162
12-54
163
12-55
164
12-56
165
12-57
166
12-58
167
12-59
168
12-60
169
12-61
170
12-62
171
12-63
172
12-64
173
12-65
174
12-66
175
12-67
176
12-68
177
12-69
178
12-70
179
12-71
180
12-72
181
12-73
182
12-74
183
12-75
184
12-76
185
12-77
186
12-78
187
12-79
188
12-80
189
12-81
190
12-82
191
12-83
192

13-1

NEWPORT BEACH

City Council Staff Report

COUNCIL STAFF REPORT

CITY OF

January 14, 2025
Agenda Item No. 13
ABSTRACT:

On June 28, 2022, the City of Newport Beach entered into a Professional Services Agreement with The Code Group, doing business as VCA Code, to provide building safety consulting services for the Community Development Department’s Building Division. Due to ongoing workload demands and staffing vacancies, these consulting services continue to be necessary. Amendment No. Two to the agreement, which proposes an additional $250,000, is now presented for the City Council’s consideration. The contract amendment will be funded through salary savings.

RECOMMENDATIONS:
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 and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute Amendment No. Two to Professional Services Agreement with The Code Group, for Staff Augmentation and Plan Review Services to increase the contract amount by $250,000, for a not-to-exceed amount of $1,270,000.

DISCUSSION:

The Community Development Department engages consulting firms to provide plan check services in addition to on-call staff augmentation for inspection and permit technician services. Plan reviews are categorized into three key areas: mechanical - electrical-plumbing, structural, and building/fire-life safety. These consulting firms play an important role in supporting the department's ability to deliver high -quality customer service and meet timely turnaround expectations.

Additionally, staff augmentation helps address staffing needs for building inspections and front counter permit technician positions, ensuring consistent service delivery.

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: Seimone Jurjis, Assistant City Manager/Community Development Director - (949) 644-3282, [email protected]
PREPARED BY:

Tonee Thai, Deputy Community Development Director / Chief Building Official - 949-718-1867, [email protected] TITLE:

Amendment No. Two to Professional Services Agreement for The Code Group dba VCA Code for Building Safety Related Services 193
Amendment No. Two to Professional Services Agreement for The Code Group dba VCA Code for Building Related Services January 14, 2025

13-2
The Community Development Department conducted a Request for Proposals (RFP) process in 2022 to secure staff augmentation and building safety plan check consulting services. After a thorough review process, the City entered into a three-year professional services agreement with The Code Group for a total not-to-exceed amount of $900,000.

In July 2024, Amendment No. One was approved to increase the total compensation by $120,000 due to higher workload demands.

An additional amendment to the agreement is required to continue assisting applicants with building code plan check services, due to a vacant civil engineering position . The vacant civil engineering position will be filled in January 2025, but training of the new employee will be required before that individual is working to full capacity. Additionally, building inspection and permit technician staffing is needed to assist with a temporary permit technician vacancy and inspection needs.

Amendment No. Two , for an additional $250,000 is requested to the agreement to continue with plan check and staff augmentation. The revised not -to-exceed amount is $1,270,000 over the remaining term of the contract. The agreement will terminate on June 30, 2025, unless extended further . Prior to the agreement’s termination, staff will conduct a new RFP for building safety related services. Staff anticipates completing the RFP process and recommending consultants by June 2025.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The total cost for the amendment is $250,000 over the remaining term of the contract.

The adopted budget includes salary savings that will offset the cost of services. The costs will be expensed to the professional services account - 0105042-811008.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

Staff recommends the City Council find this action is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Sections 15060(c)(2) (the activity will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the enviro nment) and 15060(c)(3) (the activity is not a project as defined in Section 15378) of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, because it has no potential for resulting in physical change to the environment, directly or indirectly.

NOTICING:

The agenda item has been noticed according to the Brown Act (72 hours in advance of the meeting at which the City Council considers the item).

