Agenda packet — Newport Beach City Council, March 11, 2025 (part 2 of 2)

Scarbrough’s previous comments regarding her and Mr. Klobe’s GPAC appointments and thought the discussion regarding the Council Aviation Ad Hoc Committee (Item 5) was less than enlightening.”

Page 274 ends

to distortions and site sight line issues as the screen size increases.”

Page 274 ends

the screen. In response to his question, Public Works Director Webb clarified that 0.8% of the 10% of the contingency allowance is correctly stated and most of the major project items are complete.”
[note: Even after deleting the second “of the,” this could be read as “0.8% of 10%” =

0.08%. It would be clearer to say “Director Webb clarified that the 0.8% of cost overrun compared to the 10% of the contingency allowance is correctly stated.”]

Page 274 ends

Kahe Krahe thanked Public Works Director Webb for his presentation, expressed concerns about the largest screen size, and thought the 11-foot by 19-foot screen is a good compromise and the Foundation would agree to pay for half the cost.” Item SS5. Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Early Look
It is very helpful that the slides for this presentation were posted with the agenda on March 6, giving time for review prior to the meeting.

Regarding Slide 17 (the first of two labeled “WATER”), there seems to be a problem with the dollar amounts reported for the “Cathodic Protection Program.” A $110,000 re-budget added to a new allocation of $2,000,000 would not yield a total of $224,000.

Item III. PUBLIC COMMENTS
I am all for public comments, but according to the agenda sequence specified on page 2 of the currently-adopted City Council Policy A-1, this item seems to have been intended primarily to provide the required opportunity for the public to comment on the closed session agenda items.

However, with the closed session now appearing at the end of the agenda, it fails at that purpose since few people attending the meeting would guess from the announcement that this is opportunity to comment on the closed session topics, nor will they know there will be additional opportunities to comment on agenda items, or if commenting at this time will preclude them from commenting later.

Received After Agenda Printed
March 11, 2025
Written Comments
212
March 11, 2025, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 2 of 6 In fact, although titled differently, the text under this item is identical to that appearing under “IX.

NOTICE

THE

PUBLIC”

which

makes

appear

notice

than

invitation

comment.

If that is its purpose, it would seem the notice should be given before Item “II. CURRENT BUSINESS”

since

the

public

must

allowed

comment

least

some

those

items

(for

example,

Item

“SS5.

Capital

Improvement

Program

(CIP)

Early

Look”),

yet

will

not

have

been

told

what

the

rules

are

prior

their

opportunity.

Item 4. Ordinance No. 2025-3: Designating a Portion of Corona del Mar as

Safety

Enhancement

Zone

and

Expanding

West

Newport

Safety

Enhancement

Zone

Include

Memorial

Day,

Fourth

July,

and

Labor

Day

Holidays
The description of the boundaries of the proposed Corona del Mar Safety Enhancement Zone were

revised

shortly

before

the

introduction

this

ordinance

was

introduced

February

25. While the more precise definition (similar to the Police Department Reporting District 44 illustrated

Figure

1 on

page

4-2

the

staff

report)

proposed

page

4-9

the

ordinance

appreciated,

puzzling

that

both

mention

the

intended

zone

“
shall

include

Pirate's

Cove,

Corona

del

Mar

State

Beach,

and

Little

Corona

Beac
h,”

but

not

mention

China

Cove

Beach,

even

though

China

Cove

Beach

clearly

within

the

area

described

the

text.

Additionally, it is not clear the City has a clearly defined boundary to “Little Corona Beach,” which,

according

Figure

1 of

the

staff

report,

the

neighboring

Police

Department

Reporting

District

45. It

term

that

does

not

seem

appear

anywhere

else

the

Municipal

Code.

All this said, I continue to think the increased days and areas of the proposed safety enhancement

zones

place

increased

burden

City

staff

and

citizens

that

not

justified

sufficient

evidence

need

for

the

action.

Item 5. Ordinance No. 2025-4: Amending the Newport Beach Municipal Code

Update

Administrative

Procedures

Good

Cause

Determinations

and

the

Extension

Deadlines

for

Short-Term

Lodging

Permits
Although not clearly explained in the staff report, I believe this ordinance is being proposed as an

administrative

alternative

persons

making

appeals

the

City

Council.

Setting aside the merits of that choice,I have two problems with the proposed implementation. First, a significant operative part of the scheme is buried in a portion of the ordinance that will not

codified,

result

which,

most

the

public

reading

the

proposed

code

(pages

5-21

and

5-22)

will

not

know

exists.

Specifically,

the

proposed

ordinance

contains

(uncodified)

Section

7 saying

“
The

Finance

Director

hereby

authorized

retroactively

extend

deadlines

provided

Sections

2 through

5 of

this

ordinance

upon

determination

the

Finance

Director

that

good

cause

has

been

shown

so
.”

213
March 11, 2025, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 3 of 6 Not only would this apply, contrary to what it says, to only Section 2, 3 and 5 (not 4), but I can think

reason

this

should

not

included

the

codified

text

those

sections.

accomplish

that,

the

three

sections

where

proposed

appear,
1 the

following

phrase

could

simply

modified

to:

“...

the

Finance

Director

determines

that

good

cause

has

been

shown

for

extending

the

deadline, which extension may be retroactive.”
2 The code would then be clearer and there would be no need for the uncodified Section 7. My second problem is that while it may seem efficient to insert a definition of “good cause” that will

apply

the

entire

municipal

code,

rather

than

just

short

term

lodging

matters,

don’t

think

wise.

The reason it is not wise is that what “good cause” means depends on the context, and the conditions

that

constitute

“good

cause”

for

missing

short

term

lodging

permit

deadline

may

quite

different

from

what

constitutes

“good

cause”

some

other

circumstance,

such

terminating

employee

permit

“for

good

cause.”
A search for the phrase “good cause” indicates it appears 27 times in 19 different chapters of our Municipal Code, including, already in Subsection 5.95.030.F. Many of those appearances suggest the intent was for the phrase to have a very context-specific intent. Adding a general definition

that

purports

apply

“
Unless

specific

definition

provided

the

context

which

they

are

used

clearly

requires

otherwise
”

seems

only

add

confusion

and

uncertainty.

It would seem much better to add a STL-specific definition of “good cause” to Section 5.95.010 (Definitions) of the Short Term Lodging Permit chapter, which would clarify how the phrase is intended

work

the

STL

chapter,

but

not

alter

its

(possibly

quite

different)

intent

the

others.

As to the merits of this ordinance,I believe the deadlines were enacted to emphasize that having a

short

term

lodging

permit

privilege,

not

right;

and

limited

privilege

for

which

there

long

waiting

list

possibly

responsible

people

seeking

the

privilege.

While the proposed code specifies the circumstances under which the Director “ may ” excuse a missed

STL

permit

deadline,

not

all

clear

the

circumstances

under

which

she

should

choose

not

so.

For

example,

there

may

complaints

that

the

applicant,

although

having

“good

cause”

miss

the

deadline,

also

bad

operator

for

whom

leniency

should

not

considered.

And

those

circumstances

might

not

surface

without

formal

public

hearing.

That

would

argue

for

appeal

the

Council

being

better

solution

what

seem

the

rare

circumstances

which

deadlines

are

missed.

Regarding defined words in general in our Municipal Code, it should be noted that, at present, readers

have

easy

way

tell

they

are

encountering

word

with

special

definition

within

the

code

one

that

intended

read

with

its

common

meaning.

A solution to this is for the vendor codifying the ordinances to display the defined words in a special

typeface

(such

italics

underlined)

and

provide

links

the

definitions.

2 Subsection

5.95.030.F

already

gives

the

Director

authority

extend

certain

STL

deadlines,

but

does

not

say

that

authority

retroactive.

Nothing

the

present

ordinance

changes

that.

Was

this

intentional?

1 To be sure, while this phrase appears in Section 3 (on page 5-13) and Section 5 (on page 5-14), in Section

2 (on

page

5-12)

appears

“
to

extend

the

deadline
”

instead

“
for

extending

the

deadline
.”

can

think

reason

for

the

different

phrasing.

214
March 11, 2025, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 4 of 6 Here is example, from the Snohomish County (WA) code, which is maintained by the same vendor as ours, but using a slightly different platform:

Pointing the mouse at the words with dotted underlines pops up a copy of the section defining the

term

(while,

our

code,

clicking

word

with

solid

underline

links

the

referenced

code

section).

Item 6. Resolution No. 2025-11: Waiving Section A.1. of City Council Policy

B-13

Allow

for

Alcoholic

Beverages

Charity

Polo

Event

Held

Peninsula

Park,

and

Repeal

Resolution

No.

2024-14
Since Newport Beach attempts to enforce an absence of alcohol on its beaches, I do not think it sets

good

example

allow

alcohol

event

beach-adjacent

park.

That

appears

set

double

standard.

That said, if a majority of the Council wants to allow this, I don’t see the need for a new resolution

repeal

the

former

one.

The existing Resolution No. 2024-14 appears to grant an indefinite, blanket waiver for the “Charity

Polo

Event

held

Peninsula

Park.”

While

references

the

“Newport

Beach

Foundation”

the

most

recent

and

likely

future

operator,

does

not

seem

limited

that.

The proposed new Resolution No. 2025-11 names “Celebrity Foundation for Children” (tax filings) as the expected operator, but, again, the existing resolution does not seem restrictive as to who the applicants or operators might be and is even less clear than the present one about the

waiver

being

indefinite.

If the intent is that the future validity of the waiver be contingent upon “the Event” being a charity event,

then

think

should

say

so.

And since the request is only for service of beer and wine, I think the resolution should include that

limitation.

Both of those conditions would improve upon what is proposed.

215
March 11, 2025, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 5 of 6 Item 9. Approval of On-Call Maintenance and Repair Services Agreement

for

Roll-Up

Doors

and

Gates

with

Excel

Door

Gate

Company,

Inc.

The staff report fails to mention that Excel Door & Gate Company previously held this contract, and that as Item 6 at its May 9, 2023 meeting, in anticipation of that contract ending, it selected South Coast Industrial Door, Inc. as the contractor for this service through May 1, 2028. The City Clerk’s database of contracts show the one with South Coast Industrial Door, C-9286-1, as still active, and, indeed, to have been updated by the City Manager with new billing rates on August 30, 2024. Is the new contract with Excel Door & Gate intended to replace the one with South Coast Industrial

Door?

addition

that?

Item 10. Amendment No. One to Purchase and License Agreement with

Systems

Canada,

Inc.

for

Multi-Space

Pay

Stations
It would seem reasonable to ask if, when the existing pay stations were originally purchased, there

was

expectation

they

would

only

last

for

ten

years?

And

the

new

“more

reliable”

ones

are

expected

have

any

longer

useful

life?

Item 12. Cultural Arts Grants Fiscal Year 2024-25 The Council may notice a similarity in the grants recommendations from year to year. For example, all six of the recipients approved as Item 12 at the February 27, 2025, meeting are on the list again this year, and for very similar amounts. This year is slightly unusual in that there are two new recommendations: Emerald Magic Events Inc

and

the

Newport

Theatre

Arts

Center.

Of those, it might be noted that, independent of these grants, Emerald Magic Events has a March 22 event at OASIS very similar to what is described, with tickets ranging from $59 to $79 (with discounts for couples and children under 17). In that regard, it might be noted that the underlying City Council Policy I-10 (page 12-5) does not appear

place

any

restrictions

how

the

grants

will

used,

and

unclear

the

Commission

has

done

so.

