Agenda packet — Newport Beach City Council, January 28, 2025 (part 3 of 3)

1870, …” [see presentation, slide 6]
Item 6. Bay Crossing Water Transmission Main and Sewer Force Main Rehabilitation – Award of Contract No. 8487-3 (16W12)
The Location Map provided as Attachment A (page 6-4) is unusual in that the background image of streets is so faded that when printed it is nearly invisible, looking more like a watermark than a reference image intended for study.

Item 7. Approval of Amendment No. Two to Professional Services Agreement with Corrpro Companies, Inc. for Cathodic Protection Program, Contract No. 9483-1 (24W11)
This started as a staff-approved $59,855, contract C-9483-1, entered into on February 1, 2024, which, according to its preamble, was to cover an evaluation of the City’s vulnerability to corrosion in its steel water transmission lines and preparation of a project that could be bid to improve it – although the contractor, in their Scope of Services and Billing Rates, seems to have understood the latter to be an extra, separately-charged task:

Received After Agenda Printed
January 28, 2025
Written Comments
529
January 28, 2025, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 2 of 4 It has now ballooned into a $247,610 proposal based largely, it seems, on the contractor’s own recommendations.

Could the size of this effort (going over staff approval limits) have been anticipated at the beginning

would

have

been

subject

transparent

award

process,

with

Council

approval?
Or, assuming there is more than one company that does this kind of work, should this large next phase

separately

bid?

Item 8. Approval of Amendment No. One to Residential Solid Waste Collection

Recycling

Contract

(Contract

No.

8823-1)

with

CR&R

Inc.

–

Addition

De-Escalation

Maximum
I understand the logic of this request, but I have a number of problems with it:

1. Since I assume CR&R is not requesting this amendment to receive less money from the City,

completely

baffled

the

statement

under

“FISCAL

IMPACT”

page

8-2

that

approving

this

action

“
will

lower

costs

the

City

approximately

$436,000

for

2024-25

relative

last

year's

2023-24

cost.
”

Isn’t

the

real

question,

and

the

fiscal

impact,

how

much

the

City

will

pay

the

Council

approves

this

than

would

without

approval?

2. The proposed amendment, page 8-3, indicates the Council is being asked to approve a complete replacement of Attachment J to the original contract C-8823-1, but the new Attachment J is not provided in redlined format, so it is difficult for either the Council or the public

sure

exactly

what

changes

are

being

made

it.

3. Far more concerning to me is the statement in the staff report, which seems to be that “ This decrease

would

applied

retroactively

the

beginning

2024-25,

July

2024
.”
Does this mean CR&R will be expecting a refund for services already performed, using a higher

rate,

re-computed

using

smaller

adjustment

starting

July

1 of

last

year,

the

decrease

had

been

capped

back

then?
While I have no problem with changing the terms “going forward,” an increased payment for past services seems completely at odds with the general principle, enshrined in Article XI, Section 10(a), of the California Constitution, that entities contracting with cities are expected to provide the services they promised at the cost agreed to, and cannot demand extra compensation,

not

anticipated

the

contract,

for

them.

It might be noted that no system of price adjustments based on year-to-year CPI changes with arbitrarily

imposed

caps

ever

going

fair

and

equitable

because,

the

examples

the

staff

report

confirm,

there

not

symmetry

the

long

term

errors

introduced

when

the

actual

change

given

year

exceeds

the

caps

unpredictable

amounts.

If the City wanted a fairer system, it might consider setting rates each year based on the rate in the

contract’s

start

year

corrected

the

ratio

the

true

CPI

(not

capped

one)

the

current

year

compared

the

CPI

the

contract’s

start

year.

there

wish

insulate

both

parties

from

unexpectedly

large

fluctuations,

the

increase

decrease

any

one

year

could

limited

maximum

5%.

Unless

the

changes

are

all

one-sided

and

larger

than

that

limit,

the

series

530
January 28, 2025, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 3 of 4 of 5%, or smaller, yearly rate adjustments would eventually produce a rate in correct alignment with

the

contractor’s

true,

total

change

costs

since

the

contract

started.
1 Item 10. Approve Professional Services Agreement with Environmental

Compliance

Inspection

Services

Corp.

for

Grease

Control

Device

Inspection

Services
As the staff report indicates, only one proposal, from the current incumbent, was received for this

contract.

It seems the same incumbent was also the only proposer when the existing contract was awarded as Item 7 on February 11, 2014. And that may have been the case for over 20 years (see, for example, Item 9 from November 25, 2003, and Item 4 from January 25, 2005). Is there really no competition in this field? Item 12. Lease Agreement with Basin Marine, Inc. for Use of a Portion of

the

Real

Property

and

Tidelands

the

Balboa

Yacht

Basin

Located

829

Harbor

Island

Drive
I can partially see the justification for collecting less than fair market rent from the operator of what

the

City

considers

essential

service.

But I am unable to see why the choice of operator would not be subject to competitive bidding. The Abstract to the staff report implies that Basin Marine has had its operation at this site since the

1940’s,

assertion

repeated

page

12-3

(“
The

Tenant

has

operated

the

Premises

under
various agreements since the 1940s ”). However, the earliest contract, C-2490, on file with the City Clerk indicates they have been involved “only” since September 20, 1973 (as seems more correctly

reflected

Recital

the

proposed

lease,

page

12-7).

Item 13. License Agreement with The Regents of the University of California

for

Operation

Coastal

Observation

System

the

Newport

Pier
Is there any relation between this and the probes producing similar information about water in the

harbor,

operated

under

the

eyes

the

Harbor

Department?

Item 14. Planning Commission Agenda for the January 23, 2025 Meeting

As Item 3 on its agenda, the Commission heard an item of considerable public interest – involving

allowing

areas

Newport

Center

currently

limited

32 feet

height

heights

1 The City instituted a similar system for the biennial adjustment of electoral campaign contribution limits with
Ordinance No. 2019-19, choosing a fixed reference year of 2019. Because the limit is rounded to the nearest

$100,

the

former

system

based

short-term

changes

CPI

did

not

accurately

capture

the

cumulative

effect

small

annual

changes

CPI.

Possibly

“save”

words,

possibly

unknowingly,

the

City

reverted

what

looks

that

flawed

former

system

(see

NBMC
Subsection 1.25.030.C)
somewhere

the

ill-conceived

471-page
Ordinance No. 2023-22.

531
January 28, 2025, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 4 of 4 up to 270 feet for residential development. Yet it passed largely unknown to the general public (the

only

speaker

from

the

general

public,

other

than

myself,

being

someone

had

told

about

it).

I believe the lack of public involvement was due both to the very limited amount of information provided

the

agenda

announcement

(which

refers

only

height

“adjustments”

and

not

amounts)

and

antiquated

system

noticing

which,

for

proposals

where

there

are

than

1,000

people

within

300

feet

impacted

properties,

requires

only

publication

small,
one-time ad in the “Legal Notices” section of the City’s “official newspaper,” the Daily Pilot. I think it is fair to guess very few people see those notices, especially if they read the “paper” online

(where

that

isn’t

even

section

with

link

it).

Since the Item 3 proposal will be coming to the Council for final action, it is probably not necessary

comment

its

substance

this

time,

but

view

increasing

heights

allowed

“by

right,”

rather

than

allowing

them

incentive

for

incorporating

affordable

units,

counter-productive

meeting

the

City’s

RHNA

obligations.

removes

that

incentive

and,

instead,

encourages

construction

the

large,

luxury

units

which

are

not

being

requested

the

state.

While

has

been

said

that

the

City

only

has

plan

for

affordable

housing,

not

build

it,

failure

produce

what

has

been

promised

puts

the

City

risk

de-certification

its

Housing

Element

and

the

consequences

that

flow

from

that,

including

loss

local

control

over

the

construction

those

lower

income

units.

Item 16. General Plan Update Steering Committee (GPUSC) Bi-Monthly

Update

the

City

Council
In the four months since the last “Bi-Monthly” Update, one of the main developments has been the

update

committee

members'

discovery

that

all

their

memberships

will

end

February

11. As a GPAC member, but speaking as an individual, I can say that has been very discouraging and

somewhat

put

hold

plans

continue

meetings

the

Noise

Subcommittee

mentioned

the

last

bullet

page

16-5,

since

its

future

membership

unknown.

In that respect, if there is, indeed, to be a change in membership, I see a lack of plan as to how the

current

committee

members

are

expected

pass

any

insights

they

have

gained

the

new

members.

With regard to the consultant’s recommendation to change the format of our General Plan, as mentioned

GPUSC

Chair

Gardner’s

memo

the

final

page,

which

includes

proposal

adopt

“primarily

web-based”

format,

have

some

misgivings

about

that.

While

progress

and

innovation

can

helpful,

other

cities’

and

counties’

efforts

that

direction

have

been

less

than

successful.

Online

projects

started

with

the

best

intentions

tend

fall

into

neglect.

And

while

new,

official

documents

and

amendments

are

approved

printed,

PDF

form,

the

web-based

products

may

not

accurately

and

timely

updated

reflect

them,

they

become
unreliable. One of the most complex efforts of this sort in California is the San Bernardino Countywide Plan, which, after changing its URL, seems not have figured out how to incorporate their changing Housing Element and has a “Tracking & Implementation” section (hidden under the

“Business

Plan”)

that

still,

least

four

years

after

its

debut,

“coming

soon”

state.

532

13-1

NEWPORT BEACH

City Council Staff Report

COUNCIL STAFF REPORT

CITY OF

January 28, 2025
Agenda Item No. 13
ABSTRACT:

Under an agreement with the City of Newport Beach, the Regents of the University of California (UCSD) installed an ocean observation system at the Newport Pier around 2005, to measure and monitor ocean water. In addition to renewing the term of the agreement with the City, UCSD has requested to install additional monitoring equipment and signage about the system at the Newport Pier. For the City Council’s consideration is a new License Agreement (License) (Attachment A) with UCSD, for use of area under the deck of the Newport Pier for a term for 10 years, including a request to waive City Council Policy F-7 for less than fair market value rent.

RECOMMENDATIONS:
a) Find this project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15301 (Existing facilities) and Section 153 02 (Replacement or Reconstruction) 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) Authorize the City Manager and City Clerk to execute the License Agreement between the City of Newport Beach and The Regents of the University of California for operation of a coastal observation system on City property, on the Newport Pier located at 1 Newport Pier, in a form substantially similar to the am endment attached to the staff report; and
c) Approve a waiver of City Council Policy F -7 – Income and Other Property based on the findings contained in this staff report and the Agreement, that charging less that fair market rent promotes the City’s goals to provide essenti al or unique services to the public, that cannot otherwise be provided if full market rates were charged.