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment A – Amendment No. Two to Professional Services Agreement Attachment B – Amendment No. One to Professional Services Agreement Attachment C - Professional Services Agreement with The Code Group dba VCA Code 194

Attachment A
Amendment Two to Professional Services Agreement

13-3
195
13-4
196
13-5
197
13-6
198

Attachment B
Amendment One to Professional Services Agreement

13-7
199
13-8
200
13-9
201
13-10
202

Attachment C
Professional Services Agreement with The Group dba VCA Code

13-11
203
13-12
204
13-13
205
13-14
206
13-15
207
13-16
208
13-17
209
13-18
210
13-19
211
13-20
212
13-21
213
13-22
214
13-23
215
13-24
216
13-25
217
13-26
218
13-27
219
13-28
220
13-29
221
13-30
222
13-31
223
13-32
224
13-33
225
13-34
226
13-35
227
13-36
228
13-37
229
13-38
230
13-39
231
13-40
232
13-41
233
13-42
234
13-43
235
13-44
236
13-45
237
13-46
238
13-47
239
13-48
240
13-49
241

14-1

NEWPORT BEACH

City Council Staff Report

COUNCIL STAFF REPORT

CITY OF

January 14, 2025
Agenda Item No. 14
ABSTRACT:

The federal government , via the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers , is planning a dredging project within Newport Harbor . The City of Newport Beach , acting as the local sponsor for the project, is responsible for identifying a disposal location for dredged material that is deemed unsuitable for open ocean disposal. To that end, t he City certified an Environmental Impact Report to construct a Confined Aquatic Disposal site within Newport Harbor and obtained the necessary entitlements to place the dredged material within that site. However, the project was paused while the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers refined its environmental analysis. In the meantime, City staff continued to look for an alternative disposal solution in addition to the planned Confined Aquatic Disposal.

As a result, an opportunity to dispose unsuitable material within the Port of Long Beach’s Pier G Slip Fill Project emerged, and the City and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers are now preparing to use this alternate disposal site. Therefore, the Port of Long Beach requires a Memorandum of Agreement with the City prior to the disposal of dredged material from Newport Harbor in the Pier G Slip Fill Project.

RECOMMENDATIONS:
a) Find that, pursuant to Section 21166 of the California Public Resources Code and Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines, the certified Environmental Impact Report for the Piers G and J Terminal Redevelopment (SCH No. 2000 -021021) addressed all environmental impacts associated with the City of Newport Beach entering into this Memorandum of Agreement, that there are no new or more severe impacts beyond those analyzed in that document, and, as a result, no further environmental review is required by CEQA;
b) Approve and execute the Memorandum of Agreement with the City of Long Beach acting by and through the Port of Long Beach Board of Harbor Commissioners authorizing disposal of Lower Bay dredged material into the Port’s Pier G Slip Fill Project; and
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: David A. Webb, Public Works Director - 949-644-3311, [email protected]
PREPARED BY: Chris Miller, Public Works Administrative Manager - 949-644-3043, [email protected]
TITLE: Memorandum of Agreement with the City of Long Beach Acting By and Through the Port of Long Beach Board of Harbor Commissioners Authorizing Disposal of Lower Bay Dredged Material Into the Port’s Pier G Slip Fill Project
242
Memorandum of Agreement with the City of Long Beach Authorizing Disposal of Lower Bay Dredged Material Into the Port’s Pier G Slip Fill Project January 14, 2025

14-2
c) Authorize the City Manager or her designee to execute any future amendments or agreements with the City of Long Beach acting by and through the Port of Long Beach Board of Harbor Commissioners as related to the disposal of Lower Bay dredged material to ensure the City of Newport Beach meets the strict delivery schedule imposed by the Port.

DISCUSSION:

Newport Harbor is one of the largest recreational harbors in the United States. Natural processes of storm water and erosion flowing into the harbor, primarily from San Diego Creek, result in the movement and accumulation of sediment which must be periodically dredged to maintain the federally authorized channel depths for safe navigation. The Federal Channels extend from the Entrance Channel to the Turning Basin (adjacent to the Newport Boulevard Bridge), and from the east anchorage between Bay Island and Lido Isle to the Marina Park area. These channels are the responsibility of and are maintained by the federal government via the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE).

In 2022, the City contributed $10 million towards the Confined Aquatic Disposal (CAD) , representing approximately 50% of the overall cost. USACE has funded the remaining 50% of the CAD, and continues to seek additional funds through the USACE federal work plan request process.

Sediment studies are conducted to evaluate disposal options as required by the regulatory and resource agencies. The recent sediment sampling effort conducted in September 2024 determined that most of the material (745,000 cubic yards) in Newport Harbor is suitable for disposal at the federally authorized ocean disposal site located six miles from the Entrance Channel. The remaining material (approximately 191,000 cubic yards) is unsuitable for open ocean disposal; therefore, it is the City ’s responsibility as the local sponsor to identify a disposal location.