For

example,

how

expensive

attendance

the

proposed

events

might

and

whether

the

grants

would

used

reduce

ticket

costs

for

some

other

purpose.

Indeed,

seems

completely

open-ended

whether

the

grantees

would

even

presenting

program

offering

some

other

kind

“service.”
Wouldn’t some clearer guidance be useful?
Item 13. Ordinance No. 2025-5: An Amendment Deleting Section 5 of Ordinance

No.

2022-8

Removing

Sunset

Date

April

21,

2025
This item seems an example of the unwisdom of enacting uncodified provisions to our Municipal Code. As best I can tell, no one reading NBMC Section 15.02.095 would have any hint that lurking in adopted Ordinance No. 2022-8 there is an April 21, 2025, sunset provision affecting something

(sub)

Section

105.3.4,

especially

since

there

not

even

footnote

that

code

216
March 11, 2025, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 6 of 6 mentioning the existence of Ordinance No. 2022-8. And according to the codifier’s Ordinance List, Ordinance No. 2022-8 has already been “Repealed by 2022-26.” Since Ordinance No. 2022-26 says it completed deleted and replaced Chapter 15.02, including (sub) Section 105.3.4, and in enacting the present provisions, itself appears to contain no sunset

language,

would

seem

that

sunset

clause

Ordinance

No.

2022-8

irrelevant,

and

nothing

about

expire.

In that case, no action is necessary, unless the current (sub) Section 105.3.4 enacted by Ordinance

No.

2022-26

different

from

the

one

the

Building

Official

sees

Ordinance

No.

2022-8

and

wants

continue

following.

As best I can tell, there is no difference, and no action is needed.

Item XVII. CLOSED SESSION The Brown Act requires the public be given an opportunity to comment regarding the items listed

under

this

heading

the

agenda

before

the

Council

considers

them.

Since the former opportunity for this public comment has been moved from its position immediately

preceding

the

closed

session

the

agenda

template

specified

City

Council
Policy A-1, it seems important for the Mayor to invite comment after the CIty Attorney has announced the closed session topics.

217

10-1

NEWPORT BEACH

City Council Staff Report

COUNCIL STAFF REPORT

CITY OF

March 11, 2025
Agenda Item No. 10
ABSTRACT:

The City of Newport Beach currently operates approximately 144 pay stations, with each unit having a typical life span of around 10 years. In 2021, the City purchased 58 new pay stations to replace outdated single -space meters . The new pay stations are operational and fully compatible with the City’s systems. However, in the coming years, several pay stations purchased between 2014 and 2018 will reach the end of their life span and require replacement. To address this, staff is planning a phased replacement of these aging units ove r the next five years. To ensure the continued reliability and efficiency of the City's parking system, staff is requesting City Council approval to amend the existing agreement with T2 Systems, Inc. (T2) to purchase, install and maintain approximately 86 additional pay stations, ensuring uninterrupted service and continued compliance with the City’s operational standards and state regulations, and to support the long-term sustainability of the City’s parking infrastructure.

RECOMMENDATIONS:
a) Find this project exempt from 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 1578) 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 staff to purchase and replace the outdated pay stations over the next five years, ensuring all units are replaced by the end of their 10 -year lifespan, while maintaining compliance with the City's Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan and the California Vehicle Code;
c) Authorize the City Manager or designee to enter into an amendment to the existing agreement to purchase, install and maint ain up to 86 additional multi -space pay stations, replacing those purchased between 2014 and 2018 as they reach the end of their 10 -year lifespan in the coming years , with an amount not-to-exceed $785,122.04; and
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: Jason Al-Imam, Finance Director/Treasurer - 949-644-3126, [email protected]
PREPARED BY: Katie Vu, Management Analyst - 949-644-3143, [email protected]
TITLE: Amendment No. One to Purchase and License Agreement with T2 Systems Canada, Inc. for Multi-Space Pay Stations
218
Amendment No. One to Purchase and License Agreement with T2 Systems Canada, Inc. for Multi-Space Pay Stations
March 11, 2025

Page 2 ends

10-2
d) Waive the standard bidding requirements provided by City Council Policy F -14 and approve a single source award of the agreement to T2 Systems, Inc. (T2).

DISCUSSION:

Background
The City manages approximately 4,100 on -street and off -street pay parking spaces, including those in the Balboa Pier and Corona del Mar parking lots. To facilitate parking payments, the City operates around 144 multi-space pay stations, which are integral to the City’s parking management system. These pay stations contribute significantly to the City’s parking revenue, generating over 57% of the total income, which amounted to approximately $7.63 million in Fiscal Year 2023-2024. Overall, parking revenue typically ranges from $12 million to $15 million annually, with pay stations playing a key role in securing this vital income.

In 2021, the City purchased 58 new pay stations to replace outdated single -space meters, which are fully compatible with the City's existing systems. However, several pay stations purchased prior to that, between 2014 and 2018, are nearing the end of their typical 10-year lifespan and will require replacement in the coming years. The aging pay stations are becoming increasingly difficult to maintain. With poor connections and ongoing technical issues, these units are creating challenges for both visitors and staff, making it harder for customers to complete transactions. This deterioration raises concerns about potential revenue loss if the pay stations continue to malfunction.

Therefore, upgrading to newer, more reliable units will help the City reduce ongoing maintenance costs and minimize operational disruptions. The improved functionality of modern pay stations also leads to faster and more efficient transactions, which can reduce customer frustrations and complaints. Additionally, replacing these outdated units is a cost -effective approach, as the new pay stations continue to generate significant annual revenue. Considering the cos t to replace, as previously mentioned, the return on investment for replacing aging pay stations is highly favorable. With a typical 10-year lifespan for each new unit, these pay stations will provide a strong and sustained return on investment for the City over the long term.

Ensuring the reliability of these units is crucial for the effective functioning of the parking system, supporting smooth operations and maintaining a consistent revenue stream for parking services.

Physical Payment Options Still Required
The City currently operates approximately 144 pay stations, with one pay station for every 10 -20 parking spaces. Even with the rise in mobile payment use, maintaining physical pay stations is crucial to ensure full access and compliance with the California Vehicle Code. For visitors who may not have access to mobile payment options or prefer not to use them, it is essential that physical pay stations remain available within a reasonable distance.
219
Amendment No. One to Purchase and License Agreement with T2 Systems Canada, Inc. for Multi-Space Pay Stations
March 11, 2025

Page 3 ends

10-3

It is therefore necessary to preserve the pay stations in their current locations to continue providing equitable access for all users while remaining compliant with legal requirements. By maintaining these stations, the City upholds its commitment to accessibility, convenience and legal compliance for both re sidents and visitors, while safeguarding a reliable revenue stream for parking operations.

Single Source Award of Contract
The City uses T2 pay stations, and customers are already familiar with the T2 interface, reducing any disruptions to the user experie nce. Additionally, T2 pay stations utilize standardized replacement parts, which improve stocking efficiencies and simplify ongoing maintenance. The back-end data from T2 pay stations is accessible and easily reconciled, further enhancing operational efficiency.

Purchasing pay stations from a different vendor would complicate daily, monthly and yearly reconciliations by requiring data to be pulled from multiple sources. It would also incur additional costs associated with integrating two different software systems.

Furthermore, the potential for delays in data flow between multiple pay station types and enforcement software could reduce enforcement efficiencies.

City Council Policy F -14 allows for the request of sole and single source awards in certain cases when competitive bidding is either impractical or impossible. Council's approval of a single source award to T2 is recommended for the aforementioned reasons.

Equipment Costs
To replace the aging pay stations purchased between 2014 and 2018, the City plans to purchase up to 86 new units over the next five years. The total cost for these replacements is $785,122.04, which includes essential components such as EMV (credit card ch ip) readers, vault locks, coin canisters, bill note stackers, wireless telecommunication SIM cards, and various other hardware items.

The following outlines the anticipated pay station replacements over the next five years, subject to ongoing assessments of their condition:

Year of Purchase # of Pay Stations Amount
2025 31 (2014 replacements) $283,251.73
2026 16 (2015 replacements) $146,696.51
2027 32 (2016 replacements) $293,264.13
2028 5 (2017 replacements) $ 45,775.75
2029 2 (2018 replacements) $ 16,133.92
Total $785,122.04
220
Amendment No. One to Purchase and License Agreement with T2 Systems Canada, Inc. for Multi-Space Pay Stations
March 11, 2025

Page 4 ends

10-4

FISCAL IMPACT:

Funds are set aside annually to manage the perpetual replacement of parking equipment in an equipment internal service fund, which has accumulated roughly $2.94 million for this purpose. The amendment contract authorization of $785,122.04 will be paid from the Parking Equipment Fund (75504 -911015), which has an available budget of $400,000 in the current fiscal year, which is sufficient to cover the first year of expenses, therefore no budget amendment is required. Future year adopted budgets will include the appropriation for this item . Staff estimates that combined parking revenues over the next 10 years will exceed $120 million, not including parking citations.

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).

ATTACHMENT:

Attachment A – Amendment No. One to Purchase and License Agreement with T2 Systems Canada, Inc. for Multi-Space Pay Stations

221

Attachment A
Amendment No. One to Purchase and License Agreement with T2 Systems Canda, Inc. for Multi-Space Pay Stations
10-5
222
10-6
223
10-7
224
10-8
225
10-9
226
10-10
227
10-11
228
10-12
229
10-13
230
10-14
231
10-15
232
10-16
233
10-17
234
10-18
235
10-19
236
10-20
237
10-21
238
10-22
239
10-23
240
10-24
241
10-25
242
10-26
243
10-27
244
10-28
245
10-29
246
10-30
247
10-31
248
10-32
249
10-33
250
10-34
251
10-35
252
10-36
253
10-37
254
10-38
255
10-39
256
10-40
257
10-41
258
10-42
259
10-43
260
10-44
261
10-45
262
10-46
263
10-47
264
10-48
265
10-49
266
March 11, 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 1. Minutes for the February 25, 2025 City Council Meeting The passages shown in italics below are from the draft minutes with suggested corrections shown in strikeout underline format. The page number refers to Volume 66.

Page 271 ends

Scarbrough’s previous comments regarding her and Mr. Klobe’s GPAC appointments and thought the discussion regarding the Council Aviation Ad Hoc Committee (Item 5) was less than enlightening.”

Page 274 ends

to distortions and site sight line issues as the screen size increases.”

Page 274 ends

0.08%. It would be clearer to say “Director Webb clarified that the 0.8% of cost overrun compared to the 10% of the contingency allowance is correctly stated.”]

Page 274 ends

Received After Agenda Printed
March 11, 2025
Written Comments
267
March 11, 2025, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 2 of 6 In fact, although titled differently, the text under this item is identical to that appearing under “IX.

NOTICE

THE

PUBLIC”

which

makes

appear

notice

than

invitation

comment.

If that is its purpose, it would seem the notice should be given before Item “II. CURRENT BUSINESS”

since

the

public

must

allowed

comment

least

some

those

items

(for

example,

Item

“SS5.

Capital

Improvement

Program

(CIP)

Early

Look”),

yet

will

not

have

been

told

what

the

rules

are

prior

their

opportunity.