DISCUSSION:

The Newport Pier is located on the Balboa Peninsula at 21st Street and West Ocean Front.

The City-owned pier projects over 1,000 linear feet into the Pacific Ocean from the historic McFadden Square.

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: Lauren Wooding Whitlinger, Real Property Administrator - 949-644- 3236, [email protected]
TITLE: License Agreement with The Regents of the University of California for Operation of a Coastal Observation System at the Newport Pier 533
License Agreement with The Regents of the University of California for Operation of a Coastal Observation System at the Newport Pier January 28, 2025

Page 2 ends

13-2

The end of the pier, which was previously developed with a restaurant, includes an under-pier deck that provided utility access to the restaurant and a n emergency access ramp for Newport Beach Lifeguard operations. With the significant length of Newport Pier, which extends several hundred feet beyond the average break point for waves, the location is ideal for monitoring nearshore underwater ocean activity.

History
Approximately in 2005, UCSD or the University of California San Diego, a consortium member of the Southern California Coast Ocean Observations Systems (SCCOOS), partnered with the City to obtain access to install sensors underwater at the end of the pier to collect data and measure ocean water temperature, salinity, pH, Oxygen, conductivity, chlorophyll, and water density and pressure. The equipment is operated by the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in collaboration with the Orange County Sanitation District. Three other ocean piers in Southern California gather the same information which is used to support ocean health and coastal -ocean water quality by coastal managers, agencies, researchers, and the general public. The data is available to the public via SCCOOS website – https://sccoos.org/autoss/.

534
License Agreement with The Regents of the University of California for Operation of a Coastal Observation System at the Newport Pier January 28, 2025

Page 3 ends

13-3

The information is also used by the City to prepare the Newport Beach Lifeguard Surf Report, a recording of the current beach conditions which is up dated twice daily at 7:30 a.m. and 2 p.m. and can be accessed by calling 949-644-3171.

UCSD, under the proposed Agreement, requests to continue its use of approximately 9 square feet of the under-pier deck at the pier for its monitoring equipment. Additionally, the Agreement would allow UCSD to install two new interpretive signs to provide the public access to the current ocean temperature data via QR code, and two new equipment cabinets increasing the total license area footprint to approximately 16 square feet. City staff and UCSD have negotiated the terms of the Agreement and submit it for the City Council’s consideration.

City Council Policy F-7, Income and Other Property
Pursuant to City Council Policy F-7 – Income and Other Property (Policy) (Attachment B), when less than fair market value rent is received and a waiver is requested, staff believes that there is a public benefit to the data that is being collected . Therefore, the following findings can be made:

1. UCSD provides an essential or unique service to the community that cannot otherwise be provided if full market rates were charged; and

2. With the proposed consideration for the License Agreement at less than fair market value, the use promotes the City’s goals to provide a public benefit to the community, is a marine -related service, and is of statewide benefit and may not otherwise be provided if full fair market value of the property was required.

License Agreement
The proposed terms of the License Agreement, for use of approximately 16 square feet at the pier, are summarized below:

1. The term shall commence on January 28, 2025, and shall terminate the earlier part of the 10 th year after completion of installation of the new observation system equipment, or June 30, 2035.

2. In lieu of payment of a license fee, UCSD shall provide to the City all information gathered by the observation system.

3. UCSD shall not interfere with the City’s access to the under -pier deck and shall ensure it is maintained in a neat an d clean manner. Additionally, UCSD shall ensure its observation system does not cause any direct or indirect interference with the City’s communications equipment.

4. The license area will be accepted as-is and UCSD shall be responsible for the cost of all utility services necessary for the operation of its observation system. 535
License Agreement with The Regents of the University of California for Operation of a Coastal Observation System at the Newport Pier January 28, 2025

Page 4 ends

13-4

5. UCSD shall obtain any permits or approvals necessary for the installation and operation of its observation system equipment.

6. UCSD shall provide certificates of insurance to the satisfa ction of the City’s risk manager, naming the City as additional insured.

The License has been reviewed by the City Attorney’s Office and has been approved as to form. UCSD has reviewed and approved the terms of the License.

FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no fiscal impact related to this item. Any utility reimbursements will be a pass-through of costs and will not result in a net revenue or expenditure to the City.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

Staff recommends the City Council find this project is exem pt 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, because this project 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).

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment A – License Agreement
Attachment B – City Council Policy F-7, Income and Other Property 536

Attachment A
License Agreement
13-5
537
13-6
538
13-7
539
13-8
540
13-9
541
13-10
542
13-11
543
13-12
544
13-13
545
13-14
546
13-15
547
13-16
548
13-17
549
13-18
550
13-19
551
13-20
552
13-21
553
13-22
554
13-23
555
13-24
556
13-25
557
13-26
558
13-27
559
13-28
560
13-29
561
13-30
562
13-31
563
13-32
564
13-33
565
13-34
566

Attachment B
City Council Policy F-7
13-35
567
F- 7

1 INCOME AND OTHER PROPERTY

The City owns and manages an extensive and valuable assortment of property including streets, parks, beaches, public buildings and service facilities. The City also owns or ground leases and/or operates a yacht basin, resort hotel and apartment property, a luxury residential development and various other income - producing properties. Much of the income property is tidelands, filled tidelands or waterfront.

Unencumbered fee value of income property is substantial.

As owner/manager of property, the City is the steward of a public trust, and state law requires the City to maximize its returns on state-managed property or be subject to a charge of making a gift of public funds.

Nevertheless, the City Council recognizes the importance of this property not only as a revenue generator, but also as a means to provide otherwise financially less feasible uses and facilities that benefit the community.

In managing its property, the City will continually evaluate the potential of all City owned property to produce revenue. This may include leasing or licensing unused land, renting vacant space, and establishing concessions in recreation areas or other similar techniques. The City Council will evaluate the appropriateness of establishing new income generating opportunities on City controlled areas using sound business principles and after receiving input from neighbors, users and the public.

The policy of the City Council is that income and other property be held and managed in accordance with the following:

A. Whenever a lease, license, management contract, concession or similar action regarding income property is considered by the City, an analysis shall be conducted to determine the maximum or open market value of the property. This analysis shall be conducted using appraisals or other techniques to determine the highest and best use of the property and the highest income generating use of the property.

B. All negotiations regarding the lease, license, management contract, concession, or similar action regarding income property shall include review of an appraisal or analysis of the use being considered for the property conducted by a reputable and independent professional appraiser, real estate consultant, or business consultant.

C. The City shall seek, whenever practical and financially advantageous, both in the short and long term, to operate or manage all property and facilities directly with City staff or contractors, provided staff have the expertise needed to competently do so, or to oversee the work of contractors.

D. In most negotiations regarding the lease, license, management contract, concession, or similar action regarding an income or other property, the City shall seek revenue equivalent to the open market value of the highest and best use; and, whenever practicable the City shall conduct an open bid or proposal process to ensure the highest financial return.

13-36
568
F- 7

2 E. However, in some circumstances the City may determine that use of a property by the public for recreational, charitable or other nonprofit purpose is preferred and has considerable public support, in which case the City may determine that non -financial benefits justify not maximizing revenue from such property. In such circumstances, the City has a vested interest in ensuring that the lessee of such property operates the activities conducted on or from the property in the manner that has been represented to the City throughout the duration of any lease or contract with the City.

F. Whenever less than the open market or appraised value is received or when an open bid process is not conducted, the City shall make specific findings setting forth the reasons thereof. Such findings may include but need not be limited to the following:

1. The City is prevented by tideland grants, Coastal Commission guidelines or other restrictions from converting the property to another use.

2. Redevelopment of the property would require excessive time, resources, expertise and costs, which would outweigh other financial benefits.

3. Converting the property to another use or changing the operator, manager, concessionaire, licensee, or lessee of the property would result in excessive vacancy, relocation or severance costs, real estate commissions, tenant improvement allowances, expenses or rent concessions which would outweigh other financial benefits.

4. Converting residential property to another use or opening residential leases to competitive bid would create recompensable liabilities and other inequities for long-term residents.

5. The property provides an essential or unique service to the community or a clearly preferred use that enjoys substantial support in the community that might not otherwise be provided were full market value of the property be required.

6. The property serves to promote other goals of the City such as affordable housing, preservation of open space, uses available to the public or marine related services.

G. Generally, lengths of licenses, leases, management contracts, concessions, or similar agreements will be limited to the minimum necessary to meet market standards or encourage high quality improvements and will contain appropriate reappraisal and inflation protection provisions. Also, all agreements shall contain provisions to assure complete audits periodically through their terms.

H. All negotiations regarding the license, lease, management contract, concession or similar action regarding income property shall be conducted by the City Manager or his/her designee under the direction of any appropriate City committees.

I. To provide an accurate accounting of actual net revenues generated by the City’ s income property, all costs directly attributable or allocable to the management of a specific income property shall be charged against the gross revenues collected on that property in the fiscal year the costs are incurred.

Costs so chargeable include, but are not limited to, property repairs and maintenance, property appraisals, and consultant fees, as authorized by the City Council, City Manager, or by this Income Property Policy.
13-37
569
F- 7

3 J. The City Manager or his/her designee is authorized to sign a license, lease, management contract, concession, or similar agreement or any amendment thereto, on behalf of the City. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the City Manager or his/her designee, or a City Council member, may refer any license, lease, management contract, concession or similar agreement or any amendment thereto, to the City Council for its consideration and/or action.

K. The City’s portfolio of quality income producing properties adds an element of diversification to a portfolio otherwise invested primarily in financial assets. Certain of those income properties are restricted from sale by their terms of grant, state agency regulations or rules, other federal and state guidelines, private covenant or agreement or otherwise. For those properties not so restricted from sale, an analysis shall be prepared to determine the following prior to such income producing property being offered for sale:

1. The maximum open market value of the City’s interest in the property in its as is condition.

2. If the property is in an important location, a determination of the possible future consequences of the City no longer controlling that property.

3. If the current rent is contractually low and significant rent increases are likely within a finite period.

4. The likelihood of significant increases in the ability of the property to generate income after the expiration of any current lease of the property.

5. The likelihood of a lease extension being requested by the tenant and the ability to substantially increase rents or require significant improvements to enhance the utility and the value of the property as consideration for granting such an extension.