In 2021, the City determined that construction of a CAD in Newport Harbor was the most feasible and cost-effective option available at the time for disposal of unsuitable material.

Therefore, the City Council certified Environmental Impact Report (EIR) No. EIR2021-001, and all entitlements were secured for the CAD in 2022 and 2023 .

However, in 2023, USACE suspended the City’s CAD permit so USACE could refine its federal environmental analysis.

In the meantime, City staff initiated discussions with the Port of Long Beach (POLB) to explore disposal options within its Pier G Slip Fill Project (Pier G Project). The Pier G Project includes the reconfiguring of the Pier G South Slip, which requires filling an existing container ship slip to create more land-based storage.

The POLB and the terminal operator tenant had originally planned that 100% of the required fill material for the Pier G Project would be from existing locations within the port complex with no external sources of material required to complete the Pier G Project.

However, earlier this year after further discussion with the POLB , the POLB agreed to provide capacity of up to 225,000 cubic yards of material from Newport Harbor within the Pier G Project. This is a strategically unique opportunity for the City, and it represents an ideal option for material disposal that was otherwise not available. 243
Memorandum of Agreement with the City of Long Beach Authorizing Disposal of Lower Bay Dredged Material Into the Port’s Pier G Slip Fill Project January 14, 2025

14-3
For reference, in 2011 and 2012, the POLB and the City collaborated in the same manner when the POLB’s Middle Harbor Fill Project was underway . Material from the City’s Rhine Channel as well as material from Phase I of the Lower Bay Federal Dredging Project was disposed at the POLB via daily tugboat and disposal scow round trips. This same process will be used to deliver material from the current Lower Bay Project to the Pier G Project.

The POLB has obtained all necessary regulatory agency approvals for the Pier G Project to be used as a placement site for the Newport Bay material. However, before disposal can commence, the POLB requires a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) to be executed between the two parties. Should the City Council approve the MOA, the POLB Harbor Commissioners will consider approval and execution at their January 27, 2025 meeting.

The attached agreement has been reviewed and approved as to form by the City Attorney’s Office, and the deal points therein are considered reasonable to both parties.

It is noted, however, that timing is critical. The disposal window to transport material to the POLB is extremely tight, with a current delivery timeline between approximately May 2025 to October 2025, or until an underwater containment dike at Pier G precludes safe navigation for the tugboat and disposal scow. Therefore, the City and USACE are diligently working together to ensure th at project planning is completed on time, and the project is bid and awarded with dredging commencing approximately May 2025.

Currently, the project is positively tracking towards those goals . However, should this alternative disposal at the POLB not materialize or fall short of the disposal goals, the City would resume efforts to continue proceeding with the original CAD option.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The Lower Bay Dredging P roject is estimated to cost approximately $20 million. Of this amount, approximately $10 million will be paid by the federal government wh ich is also seeking additional funds via the USACE federal work plan requests. In 2022, the City contributed $10 million , which was expensed to the Tidelands Capital Fund in the Public Works Department, Account Nos. 10101 -980000-18H07 and 10101 -980000- 22H07. The Tidelands Capital Fund was created to allow for the sequestration of incremental increases from tidelands rent adjustments solely to finance critical in -harbor capital improvements like seawall repairs, piers and dredging. The City’s contributed funds are currently with USACE and are immediately available.

In addition, the County has expressed interest in, but has not yet committed to, contributing approximately $2 million to reimburse the City for dredging within County tidelands. The City will commence negotiations with the County after the project has been awarded and is in progress.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

Pursuant to Section 21166 of the California Public Resources Code and Section 15162 of the California Code of Regulations Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3 (CEQA Guidelines ), when an EIR has been certified for a project, no subsequent EIR is required unless the lead agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, one or more of the following:
244
Memorandum of Agreement with the City of Long Beach Authorizing Disposal of Lower Bay Dredged Material Into the Port’s Pier G Slip Fill Project January 14, 2025

14-4

a. Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects;
b. Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or c. New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete, shows any of the following:
i. The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR;
ii. Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR;
iii. Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the Project, but the Project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or
iv. Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.