Item 4. Ordinance No. 2025-3: Designating a Portion of Corona del Mar as

Safety

Enhancement

Zone

and

Expanding

West

Newport

Safety

Enhancement

Zone

Include

Memorial

Day,

Fourth

July,

and

Labor

Day

Holidays
The description of the boundaries of the proposed Corona del Mar Safety Enhancement Zone were

revised

shortly

before

the

introduction

this

ordinance

was

introduced

February

25. While the more precise definition (similar to the Police Department Reporting District 44 illustrated

Figure

1 on

page

4-2

the

staff

report)

proposed

page

4-9

the

ordinance

appreciated,

puzzling

that

both

mention

the

intended

zone

“
shall

include

Pirate's

Cove,

Corona

del

Mar

State

Beach,

and

Little

Corona

Beac
h,”

but

not

mention

China

Cove

Beach,

even

though

China

Cove

Beach

clearly

within

the

area

described

the

text.

Additionally, it is not clear the City has a clearly defined boundary to “Little Corona Beach,” which,

according

Figure

1 of

the

staff

report,

the

neighboring

Police

Department

Reporting

District

45. It

term

that

does

not

seem

appear

anywhere

else

the

Municipal

Code.

All this said, I continue to think the increased days and areas of the proposed safety enhancement

zones

place

increased

burden

City

staff

and

citizens

that

not

justified

sufficient

evidence

need

for

the

action.

Item 5. Ordinance No. 2025-4: Amending the Newport Beach Municipal Code

Update

Administrative

Procedures

Good

Cause

Determinations

and

the

Extension

Deadlines

for

Short-Term

Lodging

Permits
Although not clearly explained in the staff report, I believe this ordinance is being proposed as an

administrative

alternative

persons

making

appeals

the

City

Council.

Setting aside the merits of that choice,I have two problems with the proposed implementation. First, a significant operative part of the scheme is buried in a portion of the ordinance that will not

codified,

result

which,

most

the

public

reading

the

proposed

code

(pages

5-21

and

5-22)

will

not

know

exists.

Specifically,

the

proposed

ordinance

contains

(uncodified)

Section

7 saying

“
The

Finance

Director

hereby

authorized

retroactively

extend

deadlines

provided

Sections

2 through

5 of

this

ordinance

upon

determination

the

Finance

Director

that

good

cause

has

been

shown

so
.”

268
March 11, 2025, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 3 of 6 Not only would this apply, contrary to what it says, to only Section 2, 3 and 5 (not 4), but I can think

reason

this

should

not

included

the

codified

text

those

sections.

accomplish

that,

the

three

sections

where

proposed

appear,
1 the

following

phrase

could

simply

modified

to:

“...

the

Finance

Director

determines

that

good

cause

has

been

shown

for

extending

the

apply

the

entire

municipal

code,

rather

than

just

short

term

lodging

matters,

don’t

think

wise.

The reason it is not wise is that what “good cause” means depends on the context, and the conditions

that

constitute

“good

cause”

for

missing

short

term

lodging

permit

deadline

may

quite

different

from

what

constitutes

“good

cause”

some

other

circumstance,

such

terminating

employee

permit

“for

good

that

purports

apply

“
Unless

specific

definition

provided

the

context

which

they

are

used

clearly

requires

otherwise
”

seems

only

add

confusion

and

uncertainty.

work

the

STL

chapter,

but

not

alter

its

(possibly

quite

different)

intent

the

others.

As to the merits of this ordinance,I believe the deadlines were enacted to emphasize that having a

short

term

lodging

permit

privilege,

not

right;

and

limited

privilege

for

which

there

long

waiting

list

possibly

responsible

people

seeking

the

privilege.

While the proposed code specifies the circumstances under which the Director “ may ” excuse a missed

STL

permit

deadline,

not

all

clear

the

circumstances

under

which

she

should

choose

not

so.

For

example,

there

may

complaints

that

the

applicant,

although

having

“good

cause”

miss

the

deadline,

also

bad

operator

for

whom

leniency

should

not

considered.

And

those

circumstances

might

not

surface

without

formal

public

hearing.

That

would

argue

for

appeal

the

Council

being

better

solution

what

seem

the

rare

circumstances

which

deadlines

are

missed.

Regarding defined words in general in our Municipal Code, it should be noted that, at present, readers

have

easy

way

tell

they

are

encountering

word

with

special

definition

within

the

code

one

that

intended

read

with

its

common

meaning.

A solution to this is for the vendor codifying the ordinances to display the defined words in a special

typeface

(such

italics

underlined)

and

provide

links

the

definitions.

2 Subsection

5.95.030.F

already

gives

the

Director

authority

extend

certain

STL

deadlines,

but

does

not

say

that

authority

retroactive.

Nothing

the

present

ordinance

changes

that.

Was

this

intentional?

1 To be sure, while this phrase appears in Section 3 (on page 5-13) and Section 5 (on page 5-14), in Section

2 (on

page

5-12)

appears

“
to

extend

the

deadline
”

instead

“
for

extending

the

deadline
.”

can

think

reason

for

the

different

phrasing.

269
March 11, 2025, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 4 of 6 Here is example, from the Snohomish County (WA) code, which is maintained by the same vendor as ours, but using a slightly different platform:

Pointing the mouse at the words with dotted underlines pops up a copy of the section defining the

term

(while,

our

code,

clicking

word

with

solid

underline

links

the

referenced

code

section).

Item 6. Resolution No. 2025-11: Waiving Section A.1. of City Council Policy

B-13

Allow

for

Alcoholic

Beverages

Charity

Polo

Event

Held

Peninsula

Park,

and

Repeal

Resolution

No.

2024-14
Since Newport Beach attempts to enforce an absence of alcohol on its beaches, I do not think it sets

good

example

allow

alcohol

event

beach-adjacent

park.

That

appears

set

double

standard.

That said, if a majority of the Council wants to allow this, I don’t see the need for a new resolution

repeal

the

former

one.

The existing Resolution No. 2024-14 appears to grant an indefinite, blanket waiver for the “Charity

Polo

Event

held

Peninsula

Park.”

While

references

the

“Newport

Beach

Foundation”

the

most

recent

and

likely

future

operator,

does

not

seem

limited

that.

waiver

being

indefinite.

If the intent is that the future validity of the waiver be contingent upon “the Event” being a charity event,

then

think

should

say

so.

And since the request is only for service of beer and wine, I think the resolution should include that

limitation.

Both of those conditions would improve upon what is proposed.

270
March 11, 2025, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 5 of 6 Item 9. Approval of On-Call Maintenance and Repair Services Agreement

for

Roll-Up

Doors

and

Gates

with

Excel

Door

Gate

Company,

Inc.

Door?

addition

that?

Item 10. Amendment No. One to Purchase and License Agreement with

Systems

Canada,

Inc.

for

Multi-Space

Pay

Stations
It would seem reasonable to ask if, when the existing pay stations were originally purchased, there

was

expectation

they

would

only

last

for

ten

years?

And

the

new

“more

reliable”

ones

are

expected

have

any

longer

useful

life?

and

the

Newport

Theatre

Arts

Center.

place

any

restrictions

how

the

grants

will

used,

and

unclear

the

Commission

has

done

so.

For

example,

how

expensive

attendance

the

proposed

events

might

and

whether

the

grants

would

used

reduce

ticket

costs

for

some

other

purpose.

Indeed,

seems

completely

open-ended

whether

the

grantees

would

even

presenting

program

offering

some

other

kind

“service.”
Wouldn’t some clearer guidance be useful?
Item 13. Ordinance No. 2025-5: An Amendment Deleting Section 5 of Ordinance

No.

2022-8

Removing

Sunset

Date

April

21,

(sub)

Section

105.3.4,

especially

since

there

not

even

footnote

that

code

271
March 11, 2025, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 6 of 6 mentioning the existence of Ordinance No. 2022-8. And according to the codifier’s Ordinance List, Ordinance No. 2022-8 has already been “Repealed by 2022-26.” Since Ordinance No. 2022-26 says it completed deleted and replaced Chapter 15.02, including (sub) Section 105.3.4, and in enacting the present provisions, itself appears to contain no sunset

language,

would

seem

that

sunset

clause

Ordinance

No.

2022-8

irrelevant,

and

nothing

about

expire.

In that case, no action is necessary, unless the current (sub) Section 105.3.4 enacted by Ordinance

No.

2022-26

different

from

the

one

the

Building

Official

sees

Ordinance

No.

2022-8

and

wants

continue

following.

As best I can tell, there is no difference, and no action is needed.

Item XVII. CLOSED SESSION The Brown Act requires the public be given an opportunity to comment regarding the items listed

under

this

heading

the

agenda

before

the

Council

considers

them.

Since the former opportunity for this public comment has been moved from its position immediately

preceding

the

closed

session

the

agenda

template

specified

City

Council
Policy A-1, it seems important for the Mayor to invite comment after the CIty Attorney has announced the closed session topics.

272

11-1

NEWPORT BEACH

City Council Staff Report

COUNCIL STAFF REPORT

CITY OF

March 11, 2025
Agenda Item No. 11

CONSENT ITEM:

ITEM NO. 1 MINUTES OF JANUARY 23, 2025

SUMMARY: Draft minutes from the January 23, 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: Reed

ACTION: Approved

PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS:

ITEM NO. 2 POM & OLIVE RESTAURANT (PA2024-0088)
Site Location: 325 Old Newport Boulevard, Suite 1

SUMMARY: A conditional use permit to obtain a Type 41 (On-Sale Beer and Wine – Eating Place) Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) License for an existing food service, eating and drinking establishment (restaurant) known as “Pom & Olive”. Additionally, the Applicant requests the continuation of a parking waiver of 18 spaces (based on current code standards). No late hours (after 11 p.m.), live entertainment, or dancing is proposed as part of the project. Additionally, no physical changes to the suite or other changes to the existing operational characteristics are proposed.

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

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

ACTION: Approved as amended

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 March 6, 2025 273
Planning Commission Agenda Report for March 6, 2025
March 11, 2025

Page 2 ends

11-2

ITEM NO. 3 NORTH NEWPORT CENTER PLANNED COMMUNITY (PC-56) AMENDMENTS (PA2024-0173)
Site Location: Various locations in the North Newport Center Planned Community (PC-56) and 100 and 190 Newport Center Drive

SUMMARY: A request to amend the PC -56 Development Plan primarily to allow for the development of additional housing opportunities in alignment with the housing strategy identified by the City’s 6 th Cycle Housing Element. The Applicant also requests other changes, including increased building height limits for Fashion Island, Block 100, and San Joaquin Plaza, modified open space requirements, additional objective design standards, modified parking standards for residential, updated sign standards, and other minor text changes. The amendments include changing the zoning of 100 and 190 Newport Center Drive from OR (Office-Regional) to PC-56. No construction is currently proposed. Additionally, the Applicant requests approval of a development agreement to vest the development rights in exchange for public benefits including an affordable housing implementation plan (AHIP) that describes the affordable housing obligations. As required by State Law, the project includes a water supply assessment (WSA) to evaluate the City’s ability to meet the water needs of future residents of the housing projects. The WSA is required as the project includes more than 500 dwelling units.