6. The value of the revenue stream from (i) lease income over the life of an existing lease and/or (ii) likely lease revenue if an existing lease were to be renewed or the property re- let to a different tenant; and/or (iii) lease income from the property if it were to be converted to its highest and best use, compared with the financial benefits of the use of the proceeds of a sale and if, considering the totality of the circumstances, such use of the proceeds of a sale is preferable to retaining the property in question.

History

Adopted F-24 – 7-27-1992
Amended F-24 – 1-24-1994
Amended F-7 – 2-27-1995
Amended F-7 – 2-24-1997
Amended F-7 – 5-26-1998
Amended F-7 – 8-11-2009
Amended F-7 – 5-14-2013
Amended F-7 – 2-12-2019
Amended F-7 – 11-14-2023
13-38
570

On the Agenda: January 28 City Council Meeting
The next meeting of the Newport Beach City Council will be on Tuesday, January 28. A closed session meeting will begin at 4 p.m. The regular meeting begins at 5 p.m. The full agenda is available here.

Agenda items include:
• A $1.2 million construction contract with MEP Fusion Inc., of Studio City, to replace air handlers and hot water pumps at the Central Library. The current system has outlived its expected lifespan and presents maintenance challenges.
• An updated license agreement with the Regents of the University of California for operation of a coastal observation system at the Newport Pier. Under a 2005 agreement with the City, the University of California San Diego (UCSD) installed an ocean observat ion system at the Newport Pier to measure and monitor ocean water. The updated,10 -year agreement would allow UCSD to install additional ocean monitoring equipment and public education signs. • Acceptance of a $50,000 grant from Hoag Hospital toward OASIS Senior Center transportation services. The OASIS transportation program provides more than 16,000 rides a year for residents who can no longer drive.
• Consideration of an appointment to the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission. The appointment would fill a vacancy created when former commissioner Sara J. Weber was elected to the City Council.

VIEW THE FULL AGENDA >>

571
January 28, 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.A. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS
I continue to think the City could improve transparency by disclosing why it is interested in leasing or buying properties under negotiation in closed session.

It is a particular mystery to me why the City would be interested in the 1.2 acre office parcel at 3848 Campus Drive, a property facing the airport at the corner of Campus and Quail. According to the CIty’s What's Going on in My Neighborhood? map, the owner is pursuing an application, PA2023-0145, to build a 78,000 square foot self-storage operation on the site.

What is the City’s interest in the property?
If it is considering building a new fire station to serve the residential development anticipated in the Airport Area, this seems unusually close to the existing station in Santa Ana Heights.

Item 1. Minutes for the January 14, 2025 City Council Meeting The passage shown in italics below is from the draft minutes with a suggested correction shown in strikeout underline format. The page number refers to Volume 66.

Page 242 ends

Received After Agenda Printed
January 28, 2025
Written Comments
572
January 28, 2025, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 2 of 4 It has now ballooned into a $247,610 proposal based largely, it seems, on the contractor’s own recommendations.

Could the size of this effort (going over staff approval limits) have been anticipated at the beginning

would

have

been

subject

transparent

award

process,

with

Council

approval?
Or, assuming there is more than one company that does this kind of work, should this large next phase

separately

bid?

Item 8. Approval of Amendment No. One to Residential Solid Waste Collection

Recycling

Contract

(Contract

No.

8823-1)

with

CR&R

Inc.

–

Addition

De-Escalation

Maximum
I understand the logic of this request, but I have a number of problems with it:

1. Since I assume CR&R is not requesting this amendment to receive less money from the City,

completely

baffled

the

statement

under

“FISCAL

IMPACT”

page

8-2

that

approving

this

action

“
will

lower

costs

the

City

approximately

$436,000

for

2024-25

relative

last

year's

2023-24

cost.
”

Isn’t

the

real

question,

and

the

fiscal

impact,

how

much

the

City

will

pay

the

Council

approves

this

than

would

without

approval?

sure

exactly

what

changes

are

being

made

it.

3. Far more concerning to me is the statement in the staff report, which seems to be that “ This decrease

would

applied

retroactively

the

beginning

2024-25,

July

2024
.”
Does this mean CR&R will be expecting a refund for services already performed, using a higher

rate,

re-computed

using

smaller

adjustment

starting

July

1 of

last

year,

the

decrease

had

been

capped

back

not

anticipated

the

contract,

for

them.

It might be noted that no system of price adjustments based on year-to-year CPI changes with arbitrarily

imposed

caps

ever

going

fair

and

equitable

because,

the

examples

the

staff

report

confirm,

there

not

symmetry

the

long

term

errors

introduced

when

the

actual

change

given

year

exceeds

the

caps

unpredictable

amounts.

If the City wanted a fairer system, it might consider setting rates each year based on the rate in the

contract’s

start

year

corrected

the

ratio

the

true

CPI

(not

capped

one)

the

current

year

compared

the

CPI

the

contract’s

start

year.

there

wish

insulate

both

parties

from

unexpectedly

large

fluctuations,

the

increase

decrease

any

one

year

could

limited

maximum

5%.

Unless

the

changes

are

all

one-sided

and

larger

than

that

limit,

the

series

573
January 28, 2025, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 3 of 4 of 5%, or smaller, yearly rate adjustments would eventually produce a rate in correct alignment with

the

contractor’s

true,

total

change

costs

since

the

contract

started.
1 Item 10. Approve Professional Services Agreement with Environmental

Compliance

Inspection

Services

Corp.

for

Grease

Control

Device

Inspection

Services
As the staff report indicates, only one proposal, from the current incumbent, was received for this

contract.

the

Real

Property

and

Tidelands

the

Balboa

Yacht

Basin

Located

829

Harbor

Island

Drive
I can partially see the justification for collecting less than fair market rent from the operator of what

the

City

considers

essential

service.

But I am unable to see why the choice of operator would not be subject to competitive bidding. The Abstract to the staff report implies that Basin Marine has had its operation at this site since the

1940’s,

assertion

repeated

page

12-3

(“
The

Tenant

has

operated

the

Premises

reflected

Recital

the

proposed

lease,

page

12-7).

Item 13. License Agreement with The Regents of the University of California

for

Operation

Coastal

Observation

System

the

Newport

Pier
Is there any relation between this and the probes producing similar information about water in the

harbor,

operated

under

the

eyes

the

Harbor

Department?

Item 14. Planning Commission Agenda for the January 23, 2025 Meeting

As Item 3 on its agenda, the Commission heard an item of considerable public interest – involving

allowing

areas

Newport

Center

currently

limited

32 feet

height

heights

$100,

the

former

system

based

short-term

changes

CPI

did

not

accurately

capture

the

cumulative

effect

small

annual

changes

CPI.

Possibly

“save”

words,

possibly

unknowingly,

the

City

reverted

what

looks

that

flawed

former

system

(see

NBMC
Subsection 1.25.030.C)
somewhere

the

ill-conceived

471-page
Ordinance No. 2023-22.

574
January 28, 2025, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 4 of 4 up to 270 feet for residential development. Yet it passed largely unknown to the general public (the

only

speaker

from

the

general

public,

other

than

myself,

being

someone

had

told

about

it).

I believe the lack of public involvement was due both to the very limited amount of information provided

the

agenda

announcement

(which

refers

only

height

“adjustments”

and

not

amounts)

and

antiquated

system

noticing

which,

for

proposals

where

there

are

than

1,000

people

within

300

feet

impacted

properties,

requires

only

publication

(where

that

isn’t

even

section

with

link

it).

Since the Item 3 proposal will be coming to the Council for final action, it is probably not necessary

comment

its

substance

this

time,

but

view

increasing

heights

allowed

“by

right,”

rather

than

allowing

them

incentive

for

incorporating

affordable

units,

counter-productive

meeting

the

City’s

RHNA

obligations.

removes

that

incentive

and,

instead,

encourages

construction

the

large,

luxury

units

which

are

not

being

requested

the

state.

While

has

been

said

that

the

City

only

has

plan

for

affordable

housing,

not

build

it,

failure

produce

what

has

been

promised

puts

the

City

risk

de-certification

its

Housing

Element

and

the

consequences

that

flow

from

that,

including

loss

local

control

over

the

construction

those

lower

income

units.

Item 16. General Plan Update Steering Committee (GPUSC) Bi-Monthly

Update

the

City

Council
In the four months since the last “Bi-Monthly” Update, one of the main developments has been the

update

committee

members'

discovery

that

all

their

memberships

will

end

February

11. As a GPAC member, but speaking as an individual, I can say that has been very discouraging and

somewhat

put

hold

plans

continue

meetings

the

Noise

Subcommittee

mentioned

the

last

bullet

page

16-5,

since

its

future

membership

unknown.

In that respect, if there is, indeed, to be a change in membership, I see a lack of plan as to how the

current

committee

members

are

expected

pass

any

insights

they

have

gained

the

new

members.

With regard to the consultant’s recommendation to change the format of our General Plan, as mentioned

GPUSC

Chair

Gardner’s

memo

the

final

page,

which

includes

proposal

adopt

“primarily

web-based”

format,

have

some

misgivings

about

that.

While

progress

and

innovation

can

helpful,

other

cities’

and

counties’

efforts

that

direction

have

been

less

than

successful.

Online

projects

started

with

the

best

intentions

tend

fall

into

neglect.

And

while

new,

official

documents

and

amendments

are

approved

printed,

PDF

form,

the

web-based

products

may

not

accurately

and

timely

updated

reflect

them,

they

“Business

Plan”)

that

still,

least

four

years

after

its

debut,

“coming

soon”

state.

575

14-1

NEWPORT BEACH

City Council Staff Report

COUNCIL STAFF REPORT

CITY OF

January 28, 2025
Agenda Item No. 14

CONSENT ITEM:

ITEM NO. 1 MINUTES OF JANUARY 9, 2025

SUMMARY: Draft minutes from the January 9, 2025, meeting of the Planning Commission.

The Planning Commission approved the minutes, with edits, by the following vote:

AYES: Ellmore, Harris, Langford, Lowrey, Rosene and Salene NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None

ACTION: Approved as amended

PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS:

ITEM NO. 2 NEWPORT IRVINE MEDICAL CENTER (PA2024-0070)
Site Location: 3300 Irvine Avenue

SUMMARY: A request to remodel an existing, three-story, office building and convert the land use from professional office to medical office. Changes to the building exterior include façade improvements and new roof parapets while interior remodeling will create a new, atrium-style, lobby with common areas and new stairways between floors. To partially accommodate the increased parking demand, the existing surface parking lot will be restriped and a three -level parking structure with solar canopy will be constructed. The following approvals are required to implement the project as proposed:

• Major Site Development Review: To allow an increase in building height in accordance Section 20.52.080 (Site Development Reviews) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code (NBMC) for the new architectural features (i.e., parapets) which are proposed for 42 feet above existing grade and 45 feet above existing grade, where the base height limit permits a maximum of 32 feet; • Staff Approval: To waive 61 of the 392 required parking spaces, or 15.5% of the parking requirement, in accordance with Section 20.40.110(D) (Adjustments to Off-Street Parking Requirements) of the NBMC; and
• Traffic Study: To consider the projected 1,496 net increase in average daily vehicle trips, pursuant to Section 15.40.030(A) (Traffic Phasing Ordinance) of the NBMC.