The POLB certified the Environmental Impact Report EIR for the Piers G and J Terminal Development (SCH No. 2000 -021021), which is attached hereto as Attachment B and incorporated herein by reference.

The EIR was prepared in compliance with California Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq. and its implementing State regulations set forth in the CEQA Guidelines.

The EIR analyzed the potential impacts of the Pier G Project which consists of filling an existing container ship slip to create more land-based storage with 2,550,000 cubic yards of dredged material. Inclusion of as much as 225,000 cubic yards of dredged material from the USACE project within the Pier G Project does not result in a substantial change to the project that will require major revisions to the EIR, does not result in substantial changes to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken that would require major revisions to the EIR, nor constitute new information. Therefore, in accordance with Section 21166 of the California Public Resources Code and Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines, the adoption of the MOA does not require additional environmental review. 245
Memorandum of Agreement with the City of Long Beach Authorizing Disposal of Lower Bay Dredged Material Into the Port’s Pier G Slip Fill Project January 14, 2025

14-5

NOTICING:

The agenda item has been noticed according to the Brown Act (72 hours in advance of the meeting at which the City Council considers the item).

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment A – Memorandum of Agreement with the Port of Long Beach Attachment B – Web Link to Environmental Impact Report for Piers G & J Terminal Development (SCH 2000-021021)
246
1 01754706.DOCX A24-03370
MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT [12-05-2024] PIER G SLIP FILL – CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH [SNL/arh]

MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT

BY AND BETWEEN

THE CITY OF LONG BEACH,

ACTING BY AND THROUGH ITS

BOARD OF HARBOR COMMISSIONERS

AND THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

THIS MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT (“MOA”) is made and entered into, in duplicate, as of the date executed by the Chief Executive Officer of the Long Beach Harbor Department (“Chief Executive”), by and between the CITY OF LONG BEACH, a California municipal corporation and charter city , acting by and through its Board of Harbor Commissioners (“Port”) pursuant to authority granted by said Board at its meeting of ____________, 202 __; and the CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH , a California municipal corporation and charter city (“City”).

RECITALS:

WHEREAS, the Port owns land and water areas within the City of Long Beach Harbor District known as Pier G;

WHEREAS the Port is undertaking a project that will, among other things, reconfigure the Pier G South Slip (“the Project"), as depicted in Exhibit "A" attached hereto;

WHEREAS, the Port anticipates it will satisfy most of its fill material needs from materials generated by the Project , but in the interest of advancing the regional policy of encouraging the beneficial reuse of dredge material, the Port will endeavor to acc ept dredge material from sources other than the Port by allowing that material to augment the Port’s fill material needs;

WHEREAS any import of fill material from outside the Project limits or the City of Long Beach Harbor District shall be subject to the Port’s fill material criteria , as well as the logistical, technical, and environmental requirements of the Project, and must comply with all applicable laws, rules, regulations, requirements, licenses, permits, and orders, as may be amended from time to time;

WHEREAS, the City is a grantee of state tidelands and desires to dredge and remove approximately 225,000 cubic yards of material from the Lower Newport Bay channels (“Newport Bay Material”);

ATTACHMENT A
14-6
247
2 01754706.DOCX A24-03370
MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT [12-05-2024] PIER G SLIP FILL – CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH [SNL/arh] WHEREAS, while the City is the local, non -federal sponsor for the Lower Newport Bay Maintenance Dredging Project and holds the responsibility for providing a disposal location for the dredged material, the dredging contract will be managed and executed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District, through the authority granted in the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1945 authorizing the Newport Bay Harbor federal project;

WHEREAS, some of the Newport Bay M aterial has been determined by regulatory agencies to be unsuitable for unconfined open ocean disposal;

WHEREAS, the Project is available for placement of unsuitable material, and the Port and City desire to use the Project site for the placement of the Newport Bay Material;

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises, covenants and conditions hereinafter contained, the Port and City agree as follows:

1. The above recitals are true and correct.

2. The Port has obtained all necessary regulatory agency approvals for the Project to be used as a placement site for the Newport Bay Material.

3. The Port shall allow the City , without any further agreement, permit, or easement from the Port, to place up to 225,000 cubic yards of Newport Bay Material at the Project site. The Port shall not impose any fee or charge, or otherwise require any payment from the City, for placement of that material. The City’s placement of dredge material shall be subject to all applicable conditions imposed by the aforementioned regulatory agencies.