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 and Reed

ACTION: Approved as recommended

NEW BUSINESS:

ITEM NO. 4 GENERAL PLAN ANNUAL PROGRESS REPORT (PA2025-0008) Site Location: Citywide

SUMMARY: Annual progress report on the status and implementation of the General Plan and Housing Element as required by State law and General Plan Implementation Program

1.3. The Planning Commission considered the report, a presentation by staff and public input. The Commission acted to recommend the City Council review and authorize the submittal of the 2024 General Plan Progress Report to the California Office of Planning and Research and the submittal of the Housing Element Annual Progress Report to the State Department of Housing and Community Development by the following vote:

ACTION: All Commissioners voted in support

274
Tentative Agenda Report - 03/02/2025 to 06/05/2025
City of Newport Beach
Project title Plan # Staff Assigned Status DistrictActivity Address 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 March 11, 2025 - City Council Meeting
1 Amendment of Ordinance
2022-8
Consent- - Deleting Section 5 removing
sunset date of ordinance
Tonee Thai District 5PA2025-0018 MORE INFO1 CITYWIDE PROJECT March 13, 2025 - Zoning Administrator Meeting
1 Patterson Poppy LLC
Condominiums
Non-Hearing Item (Tentative Parcel Map) Kyle Benalcazar District 6PA2025-0006 MORE INFO615 POPPY AVE March 20, 2025 - ALUC Meeting
1 Amendments to PC-56 and
DA2007-002
Liz Westmoreland District 5PA2024-0173 MORE INFO120 NEWPORT CENTER DR 2 HO Overlay Amendments Public Hearing - Continued from 02/20/2025
Rosalinh Ung District 5PA2024-0205 MORE INFO1 CITYWIDE PROJECT 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 - 03/02/2025 to 06/05/2025
City of Newport Beach
Project title Plan # Staff Assigned Status DistrictActivity Address March 20, 2025 - Planning Commission Meeting
March 25, 2025 - City Council Meeting
1 Amendment of Ordinance
2022-8
Consent- 2nd Reading Tonee Thai District 5PA2025-0018 MORE INFO1 CITYWIDE PROJECT 2 Annual General Plan
Report (2024 Calendar
year)
Consent Melinda Whelan District 5PA2025-0008 MORE INFO1 CITYWIDE PROJECT 3 Back Bay Landing and
Bayside Village Marina
Consent - PSA to prepare an EIR Joselyn Perez District 4PA2024-0135 MORE INFO100 COAST HWY E 4 General Plan Update Consent - Dudek Contract Amendment to Add Services
Benjamin Zdeba CitywidePA2022-080 MORE INFO1 CITYWIDE PROJECT March 27, 2025 - Zoning Administrator Meeting
April 03, 2025 - Planning Commission Meeting
April 10, 2025 - Zoning Administrator 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 2 of 7 ends

Tentative Agenda Report - 03/02/2025 to 06/05/2025
City of Newport Beach
Project title Plan # Staff Assigned Status DistrictActivity Address April 15, 2025 - City Council Meeting
1 Amendments to PC-56 and
DA2007-002
Public Hearing Liz Westmoreland District 5PA2024-0173 MORE INFO120 NEWPORT CENTER DR 2 Corona del Mar Farmers
Market Agreement
Consent Lauren Wooding District 5RP2025-00011 CITYWIDE PROJECT 3 HO Overlay Amendments Public Hearing - HO Overlay
Amendments Introduction
Rosalinh Ung District 5PA2024-0205 MORE INFO1 CITYWIDE PROJECT April 17, 2025 - Planning Commission Meeting
April 24, 2025 - Zoning Administrator Meeting
April 29, 2025 - City Council Meeting
1 Amendments to PC-56 and
DA2007-002
Consent - Second Reading of
Ordinances
Liz Westmoreland District 5PA2024-0173 MORE INFO120 NEWPORT CENTER DR 2 CDBG Public Hearing CDBG Action Plan Lauren Wooding District 5RP2024-00071 CITYWIDE PROJECT 3 Five Crowns Outdoor
Dining CDP and LTP
Five Crowns Limited Term Permit -
Appeal to City Council
Melinda Whelan District 6PA2023-0202 MORE INFO3801 COAST HWY E 4 HO Overlay Amendments Consent - HO Overlay Amendments Second Reading
Rosalinh Ung District 5PA2024-0205 MORE INFO1 CITYWIDE PROJECT 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 - 03/02/2025 to 06/05/2025
City of Newport Beach
Project title Plan # Staff Assigned Status DistrictActivity Address May 08, 2025 - Planning Commission Meeting
May 13, 2025 - City Council Meeting
May 15, 2025 - Zoning Administrator Meeting
May 22, 2025 - Planning Commission Meeting
May 27, 2025 - City Council Meeting
May 29, 2025 - Zoning Administrator Meeting
June 05, 2025 - Planning Commission 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 - 03/02/2025 to 06/05/2025
City of Newport Beach
Project title Plan # Staff Assigned Status DistrictActivity Address Hearing Date to be Determined
1 306 East Oceanfront LLC
CDP
Public Hearing Laura Rodriguez District 1PA2024-0203 MORE INFO306 OCEAN FRONT E 2 Bayshore Cafe Operating
Hours
Public Hearing Laura Rodriguez District 2PA2024-0132 MORE INFO100 COAST HWY W, 104 3 Saunders Self Storage Liz Westmoreland District 3PA2023-0145 MORE INFO3848 CAMPUS DR 4 Snow Residence
Condominiums
TPM/CDP/Conversion
Jerry Arregui District 1PA2023-0147 MORE INFO400 40TH ST 5 Temporary Fire Station
No.1
Public Hearing Laura Rodriguez District 1PA2025-0031 MORE INFO711 OCEAN FRONT E 6 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 - 03/02/2025 to 06/05/2025
City of Newport Beach
Project title Plan # Staff Assigned Status DistrictActivity Address Pending Coastal Commission
1 City Library/Fire Station 1
CDP
Laura Rodriguez District 1PA2024-0140 MORE INFO100 BALBOA BLVD E, LIB 2 Coastal Act 30613 CDP
Jurisdiction Change
City Project Jaime Murillo CitywidePA2022-111 MORE INFO1 CITYWIDE PROJECT 3 Commercial Parking
Requirements
LCP Amendment Benjamin Zdeba CitywidePA2021-104 MORE INFO1 CITYWIDE PROJECT 4 Housing Element
Implementation Program
Amendments
LCP Amendment Benjamin Zdeba District 5PA2022-0245 MORE INFO1 CITYWIDE PROJECT 5 Municipal Code Clean Up LCP Amendment Jaime MurilloPA2022-0219 MORE INFO1 CITYWIDE PROJECT 6 Short-Term Lodging
Amendment
LCP Amendment Jaime MurilloPA2023-0116 MORE INFO1 CITYWIDE PROJECT 7 Small Cell Telecom Appeal Private Project Benjamin Zdeba CitywidePA2019-113 MORE INFO3714 LAKE AVE 8 Special Flood Hazard Area
(VE) Overlay
LCP Amendment Liz Westmoreland District 1PA2018-075 MORE INFO1 CITYWIDE PROJECT 9 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 - 03/02/2025 to 06/05/2025
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, Assistant Planner [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

Page 1 of 3 ends

March 11, 2025
Agenda Item No. 11

NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS – 100 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE
THURSDAY, MARCH 6, 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 23, 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 POM & OLIVE RESTAURANT (PA2024-0088)
Site Location: 325 Old Newport Boulevard, Suite 1

Summary:

A conditional use permit to obtain a Type 41 (On -Sale Beer and Wine – Eating Place) Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) License for an existing food service, eating and drinking establishment (restaurant) known as “Pom & Olive”. Additionally, the Applicant requests the continuation of a parking waiver of 18 spaces (based on current code standards). No late hours (after 11 p.m.), live entertainment, or dancing is proposed as part of the project.

Additionally, no physical changes to the suite or other changes to the existing operational characteristics are proposed.

282

Page 2 of 3 ends

Recommended Actions:

1. Conduct a public hearing;

2. Find this project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15301 under Class 1 (Existing Facilities) of the CEQA Guidelines, because it has no potential to have a significant effect on the environment; and

3. Adopt Resolution No. PC2025-005 approving a Conditional Use Permit pursuant to PA2024-0088.

ITEM NO. 3 NORTH NEWPORT CENTER PLANNED COMMUNITY (PC -56) AMENDMENTS (PA2024-0173)
Site Location: Various locations in the North Newport Center Planned Community (PC-56) and 100 and 190 Newport Center Drive

Summary:

A request to amend the PC-56 Development Plan primarily to allow for the development of additional housing opportunities in alignment with the housing strategy identified by the City’s 6th Cycle Housing Element. The Applicant also requests other changes, including increased building height limits for Fashion Island, Block 100, and San Joaquin Plaza, modified open space requirements, additional objective design standards, modified parking standards for residential, updated sign standards, and other minor text changes. The amendments include changing the zoning of 100 and 190 Newport Center Drive from OR (Office-Regional) to PC -56. No construction is currently proposed. Additionally, the Applicant requests approval of a development agreement to vest the development rights in exchange for public benefits including an affordable housing implementation plan (AHIP) that describes the affordable housing obligations. As required by State Law, the project includes a water supply assessment (WSA) to evaluate the City’s ability to meet the water needs of future residents of the housing projects. The WSA is required as the project includes more than 500 dwelling units.

Recommended Actions:

1. Conduct a public hearing;

2. Find this project is not subject to further environmental review pursuant to Section 21083.3 of the California Public Resources Code (PRC) and Section 15183 of the CEQA Guidelines because the Project is consistent with the previously certified Program Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2023060699); and

3. Adopt Resolution No. PC202 5-006 recommending City Council approval of the Planned Community Development Plan (PC -56) Amendment, Development Agreement, Affordable Housing Implementation Plan, and Water Supply Assessment for various properties within the PC-56 Zoning District and 100 and 190 Newport Center Drive (PA2024-0173).

283

Page 2 of 3 ends

NEW BUSINESS

ITEM NO. 4 GENERAL PLAN ANNUAL PROGRESS REPORT (PA2025-0008) Site Location: Citywide

Summary:

Annual progress report on the status and implementation of the General Plan and Housing Element as required by State law and General Plan Implementation Program 1.3.

Recommended Actions:

1. Find the preparation, review and submission of the 202 4 General Plan Annual Progress Report and Housing Element Report not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15060(b)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, because it has no potential for resulting in physical change to the environment, directly or indirectly;

2. Review and comment on the 202 4 General Plan Progress Report, including the Housing Element Annual Progress Report; and

3. Recommend the City Council review and authorize the submittal of the 20 24 General Plan Progress Report to the California Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation (LCI) and the submittal of the Housing Element portion of the Annual Progress Report to the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD).

VIII. STAFF AND COMMISSIONER ITEMS

ITEM NO. 5 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

ITEM NO. 6 REPORT BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR OR REQUEST

FOR MATTERS WHICH A PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBER WOULD LIKE

PLACED ON A FUTURE AGENDA

ITEM NO. 7 REQUESTS FOR EXCUSED ABSENCES

IX. ADJOURNMENT
284

12-1

NEWPORT BEACH

City Council Staff Report

COUNCIL STAFF REPORT

CITY OF

March 11, 2025
Agenda Item No. 12

ABSTRACT:

The sum of $30,000 has been provided in Fiscal Year 2024-25 to fund specific cultural or artistic programs as approved by the City Council. The City Arts Commission has the responsibility to review all programs and requests for support from arts groups and make recommendations for funding to the Council. The Commission reviewed grant funding proposals from 10 local arts organizations and recommends funding for eight organizations, totaling $30,000.