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: Jaime Murillo, Deputy Community Development Director - 949-644- 3209, [email protected]
TITLE: Planning Commission Agenda Report for January 23, 2025 576
Planning Commission Agenda Report for January 23, 2025
January 28, 2025

Page 2 ends

14-2

The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing, considered public input, and approved the project with amendments by the following vote:

AYES: Ellmore, Harris, Lowrey, Rosene, and Salene
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
RECUSED: Langford

ACTION: Approved as amended

ITEM NO. 3 HOUSING OPPORTUNITY (HO) OVERLAY ZONING AND COASTAL ZONING DISTRICT AMENDMENT (PA2024-0205)
Site Location: Various

SUMMARY: An amendment to Table 2 -16 of Section 20.28.050 [Housing Opportunity (HO) Overlay Zoning Districts] in Title 20 (Planning and Zoning) and pending Table 21.28- 1 of Section 21.28.070 [Housing Opportunity (HO) Overlay Coastal Zoning Districts] in Title 21 (Lo cal Coastal Program Implementation Plan) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code (NBMC) to: (1) adjust the height limitations of certain properties within the Newport Center Area (HO-4) Subarea to accommodate residential development with the intended prescribed density range; and (2) to identify a certain number of units being allocated from the respective development limits for a select group of City- owned properties located within the Airport Area Environs Area (HO-1) and Newport Center Area (HO-4) Subareas. The corresponding maps in Section 20.80.025 and pending Section 21.80.032 would also be amended accordingly.

The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing, considered public input, and recommended approval of the project to the City Council by the following vote:

AYES: Ellmore, Harris, Lowrey, Rosene, and Salene
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
RECUSED: Langford

ACTION: Approved as amended

577
Tentative Agenda Report - 01/19/2025 to 04/22/2025
City of Newport Beach
Project title Plan # Staff Assigned Status DistrictActivity Address January 23, 2025 - Planning Commission Meeting
1 3300 Irvine Avenue Site
Development Review and
CUP
Public Hearing Daniel Kopshever District 3PA2024-0070 MORE INFO3300 IRVINE AVE 2 HO Overlay Amendments Public Hearing Rosalinh Ung District 5PA2024-0205 MORE INFO1 CITYWIDE PROJECT January 28, 2025 - City Council Meeting
1 Balboa Yacht Basin
Redevelopment
Lease Agreement with Basin Marine -
Consent
Lauren Wooding District 5RP2024-0003829 HARBOR ISLAND DR 2 General Plan Update Consent - GPUSC Bi-Monthly Update Benjamin Zdeba CitywidePA2022-080 MORE INFO1 CITYWIDE PROJECT 3 License Agreement with
University of California
Consent Lauren Wooding District 1RP2024-00111 NEWPORT PIER The tentative schedule is a tool to assist the preparation of future agendas. It does not provide a complete description of projects and it does not list all projects currently under review that could be scheduled.

The tentative schedule changes without notice.

Page 1 of 7 ends

Tentative Agenda Report - 01/19/2025 to 04/22/2025
City of Newport Beach
Project title Plan # Staff Assigned Status DistrictActivity Address January 30, 2025 - Zoning Administrator Meeting
1 Cappy's Cafe Outdoor
Patio CDP/MUP
Public Hearing Jenny Tran District 1PA2023-0191 MORE INFO5930 COAST HWY W 2 Clarke Residence CDP Public Hearing Jerry Arregui District 5PA2024-0118 MORE INFO127 HARBOR ISLAND RD 3 HOAG CareMar Medical
Building
Public Hearing Jerry Arregui District 2PA2024-0188 MORE INFO1 HOAG DR 4 Sixt Rent a Car LTP Public Hearing Daniel Kopshever District 3PA2024-0209 MORE INFO4200 BIRCH ST 5 The Butchery Expansion Public Hearing Melinda Whelan District 3PA2024-0185 MORE INFO1000 BRISTOL ST N February 06, 2025 - Planning Commission Meeting - Cancelled February 11, 2025 - City Council Meeting
1 Christian Residence CDP
& Council Policy L2 Waiver
Public Hearing Jerry Arregui District 1PA2024-0105 MORE INFO3601 LAKE AVE February 13, 2025 - Zoning Administrator Meeting
1 Bayshore Cafe & Lounge
Hours Increase
Public Hearing Laura Rodriguez District 2PA2024-0132 MORE INFO100 COAST HWY W The tentative schedule is a tool to assist the preparation of future agendas. It does not provide a complete description of projects and it does not list all projects currently under review that could be scheduled.

The tentative schedule changes without notice.

Page 2 of 7 ends

Tentative Agenda Report - 01/19/2025 to 04/22/2025
City of Newport Beach
Project title Plan # Staff Assigned Status DistrictActivity Address February 20, 2025 - Planning Commission Meeting
February 20, 2025 - ALUC Meeting
1 HO Overlay Amendments Public Hearing - HO Overlay
Amendments Consistency Determination
Rosalinh Ung District 5PA2024-0205 MORE INFO1 CITYWIDE PROJECT February 25, 2025 - City Council Meeting
February 27, 2025 - Zoning Administrator Meeting
1 Jackson Residence CDP Public Hearing Laura Rodriguez District 1PA2024-0183 MORE INFO2057 OCEAN BLVD March 06, 2025 - Planning Commission Meeting
1 Amendments to PC-56 and
DA2007-002
Public Hearing Liz Westmoreland District 5PA2024-0173 MORE INFO120 NEWPORT CENTER DR 2 Annual General Plan
Report (2024 Calendar
year)
New Business Melinda Whelan District 5PA2025-0008 MORE INFO1 CITYWIDE PROJECT 3 Pom & Olive CUP Public Hearing Oscar Orozco District 2PA2024-0088 MORE INFO325 OLD NEWPORT BLVD, 1 The tentative schedule is a tool to assist the preparation of future agendas. It does not provide a complete description of projects and it does not list all projects currently under review that could be scheduled.

The tentative schedule changes without notice.

Page 3 of 7 ends

Tentative Agenda Report - 01/19/2025 to 04/22/2025
City of Newport Beach
Project title Plan # Staff Assigned Status DistrictActivity Address March 11, 2025 - City Council Meeting
1 HO Overlay Amendments Public Hearing - HO Overlay
Amendments Introduction
Rosalinh Ung District 5PA2024-0205 MORE INFO1 CITYWIDE PROJECT March 13, 2025 - Zoning Administrator Meeting
March 20, 2025 - Planning Commission Meeting
March 25, 2025 - City Council Meeting
1 Annual General Plan
Report (2024 Calendar
year)
Consent Melinda Whelan District 5PA2025-0008 MORE INFO1 CITYWIDE PROJECT 2 HO Overlay Amendments Consent - HO Overlay Amendments Second Reading
Rosalinh Ung District 5PA2024-0205 MORE INFO1 CITYWIDE PROJECT March 27, 2025 - Zoning Administrator Meeting
April 03, 2025 - Planning Commission Meeting
April 08, 2025 - City Council Meeting
The tentative schedule is a tool to assist the preparation of future agendas. It does not provide a complete description of projects and it does not list all projects currently under review that could be scheduled.

The tentative schedule changes without notice.

Page 4 of 7 ends

Tentative Agenda Report - 01/19/2025 to 04/22/2025
City of Newport Beach
Project title Plan # Staff Assigned Status DistrictActivity Address April 10, 2025 - Zoning Administrator Meeting
April 17, 2025 - Planning Commission Meeting
April 22, 2025 - City Council Meeting
Hearing Date to be Determined
1 Saunders Self Storage Liz Westmoreland District 3PA2023-0145 MORE INFO3848 CAMPUS DR 2 Snow Residence
Condominiums
TPM/CDP/Conversion
Jerry Arregui District 1PA2023-0147 MORE INFO400 40TH ST 3 Tracy Residence Variance Jenny Tran District 6PA2023-0200 MORE INFO1020 WHITE SAILS WAY The tentative schedule is a tool to assist the preparation of future agendas. It does not provide a complete description of projects and it does not list all projects currently under review that could be scheduled.

The tentative schedule changes without notice.

Page 5 of 7 ends

Tentative Agenda Report - 01/19/2025 to 04/22/2025
City of Newport Beach
Project title Plan # Staff Assigned Status DistrictActivity Address Pending Coastal Commission
1 Coastal Act 30613 CDP
Jurisdiction Change
City Project Jaime Murillo CitywidePA2022-111 MORE INFO1 CITYWIDE PROJECT 2 Commercial Parking
Requirements
LCP Amendment Benjamin Zdeba CitywidePA2021-104 MORE INFO1 CITYWIDE PROJECT 3 Dawson Residence CDP
Appeal
Private Project David Lee District 6PA2022-0315 MORE INFO2741 OCEAN BLVD 4 Housing Element
Implementation Program
Amendments
LCP Amendment Benjamin Zdeba District 5PA2022-0245 MORE INFO1 CITYWIDE PROJECT 5 Mooring Field C
Optimization Pilot Project
Hearing Pending Paul Blank District 5PA2024-0139 MORE INFO1 CITYWIDE PROJECT 6 Municipal Code Clean Up LCP Amendment Jaime MurilloPA2022-0219 MORE INFO1 CITYWIDE PROJECT 7 Short-Term Lodging
Amendment
LCP Amendment Jaime MurilloPA2023-0116 MORE INFO1 CITYWIDE PROJECT 8 Small Cell Telecom Appeal Private Project Benjamin Zdeba CitywidePA2019-113 MORE INFO3714 LAKE AVE 9 Special Flood Hazard Area
(VE) Overlay
LCP Amendment Liz Westmoreland District 1PA2018-075 MORE INFO1 CITYWIDE PROJECT 10 Tennis and Pickleball Club
of Newport Beach
LCP Amendment David Lee CitywidePA2021-260 MORE INFO1602 COAST HWY The tentative schedule is a tool to assist the preparation of future agendas. It does not provide a complete description of projects and it does not list all projects currently under review that could be scheduled.