4. In the event that the funding for the City’s dredging project is insufficient, or if for any other reason, the City cannot deliver some or all of the 225,000 cubic yards of Newport Bay Material to the Project, the Port will be solely responsible for making up any deficit with its own material, and the Port shall hold the City harmless from any costs incurred by the Port as a result, thereof.

5. The City recognizes that time is of the essence in the Project schedule and agrees to place the Newport Bay Material at the Project at the locations and within the time frames specified by the Port. It is agreed by the City that placement of the Newport Bay Material shall be completed before the elevation in the Project fill reaches -10 feet Mean Lower Low Water. If the City cannot deliver the Newport Bay Material to the Project within the time frame specified by the Port, or if the City shall seek other disposal options, this Agreement shall be automatically terminated, and the City shall hold the Port harmless with respect to any costs incurred by the City as a result of such termination. 14-7
248
3 01754706.DOCX A24-03370
MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT [12-05-2024] PIER G SLIP FILL – CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH [SNL/arh]

6. The City agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the Port and its agents , officers and employees, from and against any and all liability , expense, including defense costs and legal fees and claims arising from the City’s placement of Newport Bay Material and performance of its obligations under this Agreement. The obligations assumed by the parties in this section shall survive the termination of this Agreement, whether by expiration or otherwise.

7. Any notice, demand, request or formal communication required or authorized by this Agreement to be given or made to or upon either of the parties to this Agreement shall be deemed properly given or made if delivered , by registered mail postage prepaid, or email to each of the following:

Port:

Port of Long Beach
Attn: Deepen Upadhyay, Senior Program Manager
P.O. Box 570
Long Beach, CA 90801
[email protected]

City:

City of Newport Beach
Public Works Department
Attn: Chris Miller
100 Civic Center Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92660
[email protected]

8. This Agreement shall terminate upon the occurrence of either : (1) the successful completion of the proposed construction project using the Project as the placement site for the Newport Bay Material; or (2) the commencement of the placement of the Newport Bay M aterial at a site other than the Project . The foregoing notwithstanding, either party hereto may terminate this Agreement for a material breach of this Agreement by giving written notice to the other party ninety (90) days prior to the effective date of such termination.

[Signatures on following page]

14-8
249
14-9
250

EXHIBIT A
14-10
251
Attachment B - Environmental Impact Report for Piers G & J Terminal Development (SCH 2000-021021) files located within the following link:
https://polb.com/documents/#ceqa-nepa

14-11
252

On the Agenda: January 14 City Council Meeting
The next meeting of the Newport Beach City Council will be on Tuesday, January 14. A closed session meeting will begin at 4 p.m. The regular meeting begins at 5:30 p.m.

Agenda items include:
• A Memorandum of Agreement with the City of Long Beach (through the Port of Long Beach Board of Harbor Commissioners) authorizing the disposal of lower bay dredged material into the Port’s Pier G slip fill project. The agreement would allow dredged material from Newport Harbor, which is unsuitable for ocean disposal, to be used as fill material at Pier G. This method would preclude the Confined Aquatic Disposal solution previously proposed by the City. The lower harbor dredging project, which is being led by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, is expected to begin in the spring.
• Confirmation of Mayor Joe Stapleton's appointments. City Council Policy A-2 (Boards, Commissions and Committees) provides for the mayor to annually appoint individuals to serve on various City Council and Citizens Committees, Citizens Advisory Committees, and Joint Governmental Committees. The appointments are proposed by the Mayor and confirmed by the City Council.
• Participation in the Ground Emergency Medical Transport Intergovernmental Transfer program for 2025. The program reimburses cities and public agencies for costs related to the emergency transportation of patients covered by Medi-Cal.

VIEW THE FULL AGENDA >>

253
From: Shana Conzelman
To: City Clerk"s Office
Subject: 1/14/25 Council Agenda Item 14
Date: January 13, 2025 4:59:22 PM
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Report phish using the Phish Alert Button above.

Dear Council,
Thank you for your intent to authorize the
removal of lower Newport Bay dredged
material that is unsuitable for open ocean
disposal and place it into the Port of Long
Beach Pier G Slip Fill Project.