RECOMMENDATIONS:
a) Determine this action is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Sections 15060(c)(2) and 15060(c)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines because this action will not result in a physical change to the environment, directly or indirectly; and
b) Approve recommended recipients for Fiscal Year 2024 -25 Cultural Arts Grants as selected by the City Arts Commission in accordance with City Council Policy I -10, Culture and Arts Grants.

DISCUSSION:

City Council Policy I -10, Culture and Arts Grants (Attachment A ) recognizes the importance of promoting culture and the arts within Newport Beach. In Fiscal Year 2024- 25, $30,000 is budgeted for specific cultural or artistic programs as approved by the City Council.

The City Arts Commission (Commission) is responsible for reviewing all programs and requests for support from arts groups and then making recommendations for funding to the City Council for its review and approval. City Council Policy I -10 defines arts groups as those involved in visual, musical, theatre, dance, crafts, performing and literary activities. The Commission considers the following in order of preference for granting support:

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: Melissa Hartson, Library Services Director - 949-717-3801, [email protected]
PREPARED BY: Melissa Hartson, Library Services Director TITLE: Cultural Arts Grants Fiscal Year 2024-25
285
Cultural Arts Grants Fiscal Year 2024-25
March 11, 2025

Page 2 ends

12-2

1. Local arts groups located within the City of Newport Beach and offering programs to City residents; and

2. Regional arts groups located in Orange County and offering programs to City residents; and

3. Arts groups located in California and performing or offering programs to City residents.

Groups not offering programs or services to local residents are not eligible for support from the City.

The Commission received written grant proposals from 10 organizations, which combined totaled approximately $85,100, for free cultural arts programming for the Newport Beach community in Fiscal Year 2024-25. Grant applicants included:

ORGANIZATION NAME AMOUNT
The Art Spread $4,600
Backhausdance $4,000
Balboa Island Improvement Association $3,000
Baroque Music Festival, Corona del Mar $5,500
Emerald Magic Events $38,000
Musica Transalpina $5,000
Newport Theatre Arts Center $10,000
Pacific Chorale $5,000
Pacific Symphony $5,000
South Coast Repertory $5,000
TOTAL: $85,100

The Commission considered the 10 applications using the guidance as defined in City Council Policy I-10. Furthermore, each arts organization was evaluated considering the following additional criteria:

Baseline Criteria:
 application and report complete and on time
 arts organization (not individual artist)
 nonprofit organization
 Newport Beach geographic focus

Selective Criteria
I. Service to the Public
 promotion and outreach
 audience development and participation
 safety and accessibility
 program diversity
 community service
286
Cultural Arts Grants Fiscal Year 2024-25
March 11, 2025

Page 3 ends

12-3
II. Artistic/Programmatic Excellence
 ideas and creativity
 production

III. Managerial/Fiscal Competence
 mission and goals
 organizational management
 financial management

After careful deliberation, the Commission approved grant funding for eight arts organizations, totaling $30,000, at its regular meeting on February 13, 2024.

The recommended grantees and funding include:

ORGANIZATION NAME AMOUNT
Backhausdance $4,000
Balboa Island Improvement Association $3,000
Baroque Music Festival, Corona del Mar $4,000
Emerald Magic Events Inc $2,000
Newport Theatre Arts Center $5,000
Pacific Chorale $3,500
Pacific Symphony $5,000
South Coast Repertory $3,500
TOTAL: $30,000

Backhausdance will present a dance education partnership program, Dance Expressions:

Creativity and Choreography, to be held at three different Newport -Mesa Unified School District (NMUSD) schools (Corona del Mar Middle/High School, Back Bay High School, and Newport Harbor High School) culminating in a F all 2025 Student Showcase. This program offers students an immersion into working with a professional dance company.

The Balboa Island Improvement Association will present a new season of the Balboa Island Classical Concert Series, held at St. John Vianney Chapel and Carol Beek Center.

A minimum of five classical concerts and five concerts in the park will be planned for the community.

The Baroque Music Festival will focus on evocative vocal works by Vivaldi and Antonio Lotti. Grant funds will be used to allow middle sch ool, high school, and college students from Newport Beach to attend the dress rehearsal and opening concert in June. Students will learn about the detailed dress rehearsal process, and will be able to ask questions, explore instruments, and attend the formal concert the following day.

Emerald Magic Events will present The Best Romantic Pieces of the Centuries, featuring two classical music concerts at OASIS Senior Center in October 2025. The concert will showcase groups from Newport Beach performing classical crossovers that fuse classical with contemporary music.
287
Cultural Arts Grants Fiscal Year 2024-25
March 11, 2025

Page 4 ends

12-4

Newport Theatre Arts Center will present a new program conducting a theatre seminar for the local community with multiple sessions throughout the day for children and adults.

The event will provide an immersive educational experience for all ages to enlighten the community about the many benefits and value of the arts in Newport Beach.

Pacific Chorale's chamber choir will present three performances at Our Lady Queen of Angels Church, featuring Handel’s Exodus: Israel in Egypt and Carols by Candlelight.

Pacific Symphony will use grant funds for the Class Act Music Education Program at Andersen and Newport Coast Elementary Schools. This program places union musicians into local schools where stude nts receive the value of music learning from teaching artists.

South Coast Repertory will utilize grant funding for the Theatre for Young Audiences free school-day matinee performances of The Incredible Book -Eating Boy for students, augmented with weekend performances for the general public.

The City Arts Commission did not recommend grant funding to The Art Spread and Musica Transalpina because the ir respective programs do not correspond with the Cultural Arts Grants timeline for fund distribution.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The adopted budget includes sufficient funding for this grant program. The funds will be expensed in the City Grants account in the Cultural and Arts Division, 01060603-821006.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

Staff recommends the City Council find t his 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 b een noticed according to the Brown Act (72 hours in advance of the meeting at which the City Council considers the item).

ATTACHMENT:

Attachment A – City Council Policy I-10, Culture and Arts Grants 288
I-10
1 CULTURE AND ARTS GRANTS
The City Council hereby recognizes the importance of promoting culture and the arts within Newport Beach. Pursuant to City Council Policy A-12, the City budget specifically allows the City Council to direct revenue towards worthy projects and programs which the City Council deems beneficial to the quality of life for Newport Beach’s resident s. A number of individuals and groups have been organized with the express purpose of developing and promoting culture, theatre and the arts.

In regard to the City's role in financially sponsoring art and cultural events, up to $55,000 shall be expended from the General Fund for culture and arts grants each fiscal year. The City Arts Commission shall review all programs and requests for support from arts groups. The Commission shall forward its recommendations for funding to the City Council for final approval. For the purpose of this policy, arts groups shall be defined as those involved in visual, musical, theatre, dance, crafts, performing and literary activities.

The following priorities shall be considered by the Commission. The order of preference for granting support shall be as follows:

A. Local arts groups located within the City and offering programs to City residents; B. Regional arts groups located in Orange County and offering programs to City residents; and C. Arts groups located in California and performing or offering programs to City residents.

Groups not offering programs or services to local residents shall not be eligible for support from the City.

History
Adopted F-20 – 5-11-1981 (“Reserve Fund for Culture and Arts”) Amended F-22 – 6-22-1981
Adopted I-20 – 1-24-1983 (“Co-Sponsorship for Cultural Events and Arts Groups”) Amended F-20 – 11-14-1983
Amended F-20 – 1-23-1984
Amended F-20 – 3-28-1988
Amended F-20 – 10-28-1991
Created I-12 – 1-24-1994 (incorporating I-20 and F-20, and renaming “Financial Support for Culture and Arts”)
Amended I-12 – 5-8-2001
Amended I-12 - 4-8-2003 (changed to I-10)
Amended I-10 – 8-8-2017
Amended I-10 – 11-12-2024

ATTACHMENT A
12-5
289

On the Agenda: March 11 City Council Meeting
The next meeting of the Newport Beach City Council will be on Tuesday, March 11. The full agenda is available here.

A Study Session will begin at 4 p.m. Agenda items include:
• Capital Improvement Program (CIP) early look. City staff will present new projects and funding proposals for the Fiscal Year 2025-26 CIP for review and discussion by the City Council.

The Regular Meeting will begin at 5 p.m. Agenda items include:
• Consideration of $30,000 in cultural arts grant awards as recommended by the City Arts Commission. The funds were previously earmarked to fund specific cultural or artistic programs approved by the City Council in Fiscal Year 2024-25. The Arts Commission reviews funding requests and makes recommendations to the Council.
• Amendment of Ordinance No. 2022-8 related to the completion of residential home construction.

In 2019, the City Council adopted a three-year time limit to complete construction of one-unit and two-unit family dwellings. In 2022, as the COVID-19 pandemic disrupted supply chains and delayed construction, the Council temporarily granted the City's building official authority to extend the time limit for up to one additional year. The amendment under consideration would remove an April 2025 sunset provision and permanently allow the building official to extend building permits for up to one additional year.

VIEW THE FULL AGENDA >>

290
March 11, 2025, City Council Agenda Comments
The following comments on items on the Newport Beach City Council agenda are submitted by:

Page 271 ends

Scarbrough’s previous comments regarding her and Mr. Klobe’s GPAC appointments and thought the discussion regarding the Council Aviation Ad Hoc Committee (Item 5) was less than enlightening.”

Page 274 ends

to distortions and site sight line issues as the screen size increases.”

Page 274 ends

0.08%. It would be clearer to say “Director Webb clarified that the 0.8% of cost overrun compared to the 10% of the contingency allowance is correctly stated.”]

Page 274 ends

Received After Agenda Printed
March 11, 2025
Written Comments
291
March 11, 2025, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 2 of 6 In fact, although titled differently, the text under this item is identical to that appearing under “IX.

NOTICE

THE

PUBLIC”

which

makes

appear

notice

than

invitation

comment.

If that is its purpose, it would seem the notice should be given before Item “II. CURRENT BUSINESS”

since

the

public

must

allowed

comment

least

some

those

items

(for

example,

Item

“SS5.

Capital

Improvement

Program

(CIP)

Early

Look”),

yet

will

not

have

been

told

what

the

rules

are

prior

their

opportunity.

Item 4. Ordinance No. 2025-3: Designating a Portion of Corona del Mar as

Safety

Enhancement

Zone

and

Expanding

West

Newport

Safety

Enhancement

Zone

Include

Memorial

Day,

Fourth

July,

and

Labor

Day

Holidays
The description of the boundaries of the proposed Corona del Mar Safety Enhancement Zone were

revised

shortly

before

the

introduction

this

ordinance

was

introduced

February

25. While the more precise definition (similar to the Police Department Reporting District 44 illustrated

Figure

1 on

page

4-2

the

staff

report)

proposed

page

4-9

the

ordinance

appreciated,

puzzling

that

both

mention

the

intended

zone

“
shall

include

Pirate's

Cove,

Corona

del

Mar

State

Beach,

and

Little

Corona

Beac
h,”

but

not

mention

China

Cove

Beach,

even

though

China

Cove

Beach

clearly

within

the

area

described

the

text.

Additionally, it is not clear the City has a clearly defined boundary to “Little Corona Beach,” which,

according

Figure

1 of

the

staff

report,

the

neighboring

Police

Department

Reporting

District

45. It

term

that

does

not

seem

appear

anywhere

else

the

Municipal

Code.

All this said, I continue to think the increased days and areas of the proposed safety enhancement

zones

place

increased

burden

City

staff

and

citizens

that

not

justified

sufficient

evidence

need

for

the

action.