The tentative schedule changes without notice.

Page 6 of 7 ends

Tentative Agenda Report - 01/19/2025 to 04/22/2025
City of Newport Beach
Planner Contact Information
Name & Title Phone Email
[email protected] Zdeba, Planning Manager [email protected] Younger, Planning Technician [email protected] Campagnolo, Systems and Administration Manager [email protected] Kopshever, Assistant Planner [email protected] Blumenthal, Contract Planner [email protected] Lee, Senior Planner [email protected] Murillo, Deputy CDD Director [email protected] Miclat, Planning Technician [email protected] Sommers, City Traffic Engineer [email protected] Tran, Associate Planner [email protected] Arregui, Assistant Planner [email protected] Perez, Planner, Senior [email protected] Benalcazar, Planning Technician [email protected] Rodriguez, Planning Technician [email protected] Wooding, Real Property Administrator [email protected] Westmoreland, Senior Planner [email protected] Whelan, Assistant Planner [email protected] Orozco, Assistant Planner [email protected] Ung, Principal Planner (PT) [email protected] Jurjis, Assistant ACM/CDD Director [email protected] Thai, Deputy CDD Director & Building Official The tentative schedule is a tool to assist the preparation of future agendas. It does not provide a complete description of projects and it does not list all projects currently under review that could be scheduled.

The tentative schedule changes without notice.

Page 7 of 7 ends

January 28, 2025
Agenda Item No. 14

NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS – 100 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE
THURSDAY, JANUARY 23, 2025
REGULAR MEETING – 6:00 P.M.

I. CALL TO ORDER

II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

III. ROLL CALL

IV. PUBLIC COMMENTS
Public comments are invited on non-agenda items generally considered to be within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Planning Commission. Speakers must limit comments to three (3) minutes. Before speaking, please state your name for the record and print your name on the blue forms provided at the podium.

V. REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCES

VI. CONSENT ITEMS

ITEM NO. 1 MINUTES OF JANUARY 9, 2025

Recommended Action: Approve and file

VII. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
Speakers must limit comments to three (3) minutes on all items. Before speaking, please state your name for the record and print your name on the blue forms provided at the podium.

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.

ITEM NO. 2 NEWPORT IRVINE MEDICAL CENTER (PA2024-0070)
Site Location: 3300 Irvine Avenue

Summary:

A request to remodel an existing, three-story, office building and convert the land use from professional office to medical office. To partially accommodate the increased parking demand, the existing surface parking lot will be restriped and a three -level parking structure with solar canopy will be constructed. The following approvals are required to implement the project as proposed:

 Major Site Development Review: To allow an increase in building height in accordance Section 20.52.080 (Site Development Reviews) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code (NBMC) for the new architectural features (i.e., parapets) which are proposed for 41 feet 6 inches above existing grade and 45 feet above existing grade, where the base height limit permits a maximum of 32 feet;

585

 Staff Approval: To waive 61 of the 392 required parking spaces, or 15.5% of the parking requirement, in accordance with Section 20.40.110(D) ( Adjustments to Off-Street Parking Requirements) of the NBMC; and
 Traffic Study: To consider the projected 1,496 net increase in average daily vehicle trips, pursuant to Section 15.40.030(A) (Traffic Phasing Ordinance) of the NBMC.

Recommended Actions:

1. Conduct a public hearing;

2. Find this project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15332 under Class 32 (In-Fill Development Projects) of the CEQA Guidelines, because it has no potential to have a significant effect on the environment; and

3. Adopt Resolution No. PC2025-003, approving the Site Development Review, Staff Approval, and Traffic Study filed as PA2024-0070.

ITEM NO. 3 HOUSING OPPORTUNITY (HO) OVERLAY ZONING AND COASTAL ZONING DISTRICT AMENDMENTS (PA2024-0205)
Site Location: Various

Summary:

An amendment to Table 2-16 of Section 20.28.050 [Housing Opportunity (HO) Overlay Zoning Districts] in Title 20 (Planning and Zoning) and pending Table 21.28-1 of Section

21.28.070 [Housing Opportunity (HO) Overlay Coastal Zoning Districts] in Title 21 (Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code (NBMC) to:
(1) adjust the height limitations of certain properties within the Newport Center Area (HO-4) Subarea to accommodate residential development with the intended prescribed density range; and (2) to identify a certain n umber of units being allocated from the respective development limits for a select group of City-owned properties located within the Airport Area Environs Area (HO-1) and Newport Center Area (HO-4) Subareas. The corresponding maps in Section 20.80.025 and pending Section 21.80.032 would also be amended accordingly.

Recommended Actions:

1. Conduct a public hearing;

2. Find that all potential environmental effects for the amendments have been adequately addressed in the previously certified Final Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) identified by State Clearinghouse Number (SCH No.) 2023060699, and the City of Newport Beach intends to use said document for the approval of the amendments; and

3. Adopt Resolution No. PC202 5-004 (Attachment No. PC 1), reco mmending City Council approve the amendments to the Housing Opportunity (HO) Overlay Zoning Districts (PA2024-0205).

586

VIII. STAFF AND COMMISSIONER ITEMS

ITEM NO. 4 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

ITEM NO. 5 REPORT BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR OR REQUEST FOR

MATTERS WHICH A PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBER WOULD LIKE PLACED

ON A FUTURE AGENDA

ITEM NO. 6 REQUESTS FOR EXCUSED ABSENCES

IX. ADJOURNMENT
587
January 28, 2025, City Council Agenda Comments
The following comments on items on the Newport Beach City Council agenda are submitted by:

Page 242 ends

Received After Agenda Printed
January 28, 2025
Written Comments
588
January 28, 2025, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 2 of 4 It has now ballooned into a $247,610 proposal based largely, it seems, on the contractor’s own recommendations.

Could the size of this effort (going over staff approval limits) have been anticipated at the beginning

would

have

been

subject

transparent

award

process,

with

Council

approval?
Or, assuming there is more than one company that does this kind of work, should this large next phase

separately

bid?

Item 8. Approval of Amendment No. One to Residential Solid Waste Collection

Recycling

Contract

(Contract

No.

8823-1)

with

CR&R

Inc.

–

Addition

De-Escalation

Maximum
I understand the logic of this request, but I have a number of problems with it:

1. Since I assume CR&R is not requesting this amendment to receive less money from the City,

completely

baffled

the

statement

under

“FISCAL

IMPACT”

page

8-2

that

approving

this

action

“
will

lower

costs

the

City

approximately

$436,000

for

2024-25

relative

last

year's

2023-24

cost.
”

Isn’t

the

real

question,

and

the

fiscal

impact,

how

much

the

City

will

pay

the

Council

approves

this

than

would

without

approval?

sure

exactly

what

changes

are

being

made

it.

3. Far more concerning to me is the statement in the staff report, which seems to be that “ This decrease

would

applied

retroactively

the

beginning

2024-25,

July

2024
.”
Does this mean CR&R will be expecting a refund for services already performed, using a higher

rate,

re-computed

using

smaller

adjustment

starting

July

1 of

last

year,

the

decrease

had

been

capped

back

not

anticipated

the

contract,

for

them.

It might be noted that no system of price adjustments based on year-to-year CPI changes with arbitrarily

imposed

caps

ever

going

fair

and

equitable

because,

the

examples

the

staff

report

confirm,

there

not

symmetry

the

long

term

errors

introduced

when

the

actual

change

given

year

exceeds

the

caps

unpredictable

amounts.

If the City wanted a fairer system, it might consider setting rates each year based on the rate in the

contract’s

start

year

corrected

the

ratio

the

true

CPI

(not

capped

one)

the

current

year

compared

the

CPI

the

contract’s

start

year.

there

wish

insulate

both

parties

from

unexpectedly

large

fluctuations,

the

increase

decrease

any

one

year

could

limited

maximum

5%.

Unless

the

changes

are

all

one-sided

and

larger

than

that

limit,

the

series

589
January 28, 2025, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 3 of 4 of 5%, or smaller, yearly rate adjustments would eventually produce a rate in correct alignment with

the

contractor’s

true,

total

change

costs

since

the

contract

started.
1 Item 10. Approve Professional Services Agreement with Environmental

Compliance

Inspection

Services

Corp.

for

Grease

Control

Device

Inspection

Services
As the staff report indicates, only one proposal, from the current incumbent, was received for this

contract.

the

Real

Property

and

Tidelands

the

Balboa

Yacht

Basin

Located

829

Harbor

Island

Drive
I can partially see the justification for collecting less than fair market rent from the operator of what

the

City

considers

essential

service.

But I am unable to see why the choice of operator would not be subject to competitive bidding. The Abstract to the staff report implies that Basin Marine has had its operation at this site since the

1940’s,

assertion

repeated

page

12-3

(“
The

Tenant

has

operated

the

Premises

reflected

Recital

the

proposed

lease,

page

12-7).

Item 13. License Agreement with The Regents of the University of California

for

Operation

Coastal

Observation

System

the

Newport

Pier
Is there any relation between this and the probes producing similar information about water in the

harbor,

operated

under

the

eyes

the

Harbor

Department?

Item 14. Planning Commission Agenda for the January 23, 2025 Meeting

As Item 3 on its agenda, the Commission heard an item of considerable public interest – involving

allowing

areas

Newport

Center

currently

limited

32 feet

height

heights

$100,

the

former

system

based

short-term

changes

CPI

did

not

accurately

capture

the

cumulative

effect

small

annual

changes

CPI.

Possibly

“save”

words,

possibly

unknowingly,

the

City

reverted

what

looks

that

flawed

former

system

(see

NBMC
Subsection 1.25.030.C)
somewhere

the

ill-conceived

471-page
Ordinance No. 2023-22.

590
January 28, 2025, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 4 of 4 up to 270 feet for residential development. Yet it passed largely unknown to the general public (the

only

speaker

from

the

general

public,

other

than

myself,

being

someone

had

told

about

it).

I believe the lack of public involvement was due both to the very limited amount of information provided

the

agenda

announcement

(which

refers

only

height

“adjustments”

and

not

amounts)

and

antiquated

system

noticing

which,

for

proposals

where

there

are

than

1,000

people

within

300

feet

impacted

properties,

requires

only

publication

(where

that

isn’t

even

section

with

link

it).