For those of us who have been closely
following, researching, and advocating for a
resolution over the past six years, this
represents a responsible and definitive step
toward cleaning up and restoring the Bay.

This proposal reflects a thoughtful and
effective solution that prioritizes the health
of our harbor and surrounding environment.

That being said, it is essential to have a
Received after Agenda Printed
January 14, 2025
Agenda Item No. 14
254
contingency plan in place. Should those
responsible for meeting the required
deadlines face unforeseen challenges, the
Long Beach Pier Wind project should serve
as a viable backup option.

Please remember this fundamental
principle: removing toxins from the Bay
only to return them to the Bay is not a true
cleanup effort. A comprehensive and lasting
solution is critical for the well-being of our
community and ecosystem.

Thank you for your leadership and
commitment to this vital issue.

Sincerely,
Shana Conzelman
Friends of Newport Harbor
Sent from my iPhone
255
January 14, 2025, City Council Agenda Comments
The following comments on items on the Newport Beach City Council agenda are submitted by:

Jim Mosher ( [email protected] ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach 92660 (949-548-6229) Item III.B CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS
This appears to be at least the tenth time a closed session has been announced for the Council to privately discuss “price and terms of payment” regarding public right-of-way adjacent to the identical properties, the first announcement having been as Item IV.A on February 23, 2021.

And the only change has been the initial “approximately 845 square feet” increasing to the “approximately 1,105 square feet” when it came back as Item IV.A on November 12, 2024.

And while the purpose of the announcement is, in theory, to invite public comment to guide the Council in its decision, at no time has there been any public disclosure of why a sale or lease is being considered. This may be contrasted with earlier, more transparent announcements, for example Item IV.C from July 26, 2011, where it was at least disclosed that “price and terms of payment” needed to be discussed “with respect to resolution of boundary dispute between Tidelands and Uplands.”
Why is public property in play adjacent to 929 Zurich Circle and 944 Via Lido Nord? Item 1. Minutes for the December 10, 2024 City Council Meeting The passages shown in italics below are from the draft minutes with suggested corrections shown in strikeout underline format. The page numbers refer to Volume 66.

their service and noted continued efforts to work with the Aviation Committee to have aircrafts flyer high aircraft fly higher, slower, and quieter.” [See video. “Aircraft” is recognized as a noun that does not require an “s” to make it plural, and Mr Bress did not add one. Similarly, he add “er” to “high” not “fly.”]

“His wife, Marin, administered the Oath of Office …”
“Former Mayor Will O’Neill administered the Oath of Office …” [Comment: I am not much of a believer in loyalty oaths, but it does seem reasonable for citizens to have some assurance those elected to office are committed to upholding the rules under which governments are expected to operate. Indeed, the first page of the official minutes of our City Council begins with Notary Public Clyde Bishop administering the Oath of Office1 to the five newly-elected trustees at their first meeting on September 3, 1906.
1 The oath, in Article XX, Section 3 of the California Constitution at that time consisted solely of: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be,) that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California, and that I will faIthfully discharge the duties of the office of ___, according to the best of my ability."
Received After Agenda Printed
January 14, 2025
Written Comments
256
January 14, 2025, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 2 of 6 Since then, through 2012, it seems to have been the invariable practice for the City Clerk to administer the oaths. However, in 2014, with the election of “Team Newport,” Orange County Superior Court Judge James E. Rogan administered the oaths. And after that, a variety of judges continued to perform this role with the exception of 2020, when former Mayor Evelyn Hart administered the oath to re-elected Council Member Brad Avery, and 2022, when former Mayor Steve Rosansky administered the oath to newly-elected Council Member Robyn Grant. This new practice of having the oath of office administered by private citizens who, whether

former

elected

officials

or

not,

do

not

seem

authorized

by

law

to

do

so,
2 seems

a

bit

like

attending

a

wedding

at

which

a

private

party

administers

the

vows

while

the

minister,

judge

or

government

clerk

sits

to

the

side

as

an

observer

rather

than

a

participant.

It seems strange to me. Is it a new trend?
3 ]
Item XIII. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON CONSENT CALENDAR Since I believe this may be a first in the City’s history, it seems noteworthy that the public portion of

the

current

agenda

contains

no

items

requiring

a

Council

decision

other

than

those

on

the

Consent

Calendar.
4 As a result those watching the meeting without access to the agenda will be at loss to know what,

if

any,

City

business

was

conducted.