Item 5. Ordinance No. 2025-4: Amending the Newport Beach Municipal Code

Update

Administrative

Procedures

Good

Cause

Determinations

and

the

Extension

Deadlines

for

Short-Term

Lodging

Permits
Although not clearly explained in the staff report, I believe this ordinance is being proposed as an

administrative

alternative

persons

making

appeals

the

City

Council.

Setting aside the merits of that choice,I have two problems with the proposed implementation. First, a significant operative part of the scheme is buried in a portion of the ordinance that will not

codified,

result

which,

most

the

public

reading

the

proposed

code

(pages

5-21

and

5-22)

will

not

know

exists.

Specifically,

the

proposed

ordinance

contains

(uncodified)

Section

7 saying

“
The

Finance

Director

hereby

authorized

retroactively

extend

deadlines

provided

Sections

2 through

5 of

this

ordinance

upon

determination

the

Finance

Director

that

good

cause

has

been

shown

so
.”

292
March 11, 2025, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 3 of 6 Not only would this apply, contrary to what it says, to only Section 2, 3 and 5 (not 4), but I can think

reason

this

should

not

included

the

codified

text

those

sections.

accomplish

that,

the

three

sections

where

proposed

appear,
1 the

following

phrase

could

simply

modified

to:

“...

the

Finance

Director

determines

that

good

cause

has

been

shown

for

extending

the

apply

the

entire

municipal

code,

rather

than

just

short

term

lodging

matters,

don’t

think

wise.

The reason it is not wise is that what “good cause” means depends on the context, and the conditions

that

constitute

“good

cause”

for

missing

short

term

lodging

permit

deadline

may

quite

different

from

what

constitutes

“good

cause”

some

other

circumstance,

such

terminating

employee

permit

“for

good

that

purports

apply

“
Unless

specific

definition

provided

the

context

which

they

are

used

clearly

requires

otherwise
”

seems

only

add

confusion

and

uncertainty.

work

the

STL

chapter,

but

not

alter

its

(possibly

quite

different)

intent

the

others.

As to the merits of this ordinance,I believe the deadlines were enacted to emphasize that having a

short

term

lodging

permit

privilege,

not

right;

and

limited

privilege

for

which

there

long

waiting

list

possibly

responsible

people

seeking

the

privilege.

While the proposed code specifies the circumstances under which the Director “ may ” excuse a missed

STL

permit

deadline,

not

all

clear

the

circumstances

under

which

she

should

choose

not

so.

For

example,

there

may

complaints

that

the

applicant,

although

having

“good

cause”

miss

the

deadline,

also

bad

operator

for

whom

leniency

should

not

considered.

And

those

circumstances

might

not

surface

without

formal

public

hearing.

That

would

argue

for

appeal

the

Council

being

better

solution

what

seem

the

rare

circumstances

which

deadlines

are

missed.

Regarding defined words in general in our Municipal Code, it should be noted that, at present, readers

have

easy

way

tell

they

are

encountering

word

with

special

definition

within

the

code

one

that

intended

read

with

its

common

meaning.

A solution to this is for the vendor codifying the ordinances to display the defined words in a special

typeface

(such

italics

underlined)

and

provide

links

the

definitions.

2 Subsection

5.95.030.F

already

gives

the

Director

authority

extend

certain

STL

deadlines,

but

does

not

say

that

authority

retroactive.

Nothing

the

present

ordinance

changes

that.

Was

this

intentional?

1 To be sure, while this phrase appears in Section 3 (on page 5-13) and Section 5 (on page 5-14), in Section

2 (on

page

5-12)

appears

“
to

extend

the

deadline
”

instead

“
for

extending

the

deadline
.”

can

think

reason

for

the

different

phrasing.

293
March 11, 2025, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 4 of 6 Here is example, from the Snohomish County (WA) code, which is maintained by the same vendor as ours, but using a slightly different platform:

Pointing the mouse at the words with dotted underlines pops up a copy of the section defining the

term

(while,

our

code,

clicking

word

with

solid

underline

links

the

referenced

code

section).

Item 6. Resolution No. 2025-11: Waiving Section A.1. of City Council Policy

B-13

Allow

for

Alcoholic

Beverages

Charity

Polo

Event

Held

Peninsula

Park,

and

Repeal

Resolution

No.

2024-14
Since Newport Beach attempts to enforce an absence of alcohol on its beaches, I do not think it sets

good

example

allow

alcohol

event

beach-adjacent

park.

That

appears

set

double

standard.

That said, if a majority of the Council wants to allow this, I don’t see the need for a new resolution

repeal

the

former

one.

The existing Resolution No. 2024-14 appears to grant an indefinite, blanket waiver for the “Charity

Polo

Event

held

Peninsula

Park.”

While

references

the

“Newport

Beach

Foundation”

the

most

recent

and

likely

future

operator,

does

not

seem

limited

that.

waiver

being

indefinite.

If the intent is that the future validity of the waiver be contingent upon “the Event” being a charity event,

then

think

should

say

so.

And since the request is only for service of beer and wine, I think the resolution should include that

limitation.

Both of those conditions would improve upon what is proposed.

294
March 11, 2025, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 5 of 6 Item 9. Approval of On-Call Maintenance and Repair Services Agreement

for

Roll-Up

Doors

and

Gates

with

Excel

Door

Gate

Company,

Inc.

Door?

addition

that?

Item 10. Amendment No. One to Purchase and License Agreement with

Systems

Canada,

Inc.

for

Multi-Space

Pay

Stations
It would seem reasonable to ask if, when the existing pay stations were originally purchased, there

was

expectation

they

would

only

last

for

ten

years?

And

the

new

“more

reliable”

ones

are

expected

have

any

longer

useful

life?

and

the

Newport

Theatre

Arts

Center.

place

any

restrictions

how

the

grants

will

used,

and

unclear

the

Commission

has

done

so.

For

example,

how

expensive

attendance

the

proposed

events

might

and

whether

the

grants

would

used

reduce

ticket

costs

for

some

other

purpose.

Indeed,

seems

completely

open-ended

whether

the

grantees

would

even

presenting

program

offering

some

other

kind

“service.”
Wouldn’t some clearer guidance be useful?
Item 13. Ordinance No. 2025-5: An Amendment Deleting Section 5 of Ordinance

No.

2022-8

Removing

Sunset

Date

April

21,

(sub)

Section

105.3.4,

especially

since

there

not

even

footnote

that

code

295
March 11, 2025, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 6 of 6 mentioning the existence of Ordinance No. 2022-8. And according to the codifier’s Ordinance List, Ordinance No. 2022-8 has already been “Repealed by 2022-26.” Since Ordinance No. 2022-26 says it completed deleted and replaced Chapter 15.02, including (sub) Section 105.3.4, and in enacting the present provisions, itself appears to contain no sunset

language,

would

seem

that

sunset

clause

Ordinance

No.

2022-8

irrelevant,

and

nothing

about

expire.

In that case, no action is necessary, unless the current (sub) Section 105.3.4 enacted by Ordinance

No.

2022-26

different

from

the

one

the

Building

Official

sees

Ordinance

No.

2022-8

and

wants

continue

following.

As best I can tell, there is no difference, and no action is needed.

Item XVII. CLOSED SESSION The Brown Act requires the public be given an opportunity to comment regarding the items listed

under

this

heading

the

agenda

before

the

Council

considers

them.

Since the former opportunity for this public comment has been moved from its position immediately

preceding

the

closed

session

the

agenda

template

specified

City

Council
Policy A-1, it seems important for the Mayor to invite comment after the CIty Attorney has announced the closed session topics.

296
Community Development Department

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
100 Civic Center Drive
Newport Beach, California 92660
949 644-3200
newportbeachca.gov/communitydevelopment

Memorandum
To: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
From: Seimone Jurjis, Assistant City Manager
Date: March 11, 2025
Re: Agenda Item No. 13 – Ordinance No. 2025-5: An Amendment Deleting Section 5 of Ordinance No. 2022-8 Removing Sunset Date of April 21, 2025.
________________________________________________________________

Staff respectfully requests Agenda Item No. 13 be removed from tonight’s City Council’s agenda. Staff will propose additional changes to Newport Beach Municipal Code Title 15 and return at the next City Council meeting for your consideration.
297

13-1

NEWPORT BEACH

City Council Staff Report

COUNCIL STAFF REPORT

CITY OF

March 11, 2025
Agenda Item No. 13
ABSTRACT:

On April 23, 2019, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2019-8, setting a three-year time limit to complete construction of one-unit and two-unit family dwellings. The COVID- 19 pandemic disrupted supply chains for certain building materials and fixtures causing delays in completing construction. As a temporary solution to supply chain delays, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2022-8 on March 22, 2022, authorizing the building official to grant an extension of t he time limit to complete construction for up to one additional year. The temporary solution would sunset on April 21, 2025.

For the City Council's consideration is an amendment to Ordinance No. 2022-8 to remove the sunset provision and permanently grant the building official authority to extend building permits for up to one additional year (Attachment A).

RECOMMENDATIONS:
a) Find this action exempt from 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, beca use it has no potential for resulting in physical change to the environment, directly or indirectly; and b) Waive full reading, direct the City Clerk to read by title only, introduce Ordinance No. 2025-5, An Ordinance of the City of Coun cil of the City of Newport Beach, California, Removing the Sunset Provision from Ordinance No. 2022 -8 Thereby Retaining Section 15.02.095 (Section 105.3.4) to Timeframes for Completion of Construction, and pass to second reading on March 25, 2025.

DISCUSSION:

Ordinance No. 2019 -8, adopted on April 23, 2019, established a three -year construction time limit for one - and two -family dwellings. Under this ordinance, extensions require an administrative hearing officer's approval following a public hearing, with a ma ximum extension of one year. Further extensions beyond the fourth year necessitate City Council approval.

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: Seimone Jurjis, Community Development Director - 949-644-3232, [email protected]
PREPARED BY: Tonee Thai, Deputy Community Development Director/Chief Building Official - 949-718-1867, [email protected] TITLE: Ordinance No. 202 5-5: An Amendment Deleting Section 5 of Ordinance No. 2022-8 Removing Sunset Date of April 21, 2025 298
Ordinance No. 2025-5: An Amendment Deleting Section 5
of Ordinance No. 2022-8 Removing Sunset Date of April 21, 2025 March 11, 2025

Page 2 ends

13-2

The COVID -19 pandemic caused significant disruptions to the construction industry, including supply chain delays, material shortages, and labor constraints.

As a result, many projects that would have been completed within the original three-year timeframe faced unavoidable delays.

To address these challenges, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2022 -8 on March 22, 2022, granting the building official temporary authority to extend construction time limits by one year. This ordinance is set to expire on A pril 21, 2025. Extensions under this ordinance are granted based on adequate project progress and necessity for completion. Any additional extensions beyond the one-year period still require a public hearing before an administrative hearing officer. The administrative hearing officer may grant up to two 180-day extensions.

Applicants seeking further extensions must submit a request through the City Clerk to the City Council for consideration through a public hearing. This request must be filed at least 45 days before the expiration of the last granted extension. To date, no applicants have requested extensions from the City Council.

Projects that have exhausted all administrative remedies are referred to the City Attorney’s Office (CAO). The CAO may either prosecute the applicant for violating the City’s ordinance or work with the property owner to establish a completion schedule through a settlement agreement.

The ordinance provides a consistent framework for granting extensions, ensuring they are approved only when circumstances warrant additional time or when delays are beyond the control of the property owner, applicant or contractor.