Since the Item 3 proposal will be coming to the Council for final action, it is probably not necessary

comment

its

substance

this

time,

but

view

increasing

heights

allowed

“by

right,”

rather

than

allowing

them

incentive

for

incorporating

affordable

units,

counter-productive

meeting

the

City’s

RHNA

obligations.

removes

that

incentive

and,

instead,

encourages

construction

the

large,

luxury

units

which

are

not

being

requested

the

state.

While

has

been

said

that

the

City

only

has

plan

for

affordable

housing,

not

build

it,

failure

produce

what

has

been

promised

puts

the

City

risk

de-certification

its

Housing

Element

and

the

consequences

that

flow

from

that,

including

loss

local

control

over

the

construction

those

lower

income

units.

Item 16. General Plan Update Steering Committee (GPUSC) Bi-Monthly

Update

the

City

Council
In the four months since the last “Bi-Monthly” Update, one of the main developments has been the

update

committee

members'

discovery

that

all

their

memberships

will

end

February

11. As a GPAC member, but speaking as an individual, I can say that has been very discouraging and

somewhat

put

hold

plans

continue

meetings

the

Noise

Subcommittee

mentioned

the

last

bullet

page

16-5,

since

its

future

membership

unknown.

In that respect, if there is, indeed, to be a change in membership, I see a lack of plan as to how the

current

committee

members

are

expected

pass

any

insights

they

have

gained

the

new

members.

With regard to the consultant’s recommendation to change the format of our General Plan, as mentioned

GPUSC

Chair

Gardner’s

memo

the

final

page,

which

includes

proposal

adopt

“primarily

web-based”

format,

have

some

misgivings

about

that.

While

progress

and

innovation

can

helpful,

other

cities’

and

counties’

efforts

that

direction

have

been

less

than

successful.

Online

projects

started

with

the

best

intentions

tend

fall

into

neglect.

And

while

new,

official

documents

and

amendments

are

approved

printed,

PDF

form,

the

web-based

products

may

not

accurately

and

timely

updated

reflect

them,

they

“Business

Plan”)

that

still,

least

four

years

after

its

debut,

“coming

soon”

state.

591

15-1

NEWPORT BEACH

City Council Staff Report

COUNCIL STAFF REPORT

CITY OF

January 28, 2025
Agenda Item No. 15
ABSTRACT:

Staff requests approval of a budget amendment to accept grant funding in the amount of $50,000 from the 202 5 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Community Benefit Program for the OASIS Senior Center Transportation Program.

RECOMMENDATIONS:
a) Determine this action is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Sections 15060(c)(2) a nd 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) Accept grant funding in the amount of $50,000 from Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Community Benefit Progr am and approve Budget Amendment No. 25- 050 to increase revenues by the same amount in 0107033 -511045 (OASIS Transportation).

DISCUSSION:

The Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian (Hoag) Community Benefit Program’s mission is to provide the highest quality he alth care services to the communities Hoag serves.

Hoag recognizes the great work being done at OASIS Senior Center to assure seniors have access to the care they need and has provided grant funding in support of the OASIS Transportation Program for more than 20 years.

The OASIS Transportation Program provides over 16,000 rides each year to residents 60 years old and older who are no longer able to drive. Newport Beach residents are driven to medical appointments, senior center programs , and other essential services within the city. Approximately 350 clients utilize the service each year.

The service provided through the OASIS Transportation Program enables residents to remain in their own homes for as long as possible and experience a higher quality of life.

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: Sean Levin, Recreation and Senior Services Director - 949-644- 3151, [email protected]
PREPARED BY: Melissa Gleason, Senior Services Manager - 949-644-3247, [email protected]
TITLE: Budget Amendment to Accept Grant Funding from the 202 5 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Community Benefit Program for the OASIS Transportation Program
592
Budget Amendment to Accept Grant Funding from the 2025 Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Community Benefit Program for the OASIS Transportation Program January 28, 2025

Page 2 ends

15-2

FISCAL IMPACT:

The Budget Amendment appropriates $50,000 in additional revenue from the Hoag Community Benefit Program. The revenue will be posted to the OASIS Senior Center Transportation Program in the Recreation and Senior Servi ces Department, 0107033 - 511045.

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 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 – Grant Award Letter
Attachment B – Copy of Check in the Amount of $50,000
Attachment C – Budget Amendment
593

November 22, 2024

City of Newport Beach
801 Narcissus Ave.

Corona del Mar, CA 92625

Dear Mrs. Susie DiGiovanna,

Congratulations! We are pleased to inform you that a grant in the amount of $50,000.00 for the project titled OASIS Senior Transportation has been approved by Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian’s Community Benefit Program for the 2025 grant term.

Our mission as a nonprofit, faith-based hospital is to provide the highest quality health care services to the communities we serve. We are excited to partner with your organization in fulfilling our mission and the unmet needs of our community. Acceptance of this grant acknowledges agreement to the following:

• The 2025 grant term: January 1, 2025 – December 31, 2025 (12 months) • Maintain your records to show and account for the uses of grant funds. • Your organization must notify us immediately if there is any change in your public charity status, or any updates in grant contacts/personnel. • We will be sending a request for a progress report (June 2025) and a final report (January 2026) in the months to come.
o Both reports will provide insight and help influence decision-making for the following grant cycle.
• Grant recipients are not eligible for event sponsorships through the Marketing & Corporate Communications department.

Your organization will receive a check in the mail this December for $50,000.00 to be used for OASIS Senior Transportation. Please send an email acknowledging receipt of your check to [email protected].

Please note, the check will be mailed to the address indicated on your organization’s W-9, as per Hoag’s Accounting policy. If there have been any updates to your W-9 (e.g., address change), please send any updated documentation to [email protected] upon receipt of this award letter.

ATTACHMENT A
15-3
594

Additionally, any mention or acknowledgement of the grant award through media/social media must be shared with Hoag’s Marketing and Corporate Communications Department for final approval, prior to publishing. Contact Lisa Grossman with any usage requests or questions.

Below is her title and contact information:

Lisa Grossman
Public Relations Communications Lead
Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian
Phone: 949-764-3165 | [email protected]

Once again, congratulations on this recognition of the great work you do to serve the community. We look forward to working with you during the coming year.

Sincerely,

Community Health Committee | Hoag Board of Directors

15-4
595

ATTACHMENT B
15-5
596

ATTACHMENT C
15-6
597

VIEW THE FULL AGENDA >>

598

16-1

NEWPORT BEACH

City Council Staff Report

COUNCIL STAFF REPORT

CITY OF

January 28, 2025
Agenda Item No. 16
ABSTRACT:

Since the previous update to the City Council in September 2024, the General Plan Update Steering Committee (GPUSC) and the General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC) have each held two public meetings, and various subcommittees held 10 public meetings.

City staff also coordinated with the GPUSC and GPAC to host four community workshops.

This report provides an update to the City Council on the discussions and actions taken.

DISCUSSION:

The GPUSC is chaired by Nancy Gardner with Phillip Brown and Kimberly Carter as members. The primary purpose of the GPUSC is to guide the 30-member GPAC and to report to the City Council. The City’s dedicated website for the General Plan Update is www.newportbeachca.gov/gpupdate. It provides information on the progress made and upcoming events, as well as opportunities for community input and engagement.

Attachment A to this report was prepared by GPUSC Chair Gardner and summarizes some of the notable recent progress made by both committees. Below is a list and recap of each meeting held since the September 2024 update to the City Council.

Recap of the October 2, 2024, GPAC Meeting
 The GPAC received a brief overview of the City Council meeting on September 24, 2024, regarding implementation of the Housing Element, appointment of two new GPAC members, and the City Council’s willingness to consider amending the Professional Services A greement with Dudek to provide support in updating the Noise Element.

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: General Plan Update Steering Committee (GPUSC) Bi-Monthly Update to the City Council
599
General Plan Update Steering Committee (GPUSC)
Bi-Monthly Update to the City Council
January 28, 2025

Page 2 ends

16-2

 A revised Vision Statement was presented based on feedback received at the GPAC meeting on September 4, 2024. Despite support from the GPAC and the GPAC Vision Statement Subcommittee for the initial version shared at the previous meeting, the GPAC voted to send it back to the Vision Statement Subcommittee for additional refinement based on the comments provided by members at this meeting.
 Lastly, City staff shared draft material s for upcoming workshops, including dates, locations and the content proposed to be shared for public input at the first two workshops in November. Draft goal ideas to support the topic of “resilience” alongside the Recreation, Natural Resources, and Safety Elem ents were shared along with contextual information. After some discussion, the GPAC voted to have each responsible GPAC Subcommittee review the content before it was finalized for the workshops.

Recap of the October 15, 2024, GPUSC Meeting
 The GPUSC reviewed applications to recommend new appointments to fill two unscheduled vacancies left by GPAC members who violated the attendance policy. After some discussion, the GPUSC recommended Rita Goldberg and Charles Ebner, both of whom are yet to be confirmed by the City Council given the changes discussed at the January 14, 2025, City Council meeting.  The GPUSC briefly reviewed the actions of the GPAC and expressed support for the workshop materials being shaped by each responsible GPAC Subcommittee.  City staff shared a progress report on the General Plan Update with a brief overview of the upcoming schedule and remaining budget. It was noted that the effort is still tracking to conclude in summer 2025, but the desire to revise draft documents and bring them back to various subcommittees for review may cause delays and issues with the budget. On whole, the GPUSC supported the efforts and current workflow.
 Lastly, City staff provided an update on the site of the former Coyote Canyon Landfill as it relates to the City’s Housing Element and the County’s Housing Element.