It might be noted that Newport Beach didn’t always have a Consent Calendar.

And, as I have noted before, there is at least one other California city, Benecia, where the Mayor reads the titles of the items on the Consent Calendar so that the public at least knows what their Council is consenting to. There are likely others with similar practices. For example, in Del Mar, the City Clerk reads the consent calendar item titles. In both cases, not only the council members,

but

members

of

the

public

are

invited

to

pull

items

for

discussion

by

their

elected

representatives.

It

also

appears

other

cities

may

be

more

judicious

in

what

items

they

place

on

their

consent

calendar

for

approval

without

discussion.

It seems to me the consent calendar may be overused in Newport Beach, for it seems unlikely none

of

the

seven

Council

members

would

have

any

questions

about

any

of

the

items

on

the

Consent

Calendar,

or

that

all

would

agree

each

of

those

items

should

be

approved

exactly

as

presented.

As

a

result,

the

public

is

left

with

the

impression

that

information

is

being

exchanged,

4 I

recall

one

or

two

previous

agendas

where

all

the

business

items

were

on

the

consent

calendar,

but

I

believe

the

agenda

included

either

a

study

session

or

suggestions

for

future

agenda

items,

where

Council

input

was

solicited.

3 For a fee of $125, the Santa Cruz County Clerk offers to appoint private citizens 18 or older as “Deputy Commissioner

of

Marriage

for

a

Day,"

authorized

to

officiate

at

a

specified

wedding

anywhere

in

California

(as

do
Los Angeles County, Nevada County, San Diego County and likely more). At one time ,

the

Orange

County

Clerk-Recorder

offered

this

service,

as

well.

It

is

unclear

if

he

still

does.

2 In 2022, Krista Weigand administered the oath to newly-elected Council Member Erik Weigand, but she did

so

as

a

Trustee

of

the

Newport-Unified

School

District.

The

law,
Government Code Sections 1360 -
1369, is ambiguous, saying only the oath must be taken “before” a person authorized to administer oaths.

257
January 14, 2025, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 3 of 6 and decisions made, outside public view. In other words, that the public’s business is not being done

in

public.

Item 4. Resolution Nos. 2025-2 and 2025-3: Amending the General Plan

Advisory

Committee

and

the

General

Plan

Update

Steering

Committee
This seems to me to be an example of the overuse of the consent calendar. As the staff report explains, this is on the agenda because, pursuant to City Council Policy A-1, at the November 19, 2024, meeting, the previous Council voted, without discussion, to bring the subject back at a future

meeting

“
for

discussion

and/or

action
.”

Yet,

staff

has

placed

it

on

the

consent

calendar,

where

a

specific

proposal

that

has

never

been

publicly

discussed

is

expected

to

be

approved,

again

without

any

discussion.

One might think that, at a minimum, before voting the Council members would want to ask about

the

status

of

the

General

Plan

Update

and

its

expected

timeline.

If

they

did

so,

they

might

learn

that

the

entire

process

is

expected

to

be

completed,

and

the

advisory

committees

dissolved,

before

the

end

of

the

current

year.

Given that context, establishing a procedure by which the advisory committees’ membership will be

reassessed

each

February

seems

strange

–

because

there

will

be

no

future

Februaries

other

than

the

coming

one.

As to changing the composition this February, as a current GPAC member, but commenting as a private

citizen,

I

have

seen

no

reason

offered

for

what

seems

both

unnecessary

and

disruptive.

While

the

process

to

date

has

been

a

very

imperfect

one,

and

could

have

been

better,

changing

the

participants,

but

not

the

structure,

in

the

final

months

hardly

seems

likely

to

produce

a

better

result.

On a more technical note, the Council may wish to know how the City Clerk plans to advertise the

unscheduled

vacancies

and

how

long

the

application

period

will

be

left

open.

Finding

20 to
30 new members will be difficult, and Government Code Section 54974 requires only that at least 10 working days elapse between the posting and the appointment, but does not seem to say

how

long

the

invitation

to

apply

needs

to

be

“open.”
As to the existing members, there seems to be a discrepancy between the proposed resolutions,

whose

Attachment

A’s

say

“
Members

who

are

in

good

standing

at

the

time

their

term

has

expired

are

eligible