Since the adoption of Ordinance No. 2022 -8, the building official has granted extensions for 150 projects, with 106 succe ssfully completed. During the same period, 24 projects required public hearings for extensions, resulting in 12 completed projects and one still under construction . Additionally, s even settlement agreements have been reached, and four projects are currently under review by CAO.

The high completion rate (71%) for projects granted extensions by the Building Official demonstrates the effectiveness of this streamlined approach. It reduces administrative burdens, minimizes delays, and supports project completion.

Impacts if Ordinance No. 2022-8 Sunsets
If Ordinance No. 2022-8 expires, the authority to extend construction permits will revert to a public hearing process overseen by an administrative hearing officer. Property owners seeking extensions mu st submit applications to the City Clerk, subject to a maximum extension of 180 days per request. The property owner may request up to two extensions.
299
Ordinance No. 2025-5: An Amendment Deleting Section 5
of Ordinance No. 2022-8 Removing Sunset Date of April 21, 2025 March 11, 2025

Page 3 ends

13-3

Additionally, the cost of obtaining an extension will increase. Currently, the fee for an extension granted by the building official is $221. If the ordinance sunsets, the fee for an extension request requiring a public hearing will rise to $1,496 due to administrative costs, including hearing officer fees and public notice requirements.

The transition to a public hearing format may also introduce delays. If a hearing cannot be scheduled before a permit expires, construction activities must cease until a decision is rendered, leading to project downtime and increased costs for property owners.

Draft Ordinance

The proposed ordinance removes the sunset date from Ordinance No. 2022 -8, permanently granting the building official the authority to grant additional extensions, for a total of 365 days, for projects entering their fourth year. This amendment eliminates the requirement for a public hearing for this specific extension, streamlining the process and reducing costs for permit holders. Extensions beyond the fourth year will still require a public hearing.

FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no fiscal impact related to this item.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

Staff recommends the City Council find this action 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. The adoption of the amendment does not authorize new development or change the density or intensity of any potential future development.

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 – Ordinance No. 2025-5
Attachment B – Redlined Ordinance

300
Attachment A
Ordinance No. 2025-5
13-4
301
5 13-5
302
13-6
303
13-7
304

Attachment B
Redlined Ordinance No. 2022-8

13-8
305
ORDINANCE NO. 2022-8

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY

NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SECTION

15.02.095 OF THE NEWPORT BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE
A

UTHORIZING AN EXTENSION OF THE TIME LIMIT TO
C

OMPLETE CONSTRUCTION FOR AN ADDITIONAL
Y
EAR

WHEREAS, Section 200 of the City of Newport Beach's ("City") Charter vests the City Council with the authority to make and enforce all laws, rules and regulations wit h respect to municipal affairs subject only to the restrictions and limitations contained in the C
harter and the State Constitution, and the power to exercise, or act pursuant to any and all rights, powers, and privileges, or procedures granted or prescribed by any law of the State of California;

WHEREAS, the number of construction projects on private property in the Cit y has increased substantially over the past eight years, which has resulted in increased impacts to residents from construction related noise, loss of on-street parking, and traffic;

WHEREAS, on April 23, 2019, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2019-8 setting a three-year time limit from the issuance of the first or original building permit for one-unit or two-unit dwellings to complete construction;

WHEREAS, on January 31, 2020, the United States Secretary of Health and Human Services announced a nationwide public health emergency, in response to the COVID-19 o
utbreak;

WHEREAS, on March 4, 2020, Governor Gavin Newsom declared a State of Emergency to make additional resources available, formalize emergency actions alr eady underway across multiple state agencies and departments, and help the state prepare for broader spread of COVID-19;

WHEREAS, due to the impacts caused by COVID-19 disrupting the supply lines for p
roducts and materials, and the health impacts to skilled workforce, some construction p
rojects may take longer than three years to complete; and

WHEREAS, it is in the interest of the residents of the City to place a reasonable time l
imit on the duration of construction projects, so as to balance the needs of the owner of the project with the health, safety and welfare of the neighbors. 13-9
306
Ordinance No. 2022-8

Page 2 of 7 ends

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

Section 1: Section 105.3.4 of Section 15.02.095 of the Newport Beach Municipal C
ode is hereby amended to read as follows:

Section 105.3.4 Extension of time limit to complete construction.

The maximum allowable time to complete construction, as set forth in Section 105.3.3, may be extended as follows:

1. Application for Extension to Building Official.

a) A property. owner, or authorized agent of the property owner, may request an extension b
y filing with the Building Official, in writing and on a form provided by the Building Official, an application for extension which sets forth: (i) the address of the project site; (ii) the name of the applicant and property owner; (iii) when the first or original building permit was issued; (
iv) the length of time extension requested, which shall not be greater than three hundred and sixty-five (365) calendar days; (v) how many previous extensions have been granted; (
vi) the basis for the requested extension; (vii) the new end project date if the application is approved; (viii) a brief description of the improvements that are the s ubject of the application; and (ix) any other information requested by the City.

b) Unless authorized by the Building Official in writing, an application for extension shall be s
ubmitted no later than forty-five (45) calendar days prior to the expiration of the building p
ermit. The application for extension to the Building Official shall be accompanied the fee s
et forth in the City’s master fee schedule.

c) Within forty-five (45) days of a request for extension, the Building Official may ministerially g
rant, conditionally grant or deny a request for extension for a period not to exceed three h
undred sixty-five (365) calendar days. The Building Official shall only grant an extension if h
e/she determines adequate progress has been made towards completion of construction a
nd the request for extension is necessary for its completion. The decision of the Building O
fficial shall be final and non-appealable.
13-10
307
Ordinance No. 2022-8

Page 3 of 7 ends

2. Application for Additional Extension(s).

a) If construction of the project has not been completed within the timeframe authorized by t
he Building Official, a property owner, or authorized agent of the property owner, may request an additional extension by filing with the City Clerk, in writing and on a form provided b
y the City Clerk, an application for extension which sets forth: (i) the address of the project site; (ii) the name of the applicant and property owner; (iii) when the first or original building permit was issued; (iv) the length of time extension requested, which shall not be greater than one hundred and eighty (180) calendar days; (v) how many previous extensions have been granted; (vi) the basis for the requested extension; (vii) the new end project date if the application is approved; (viii) a brief description of the improvements that are the subject of the application; and (ix) any other information requested by the City.

b) Unless authorized by the Building Official in writing, an application for extension shall be submitted no later than forty-five (45) calendar days prior to the expiration of the building permit.

c) An application for extension filed with the City Clerk shall be accompanied by a hearing a
nd noticing fee identified in the City's master fee schedule.

3. Scheduling and Noticing.

a) For an application for an additional extension set forth in subsection 2), a Hearing Officer, designated by the City Manager, shall hear and decide whether a second application for e
xtension, or third application for extension, shall be granted, conditionally granted, or d
enied. The City Council shall hear and decide whether any additional application for e
xtension shall be granted, conditionally granted or denied. The applic able hearing body shall be referred to herein as the "review authority."

b) For any application for extension to be heard by a Hearing Officer, the City Manager shall a
ppoint a Hearing Officer with the requisite qualifications and experience to consider the a
pplication for extension. The Hearing Officer shall not be a City employee and the e
mployment, performance evaluation, compensation and benefits of the Hearing Officer, if a
ny, shall not be conditioned, either directly or indirectly, upon the outcome of any decision b
y the Hearing Officer.
13-11
308
Ordinance No. 2022-8

Page 4 of 7 ends

Within seven (7) calendar days of the City Clerk’s receipt of an application for extension, the City Manager or his/her designee shall notify the applicant of the name of the Hearing Officer in accordance with Section 1.08.080. If the applicant wishes to challenge the designated Hearing Officer, the applicant shall have seven (7) calendar days from the date of service of the notice to submit to the City Manager a request, in writing, to disqualify the Hearing Officer, which sets forth the basis for disqualification. A Hearing Officer may only be disqualified for:
(
i) bias; (ii) prejudice; (iii) a conflict of interest; or (iv) a reason for which a judge may be d
isqualified after a showing of good cause under the laws of the State of California.

The City Manager will review any request for disqualification and make a decision as to whether a Hearing Officer shall be disqualified. The City Manager's decision shall be final. If t
he City Manager disqualifies a Hearing Officer, the City Manager shall designate a new Hearing Officer in accordance with the procedures in this subsection.

c) The applicant shall be notified of the time and place set for the hearing of the application, in accordance with Section 1.08.080, at least ten (10) calendar days prior to the date of the h
earing. All hearings on an application to be heard by the review authority shall be noticed in the following manner:

(i) Mailed to property owners within three hundred (300) feet of the project site that is the s
ubject of the application, at least ten (10) calendar days in advance of the hearing. The notice shall contain: the address of the project site; the length of time extension reque sted; the new end project date if the application is approved; the name of the appl icant and property owner; a brief description of the improvements; the date, time, and place of the h
earing; and a statement informing the person they have the ability to attend the hearing and p
rovide comments; and

(ii) Posted by the applicant at the project site, that is the subject of the application, at least t
en (10) calendar days before the scheduled hearing. The size, location and number of s
ign(s) shall be posted as determined by the City Manager or his/her designee. The applicant s
hall be responsible for maintaining the sign(s) in a satisfactory condition and shall remove a
ll sign(s) within twenty-four (24) hours following the conclusion of the hearing.

The failure of any person or entity to receive notice given in compliance with this subsection shall not invalidate the actions of the applicable review authority.

4. Conduct of Hearing.

a) A hearing shall be held at the date, time, and place for which notice was given. 13-12
309
Ordinance No. 2022-8

Page 5 of 7 ends

b) The review authority shall only consider evidence and testimony, presented by the a
pplicant or any other interested person, relevant to whether: (i) special circumstances w
arrant an extension of time; (ii) the failure to meet the time limit was caused by c
ircumstances beyond the property owner’s, applicant's or their contractor's control; and (iii) any approval should contain conditions to ensure timely completion of the project in a manner t
hat limits impacts on surrounding property owners. Any documents submitted by City staff shall constitute prima facie evidence of the respective facts contained in those documents.

c) The review authority may grant, or conditionally grant, up to a one hundred and eighty (180) calendar day extension, per application for extension, if it finds special circumstances warrant an extension of time or the failure to meet the time limit was cause d by circumstances beyond the property owner's, applicant’s or their contractor's control. If the review authority makes the findings to grant an extension, the review authority shall consi der whether conditions are necessary to ensure timely completion of the project in a manner that limits impacts on surrounding property owners. The review authority sh all deny the application if it
cannot make the findings set forth in this subsection.

d) A hearing may be continued without further notice, pro vided the Hearing Officer or chair o
f the review authority announces the date, time, and place to which the hearing will be c
ontinued before the adjournment or recess of the hearing.

e) The review authority may announce a tentative decision and defer its action on a final d
ecision until appropriate findings and/or conditions of approval have been prepared.

f) The review authority shall issue a written decision, setting forth its findings, and th e decision shall be final and effective on the date the decision is made, unless otherwise s
pecified by the review authority. The review authority shall pro vide the City Clerk with its f
inal decision within three (3) calendar days of the date of decision and the City Clerk shall m
ail a copy of the final decision to the applicant within ten (10) calendar days of receipt of t
he final decision.