Recap of the November 6, 2024, GPAC Meeting
 Tony Petros, CEO of LSA Associates and a former City Councilmember, provided the GPAC with a presentation on circulation topics, suc h as the concept of “complete streets,” and how they are included in the General Plan.  Between this meeting and the prior meeting in October, the Vision Statement Subcommittee, Recreation and Natural Resources Subcommittee, Safety Subcommittee, and Noise S ubcommittee all convened. A summary of those meetings and the GPAC’s related actions follows.
600
General Plan Update Steering Committee (GPUSC)
Bi-Monthly Update to the City Council
January 28, 2025

Page 3 ends

16-3

o The Vision Statement Subcommittee, led by GPAC Member and Subcommittee Chair Debbie Stevens, reviewed the revised version of the draft Vision Statement considering the comments and discussion received at the October 2, 2024, GPAC meeting. The Subcommittee provided feedback and generally supported the Vision Statement and sharing it with the public at upcoming community workshops for additional feedback to see which parts resonate with the public. At the November meeting, the GPAC expressed support for the Subcommittee’s efforts and received and filed the draft content for the workshop.

o The Recreation and Natural Resources Subcommittee, led by GPAC Member and Subcommittee Chair Charles Klobe, reviewed the draft ideas to support the Recreation Element and Natural Resources Element. The Subcommittee provided feedback and generally supported the content being shared with the community for reaction and input. At the November meeting, the GPAC expressed support for the Subcommittee’s efforts and received and filed the draft content for the workshop.
o The Safety Subcommittee, led by GPAC Member and Subcommittee Chair Nancy Scarbrough , reviewed the draft ideas to support the topic of resilience and the Safety Element. The Subcommittee provided feedback and generally supported the content being shared with the community for reaction and input. At the November meeting, the GPAC expressed support for the Subcommittee’s efforts and received and filed the draft content for the workshop.
o The Noise Subcommittee, led by GPAC Member and Subcommittee Chair Jim Mosher, reviewed the draft scope of work for additional support and services from Dudek regarding upda ting the Noise Element. The Subcommittee also reviewed noise complaints and citation data from the Police Department and determined next steps. At the November meeting, the GPAC expressed support for the Subcommittee’s efforts.  City staff presented plans for the two workshops in December related to the Arts and Cultural and Historic Resources Elements and the Land Use and Harbor and Bay Elements. It was shared that, given time constraints, it would not be possible for the GPAC to convene and review the work shop material. After some discussion, the GPAC voted to allow the responsible subcommittees to review the draft materials prior to sharing with the public at the December workshops. o The Arts and Cultural/Historic Resources Subcommittee, Land Use Subcommittee, and Harbor and Bay Subcommittee, all convened on November 20, November 25, and November 26, respectively. Each reviewed the workshop content planned for the December community workshops and supported moving forward with minor revisions.  Lastly, City staff provided an update on upcoming deliverables and provided clarification on how the draft General Plan Goals and Policies will be developed for GPAC and GPUSC consideration. 601
General Plan Update Steering Committee (GPUSC)
Bi-Monthly Update to the City Council
January 28, 2025

Page 4 ends

16-4

Recap of the December 18, 2024, GPUSC Meeting
 The GPUSC briefly reviewed the actions of the GPAC and highlighted the Noise Subcommittee, as it had met twice since the November GPAC meeting. GPUSC Chair Gardner commended the Noise Subcommittee for its review of other cities’ general plans.
 City staff shared an overview of the four community workshops noting that a formal summary is being prepared by the consultant team for GPAC and GPUSC consideration at a future meeting. Although attendance at the first two workshops was light, the third and fourth wor kshops saw better attendance. Despite the attendance, it was shared that great input was received from those who participated.
 The GPUSC and members of the public briefly discussed the pending City Council item regarding changes to the rules and procedures for the GPUSC and GPAC. It was noted that the matter would be discussed and considered at the January 14, 2025, City Council meeting.
 Lastly, City staff provided an overview of all the work completed by the GPUSC and GPAC in 2024. The City’s consultant, Dudek, presented on the upcoming work program for the General Plan Update in 2025, and focused the presentation on the structure or format of the new General Plan. After some discussion by the GPUSC and members of the public, it was generally agreed that the effort is heading in the right direction. As highlighted in Attachment A to this report, the new format is intended to streamline the General Plan and make it more usable. The Implementation Program will clearly identify responsible departments with an anticipated implementation timeline identified.

Outreach Updates and Upcoming Meetings
 As touched upon above and in Attachment A, the outreach and engagement effort ramped up in November and December 2024 with four community workshops:
o November 14, 2024, 6 to 8 p.m., Community Workshop on Recreation and Natural Resources held in the Central Library’s Friends Room o November 21, 2024, 6 to 8 p.m., Community Workshop on Coastal Resilience and Safety, held in the Civic Center’s Community Room o December 4, 2024, 6 to 8 p.m., Community Workshop on Arts and Cultural and Historical Resources, held in the Civic Center’s Community Room o December 5, 2024, 6 to 8 p.m., Community Workshop on Land Use and Harbor, Bay, and Beaches, held at the Marina Park Community Center (pictured on the following page in Figures 1 and 2)

602
General Plan Update Steering Committee (GPUSC)
Bi-Monthly Update to the City Council
January 28, 2025

Page 5 ends

16-5

 Since last reported in September 2024, the project website has seen an increase in 4,725 unique visitors for a total of 9,840 unique visitors since efforts began in March 2024. The General Plan Update continues to be advertised on the City’s website and social media , as well as in Stu News, the Daily Pilot, and the City Manager’s newsletter, The Week In Review.

Figures 1 and 2, photographs of members of the public providing input at the Land Use, Harbor, Bay, and Beaches Community Workshop on December 5, 2024
 The Noise Subcommittee is anticipated to convene in late January or early February, with the full GPAC and GPUSC meeting again in February or March 2025, once both committees’ membership has been confirmed by the City Council on February 11, 2025. The General Plan Update remains on track to conclude in the summer of 2025.

FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no fiscal impact related to this item.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

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 – Steering Committee Chair Gardner’s Memo to the City Council 603

Attachment A
GPUSC Memo to the City Council
16-6
604
December 19, 2024

GPUSC REPORT TO COUNCIL

FORMAT
The goal is to make the General Plan more accessible and its implementation smoother. To the first point, it is proposed that the electronic version have something similar to an executive summary for each element with the ability to easily access background documents and make it simple to search across the different elements for topics appearing in more than one. As for the implementation, it is proposed that unlike our current General Plan which attributes no responsibility, in the new plan the responsible department will be listed as well as the expected time frame for accomplishment. If the council approves of this direction, the question would then be do we want to reformat the Housing and Land Use elements for consistency or leave them in their current format.

WORKSHOPS
Four public workshops were held in the last month [November and December 2024]. The first two were poorly attended, unfortunately, but the third and fourth were much better with residents exchanging ideas on proposed goals and the Visioning Statement. The consultant is preparing a report on everything gathered from the workshops.

ELEMENTS
The Harbor and Bay subcommittee has proposed that it become the Harbor, Bay and Beaches element since the beaches are a bit of an orphan.

16-7
605
January 28, 2025, City Council Agenda Comments
The following comments on items on the Newport Beach City Council agenda are submitted by:

Page 242 ends

Received After Agenda Printed
January 28, 2025
Written Comments
606
January 28, 2025, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 2 of 4 It has now ballooned into a $247,610 proposal based largely, it seems, on the contractor’s own recommendations.

Could the size of this effort (going over staff approval limits) have been anticipated at the beginning

would

have

been

subject

transparent

award

process,

with

Council

approval?
Or, assuming there is more than one company that does this kind of work, should this large next phase

separately

bid?

Item 8. Approval of Amendment No. One to Residential Solid Waste Collection

Recycling

Contract

(Contract

No.

8823-1)

with

CR&R

Inc.

–

Addition

De-Escalation

Maximum
I understand the logic of this request, but I have a number of problems with it:

1. Since I assume CR&R is not requesting this amendment to receive less money from the City,

completely

baffled

the

statement

under

“FISCAL

IMPACT”

page

8-2

that

approving

this

action

“
will

lower

costs

the

City

approximately

$436,000

for

2024-25

relative

last

year's

2023-24

cost.
”

Isn’t

the

real

question,

and

the

fiscal

impact,

how

much

the

City

will

pay

the

Council

approves

this

than

would

without

approval?

sure

exactly

what

changes

are

being

made

it.

3. Far more concerning to me is the statement in the staff report, which seems to be that “ This decrease

would

applied

retroactively

the

beginning

2024-25,

July

2024
.”
Does this mean CR&R will be expecting a refund for services already performed, using a higher

rate,

re-computed

using

smaller

adjustment

starting

July

1 of

last

year,

the

decrease

had

been

capped

back

not

anticipated

the

contract,

for

them.

It might be noted that no system of price adjustments based on year-to-year CPI changes with arbitrarily

imposed

caps

ever

going

fair

and

equitable

because,

the

examples

the

staff

report

confirm,

there

not

symmetry

the

long

term

errors

introduced

when

the

actual

change

given

year

exceeds

the

caps

unpredictable

amounts.

If the City wanted a fairer system, it might consider setting rates each year based on the rate in the

contract’s

start

year

corrected

the

ratio

the

true

CPI

(not

capped

one)

the

current

year

compared

the

CPI

the

contract’s

start

year.

there

wish

insulate

both

parties

from

unexpectedly

large

fluctuations,

the

increase

decrease

any

one

year

could

limited

maximum

5%.

Unless

the

changes

are

all

one-sided

and

larger

than

that

limit,

the

series

607
January 28, 2025, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 3 of 4 of 5%, or smaller, yearly rate adjustments would eventually produce a rate in correct alignment with

the

contractor’s

true,

total

change

costs

since

the

contract

started.
1 Item 10. Approve Professional Services Agreement with Environmental

Compliance

Inspection

Services

Corp.

for

Grease

Control

Device

Inspection

Services
As the staff report indicates, only one proposal, from the current incumbent, was received for this

contract.

the

Real

Property

and

Tidelands

the

Balboa

Yacht

Basin

Located

829

Harbor

Island

Drive
I can partially see the justification for collecting less than fair market rent from the operator of what

the

City

considers

essential

service.

But I am unable to see why the choice of operator would not be subject to competitive bidding. The Abstract to the staff report implies that Basin Marine has had its operation at this site since the

1940’s,

assertion

repeated

page

12-3

(“
The

Tenant

has

operated

the

Premises

reflected

Recital

the

proposed

lease,

page

12-7).

Item 13. License Agreement with The Regents of the University of California

for

Operation

Coastal

Observation

System

the

Newport

Pier
Is there any relation between this and the probes producing similar information about water in the

harbor,

operated

under

the

eyes

the

Harbor

Department?

Item 14. Planning Commission Agenda for the January 23, 2025 Meeting

As Item 3 on its agenda, the Commission heard an item of considerable public interest – involving

allowing

areas

Newport

Center

currently

limited

32 feet

height

heights

$100,

the

former

system

based

short-term

changes

CPI

did

not

accurately

capture

the

cumulative

effect

small

annual

changes

CPI.

Possibly

“save”

words,

possibly

unknowingly,

the

City

reverted

what

looks

that

flawed

former

system

(see

NBMC
Subsection 1.25.030.C)
somewhere

the

ill-conceived

471-page
Ordinance No. 2023-22.

608
January 28, 2025, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 4 of 4 up to 270 feet for residential development. Yet it passed largely unknown to the general public (the

only

speaker

from

the

general

public,

other

than

myself,

being

someone

had

told

about

it).

I believe the lack of public involvement was due both to the very limited amount of information provided

the

agenda

announcement

(which

refers

only

height

“adjustments”

and

not

amounts)

and

antiquated

system

noticing

which,

for

proposals

where

there

are

than

1,000

people

within

300

feet

impacted

properties,

requires

only

publication

(where

that

isn’t

even

section

with

link

it).

Since the Item 3 proposal will be coming to the Council for final action, it is probably not necessary

comment

its

substance

this

time,

but

view

increasing

heights

allowed

“by

right,”

rather

than

allowing

them

incentive

for

incorporating

affordable

units,

counter-productive

meeting

the

City’s

RHNA

obligations.

removes

that

incentive

and,

instead,

encourages

construction

the

large,

luxury

units

which

are

not

being

requested

the

state.

While

has

been

said

that

the

City

only

has

plan

for

affordable

housing,

not

build

it,

failure

produce

what

has

been

promised

puts

the

City

risk

de-certification

its

Housing

Element

and

the

consequences

that

flow

from

that,

including

loss

local

control

over

the

construction

those

lower

income

units.

Item 16. General Plan Update Steering Committee (GPUSC) Bi-Monthly

Update

the

City

Council
In the four months since the last “Bi-Monthly” Update, one of the main developments has been the

update

committee

members'

discovery

that

all

their

memberships

will

end

February

11. As a GPAC member, but speaking as an individual, I can say that has been very discouraging and

somewhat

put

hold

plans

continue

meetings

the

Noise

Subcommittee

mentioned

the

last

bullet

page

16-5,

since

its

future

membership

unknown.

In that respect, if there is, indeed, to be a change in membership, I see a lack of plan as to how the

current

committee

members

are

expected

pass

any

insights

they

have

gained

the

new

members.

With regard to the consultant’s recommendation to change the format of our General Plan, as mentioned

GPUSC

Chair

Gardner’s

memo

the

final

page,

which

includes

proposal

adopt

“primarily

web-based”

format,

have

some

misgivings

about

that.

While

progress

and

innovation

can

helpful,

other

cities’

and

counties’

efforts

that

direction

have

been

less

than

successful.

Online

projects

started

with

the

best

intentions

tend

fall

into

neglect.

And

while

new,

official

documents

and

amendments

are

approved

printed,

PDF

form,

the

web-based

products

may

not

accurately

and

timely

updated

reflect

them,

they

“Business

Plan”)

that

still,

least

four

years

after

its

debut,

“coming

soon”

state.

609

17-1

NEWPORT BEACH

City Council Staff Report

COUNCIL STAFF REPORT

CITY OF

January 28, 2025
Agenda Item No. 17
ABSTRACT:

Due to Sara J. Weber being elected as the Councilmember for District 7 for the City of Newport Beach, the City Council has the opportunity to fill the vacant position on the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission pursuant to the City Charter, City Council Policy A-2 (Boards, Commissions and Committees), and the Maddy Act RECOMMENDATIONS:
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) Appoint Kelly Denner or Travis Pirdy to fill the vacanc y on the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission for a term that expires on June 30, 2025.

DISCUSSION:

Sara J. Weber was appointed to the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission (PB&R) on August 27, 2024, for a term that expires on June 30, 2025. However, after being elected to serve as the Councilmember for District 7, she resigned from her PB&R position.

In compliance with City Council Policy A -2 and the Maddy Act, the City Clerk prepared and posted a Notice of Unscheduled Vacancy on Tuesday, November 26, 2024, in the City Clerk’s Office, at the Central Library, on the bulletin board in the City Council Chambers, and on the City’s website. In addition, the notice was published in the Daily Pilot on Sunday, December 1, 2024. As per the notice, applications were accepted by the City Clerk’s Office until noon on Wednesday, December 11, 2024.

Pursuant to City Council Policy A-2, Mayor Joe Stapleton appointed himself, Mayor Pro Tem Lauren Kleiman, and Councilmember Michelle Barto to the Ad Hoc Appointments Committee. At the conclusion of the application period, the applications were forwarded to the ad hoc committee members for their review.

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: Leilani I. Brown, City Clerk - 949-644-3005,
[email protected]
PREPARED BY: Jennifer Farris, Assistant City Clerk - 949-644-3006, [email protected]
TITLE: Appointment of a Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commissioner to Fill an Unscheduled Vacancy
610
Appointment of a Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commissioner to Fill an Unscheduled Vacancy
January 28, 2025

Page 2 ends

17-2

The Ad Hoc Appointments Committee recommend ed the nominations of Kelly Denner and Travis Pirdy , which were confirmed by the City Council at its January 14 , 202 5 meeting.

Copies of the applications are attached hereto as Attachment A.

Appointment Process

Pursuant to City Council Policy A -2, the appointment to PB&R will take place in the following manner:

A. The City Council will vote on the appointment simultaneously. The voting will be done by paper ballot and the City Clerk will tabulate and announce the results, including the vote tally.

B. Each member of the City Council will cast one vote on the paper ballot. To be appointed, an applicant must receive at least four votes.

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 fores eeable indirect physical change in the environment) 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 – Applications
611

ATTACHMENT A
17-3
612
17-4
613
17-5
614
17-6
615

VIEW THE FULL AGENDA >>

616
From: Garrett, Errica
Sent: January 27, 2025 8:06 AM
To: City Clerk's Office
Subject: FW: Travis Pirdy-PB&R Appointment
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: Kate Malouf <[email protected]>
Sent: January 25, 2025 11:59 AM
T
o: Dept - City Council <[email protected]> Cc: Logan <[email protected]>
Subject: Travis Pirdy-PB&R
Appointment
[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.

Mayor Stapleton, Mayor Pro Tem Kleiman and Council Members, We
are writing to ask all of you for your strong support to appoint Mr. Travis Pirdy for the vacancy on the Parks, Beaches &
Recreation Commission.

Mr. Pirdy embodies and has all the important qualifications to serve on this commission.

As private citizens and parents,
Mr. Pirdy has been instrumental as a mentor, coach & instructor not only for our own children but for c
ountless young citizens in Newport Beach. In addition, he has great relationships and is thoroughly educated with several departments/employees throughout our wonderful
city.

Mr. Pirdy is born and raised here and knows firsthand the importance of this commission and all that it
entails.

We thank you for your strong consideration and appreciate your thoughtful decision to appoint Mr.

Pirdy to this vacancy
.

Most respectfully,
Kate and Logan Malouf
Received After Agenda Printed
January 28, 2025
Agenda Item No. 17
617
From: Garrett, Errica
To: City Clerk"s Office
Subject: FW: Travis Pirdy to the PB and R Commission
Date: January 27, 2025 8:09:46 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: Spencer Pirdy <[email protected]>
Sent: January 25, 2025 4:15 PM
To: Dept - City Council <[email protected]> Subject: Travis Pirdy to the PB and R Commission
[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.

Hello Council Members,
My name is Spencer Pirdy. I am Travis Pirdy’s younger brother, and I am writing you(with slight bias) regarding Travis’s nomination to be a part of the Parks Beaches and Recreation Commission.

Travis’s public service has spanned more than two decades through being a Newport Beach Lifeguard, and working for the city in the recreational department. He truly understands the inner workings of the Parks, Beaches and Recreational areas of the city better than most. Travis embodies values that this city has taught him such as love, passion and persistence. These values and his love for the City of Newport Beach make Travis an incredible choice for this commission.

I know that, if appointed, he will work
diligently and wisely for this incredible city that has helped to shape who he is today I urge you to please cast your vote for Travis on Tuesday, and take advantage of having this bright young man as part of the PB and R committee. This will add another amazing asset to the thriving City of Newport Beach.

Sincerely,
Spencer Pirdy
618
From: Garrett, Errica
To: City Clerk"s Office
Subject: FW: Travis Pirdy
Date: January 27, 2025 8:10:25 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: Blake Zimmerman <[email protected]>
Sent: January 25, 2025 8:43 PM
To: Dept - City Council <[email protected]> Subject: Travis Pirdy

[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.

Hi Newport Beach City Council,

My name is Blake Zimmerman and I live at 1057 Dover Dr. Newport Beach, CA.

I am reaching on the behalf of Travis Pirdy who has been nominated to be on the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission for the City of Newport Beach. I believe the vote is on 1/28/25 and I wanted to share my support for Travis who is a loyal member of the Newport Beach community. I am confident that Travis would serve the community with honor and dignity. He is an avid surfer and outdoors man who is passionate about our local beaches and parks.

Thank you,

Blake

Sent from my iPhone
619
From: Garrett, Errica
To: City Clerk"s Office
Subject: FW: Travis Pirdy PB&R Appointment
Date: January 27, 2025 8:15:09 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: Madeline Malouf <[email protected]>
Sent: January 27, 2025 3:05 AM
To: Dept - City Council <[email protected]> Subject: Travis Pirdy PB&R Appointment

[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.

Mayor Stapleton, Mayor Pro Tem Kleiman and Council Members,

I am writing to strongly encourage your support in appointing Mr. Travis Pirdy for the vacancy on the Parks, Beaches & Recreation Commission.

Mr. Pirdy has been invaluable mentor and leader in my life. As a junior lifeguard, he guided me through numerous summers, helping me thrive both as an individual and as a member of our community. His genuine care for others and commitment to service in our city has always stood out.

Mr. Pirdy has deep ties in this community and understands the unique opportunities and needs in Newport Beach. His knowledge and experience with local programs and services make him qualified for this position.

I appreciate your consideration of this appointment and thank you for your time.

Most respectfully,
Maddie Malouf
620
From: Garrett, Errica
To: City Clerk"s Office
Subject: FW: Parks, Beaches & Recreation Committee
Date: January 27, 2025 8:23:47 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: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: January 27, 2025 8:19 AM
To: Dept - City Council <[email protected]> Subject: Parks, Beaches & Recreation Committee

[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.

Members of the City Council:

It is my understanding that Travis Pirdy has offered to serve on the Parks, Beaches & Recreation Committee. Travis has just the right background and experience to be a productive member of the Committee, having served Newport Beach as a lifeguard for nearly 20 years and working with children as an elementary school teacher. He was born and raised in Newport Beach, and is looking forward to again contributing his time and efforts to our fine City.

Travis has a consistently positive and respectful attitude and would be a very good addition to the Committee. I wholeheartedly endorse his candidacy.

Steve Kiser
40 year resident of Newport Beach. Former Member
and Chairman of the Newport Beach Planning Commission.
621

Newport Beach City CouncilJanuary 28, 2025

Newport Beach City Council
January 28, 2025