5. Judicial Proceeding.

Nothing herein shall prohibit the Building Official from issuing a building permit or extending a building permit if the extension is a term of an enforceable settlement agreement between t
he City and the property owner or a term of a court order/judgment. 13-13
310
Ordinance No. 2022-8

Page 6 of 7 ends

6. Judicial Review.

The decision of the review authority shall not be appealable to any City body. A person shall n
ot seek judicial review related to any application for extension until the person has f irst exhausted all administrative procedures set forth in Section 15.02.095.

Section 2: The recitals provided in this ordinance are true and correct and are incorporated into the substantive portion of this ordinance.

Section 3: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance i
s for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of the remaining portions of this ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase hereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid or unconstitutional.

Section 4: The City Council finds and determines that the introduction and adoption of this ordinance is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") pursua nt to Sections 15060(c)(2) (the activity will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable i
ndirect 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, Division 6, Chapter 3, because it has no potential for resulting in physical change to the environment, directly or indirectly.

Section 5: Ordinance 2022-008, which amends Section 105.3.4 of Section

15.02.095 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, shall remain in in effect through the end of business on April 21, 2025, and as of that date/time is repealed. After April 21, 2025, the unamended version of Section 105.3.4 of Section 15.02.095 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code shall be in full force and effect. Except as expressly modified in this ordinance, all other titles, chapters, sections, subsections, terms, sentences, clauses and phrases set forth in the Newport Beach Municipal Code shall remain unchanged and shall be in full force and effect.

Section 6: The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall attest to the passage of this ordinance. The City Clerk shall cause the ordinance, or a summary thereof, to be published pursuant to City Charter Section 414. This ordinance shall be effective thirty (30) calendar days after its adoption.
13-14
311
Ordinance No. 2022-8

Page 7 of 7 ends

KEVIN MULD N, MAYOR

This ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach held on the 8th day of March, 2022, and adopted on the 22nd day of March, 2022, by the following vote, to-wit:

AYES: Council Member Avery, Council Member Brenner, Council Member Dixon, Council Member Duffield, Council Member O’Neill

NAYS: Mayor Muldoon, Mayor Pro Tern Blom
ABSENT:

ATTEST:

LEILANI 1. BROW CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

C
ITY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE

AAR N C. HARP, CITY ATTORNEY
13-15
312

Leila i 1. Brown, MMC

Leilani I Brown, MMC
City Clerk
C
ity of Newport Beach, California

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF ORANGE } ss

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

I, Leilani I. Brown, City Clerk of the City of Newport Beach, California, do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council is seven; that the foregoing ordinance, being Ordinance No. 2022-8 was duly introduced on the 8'h day of March, 2022, at a regular meeting, and adopted by the C
ity Council at a regular meeting duly held on the 22n° day of March, 2022, and that the same was so passed and adopted by the following vote, to wit:

A
YES. Council Member Brad Avery, Council Member Joy Brenner, Council Member Diane Dixon, Council Member Duffy Duffield, Council Member \/Vill O'NeiII NAYS: Mayor Kevin Muldoon, Mayor Pro Tern Noah Blom

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto subscribed my name and affixed the official seal of said City this 23' d day of March, 2022.

CERTIFICATE OF PUBLICATION

STATE OF CALIFORNIA }
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss.

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH )

I, LEILANI 1. BROWN, City Clerk of the City of Newport Beach, California, do hereby certify that O
rdinance No. 2022-7 has been duly and regularly published according to law and the order of the City C
ouncil of said City and that same was so published in T he Daily Pilot, a newspaper of general circulation o
n the following dates.

Introduced Ordinance:

Adopted Ordinance:

March 12, 2022
March 26, 2022

In witness whereof, I have hereunto subscribed my name this day of April, 2022.

City Clerk
City of Newport Beach, California
13-16
313

On the Agenda: March 11 City Council Meeting
The next meeting of the Newport Beach City Council will be on Tuesday, March 11. The full agenda is available here.

VIEW THE FULL AGENDA >>

314
March 11, 2025, City Council Agenda Comments
The following comments on items on the Newport Beach City Council agenda are submitted by:

Page 271 ends

Scarbrough’s previous comments regarding her and Mr. Klobe’s GPAC appointments and thought the discussion regarding the Council Aviation Ad Hoc Committee (Item 5) was less than enlightening.”

Page 274 ends

to distortions and site sight line issues as the screen size increases.”

Page 274 ends

0.08%. It would be clearer to say “Director Webb clarified that the 0.8% of cost overrun compared to the 10% of the contingency allowance is correctly stated.”]

Page 274 ends

Received After Agenda Printed
March 11, 2025
Written Comments
315
March 11, 2025, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 2 of 6 In fact, although titled differently, the text under this item is identical to that appearing under “IX.

NOTICE

THE

PUBLIC”

which

makes

appear

notice

than

invitation

comment.

If that is its purpose, it would seem the notice should be given before Item “II. CURRENT BUSINESS”

since

the

public

must

allowed

comment

least

some

those

items

(for

example,

Item

“SS5.

Capital

Improvement

Program

(CIP)

Early

Look”),

yet

will

not

have

been

told

what

the

rules

are

prior

their

opportunity.

Item 4. Ordinance No. 2025-3: Designating a Portion of Corona del Mar as

Safety

Enhancement

Zone

and

Expanding

West

Newport

Safety

Enhancement

Zone

Include

Memorial

Day,

Fourth

July,

and

Labor

Day

Holidays
The description of the boundaries of the proposed Corona del Mar Safety Enhancement Zone were

revised

shortly

before

the

introduction

this

ordinance

was

introduced

February

25. While the more precise definition (similar to the Police Department Reporting District 44 illustrated

Figure

1 on

page

4-2

the

staff

report)

proposed

page

4-9

the

ordinance

appreciated,

puzzling

that

both

mention

the

intended

zone

“
shall

include

Pirate's

Cove,

Corona

del

Mar

State

Beach,

and

Little

Corona

Beac
h,”

but

not

mention

China

Cove

Beach,

even

though

China

Cove

Beach

clearly

within

the

area

described

the

text.

Additionally, it is not clear the City has a clearly defined boundary to “Little Corona Beach,” which,

according

Figure

1 of

the

staff

report,

the

neighboring

Police

Department

Reporting

District

45. It

term

that

does

not

seem

appear

anywhere

else

the

Municipal

Code.

All this said, I continue to think the increased days and areas of the proposed safety enhancement

zones

place

increased

burden

City

staff

and

citizens

that

not

justified

sufficient

evidence

need

for

the

action.

Item 5. Ordinance No. 2025-4: Amending the Newport Beach Municipal Code

Update

Administrative

Procedures

Good

Cause

Determinations

and

the

Extension

Deadlines

for

Short-Term

Lodging

Permits
Although not clearly explained in the staff report, I believe this ordinance is being proposed as an

administrative

alternative

persons

making

appeals

the

City

Council.

Setting aside the merits of that choice,I have two problems with the proposed implementation. First, a significant operative part of the scheme is buried in a portion of the ordinance that will not

codified,

result

which,

most

the

public

reading

the

proposed

code

(pages

5-21

and

5-22)

will

not

know

exists.

Specifically,

the

proposed

ordinance

contains

(uncodified)

Section

7 saying

“
The

Finance

Director

hereby

authorized

retroactively

extend

deadlines

provided

Sections

2 through

5 of

this

ordinance

upon

determination

the

Finance

Director

that

good

cause

has

been

shown

so
.”

316
March 11, 2025, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 3 of 6 Not only would this apply, contrary to what it says, to only Section 2, 3 and 5 (not 4), but I can think

reason

this

should

not

included

the

codified

text

those

sections.

accomplish

that,

the

three

sections

where

proposed

appear,
1 the

following

phrase

could

simply

modified

to:

“...

the

Finance

Director

determines

that

good

cause

has

been

shown

for

extending

the

apply

the

entire

municipal

code,

rather

than

just

short

term

lodging

matters,

don’t

think

wise.

The reason it is not wise is that what “good cause” means depends on the context, and the conditions

that

constitute

“good

cause”

for

missing

short

term

lodging

permit

deadline

may

quite

different

from

what

constitutes

“good

cause”

some

other

circumstance,

such

terminating

employee

permit

“for

good

that

purports

apply

“
Unless

specific

definition

provided

the

context

which

they

are

used

clearly

requires

otherwise
”

seems

only

add

confusion

and

uncertainty.

work

the

STL

chapter,

but

not

alter

its

(possibly

quite

different)

intent

the

others.

As to the merits of this ordinance,I believe the deadlines were enacted to emphasize that having a

short

term

lodging

permit

privilege,

not

right;

and

limited

privilege

for

which

there

long

waiting

list

possibly

responsible

people

seeking

the

privilege.

While the proposed code specifies the circumstances under which the Director “ may ” excuse a missed

STL

permit

deadline,

not

all

clear

the

circumstances

under

which

she

should

choose

not

so.

For

example,

there

may

complaints

that

the

applicant,

although

having

“good

cause”

miss

the

deadline,

also

bad

operator

for

whom

leniency

should

not

considered.

And

those

circumstances

might

not

surface

without

formal

public

hearing.

That

would

argue

for

appeal

the

Council

being

better

solution

what

seem

the

rare

circumstances

which

deadlines

are

missed.

Regarding defined words in general in our Municipal Code, it should be noted that, at present, readers

have

easy

way

tell

they

are

encountering

word

with

special

definition

within

the

code

one

that

intended

read

with

its

common

meaning.

A solution to this is for the vendor codifying the ordinances to display the defined words in a special

typeface

(such

italics

underlined)

and

provide

links

the

definitions.

2 Subsection

5.95.030.F

already

gives

the

Director

authority

extend

certain

STL

deadlines,

but

does

not

say

that

authority

retroactive.

Nothing

the

present

ordinance

changes

that.

Was

this

intentional?

1 To be sure, while this phrase appears in Section 3 (on page 5-13) and Section 5 (on page 5-14), in Section

2 (on

page

5-12)

appears

“
to

extend

the

deadline
”

instead

“
for

extending

the

deadline
.”

can

think

reason

for

the

different

phrasing.

317
March 11, 2025, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 4 of 6 Here is example, from the Snohomish County (WA) code, which is maintained by the same vendor as ours, but using a slightly different platform:

Pointing the mouse at the words with dotted underlines pops up a copy of the section defining the

term

(while,

our

code,

clicking

word

with

solid

underline

links

the

referenced

code

section).

Item 6. Resolution No. 2025-11: Waiving Section A.1. of City Council Policy

B-13

Allow

for

Alcoholic

Beverages

Charity

Polo

Event

Held

Peninsula

Park,

and

Repeal

Resolution

No.

2024-14
Since Newport Beach attempts to enforce an absence of alcohol on its beaches, I do not think it sets

good

example

allow

alcohol

event

beach-adjacent

park.

That

appears

set

double

standard.

That said, if a majority of the Council wants to allow this, I don’t see the need for a new resolution

repeal

the

former

one.

The existing Resolution No. 2024-14 appears to grant an indefinite, blanket waiver for the “Charity

Polo

Event

held

Peninsula

Park.”

While

references

the

“Newport

Beach

Foundation”

the

most

recent

and

likely

future

operator,

does

not

seem

limited

that.

waiver

being

indefinite.

If the intent is that the future validity of the waiver be contingent upon “the Event” being a charity event,

then

think

should

say

so.

And since the request is only for service of beer and wine, I think the resolution should include that

limitation.

Both of those conditions would improve upon what is proposed.

318
March 11, 2025, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 5 of 6 Item 9. Approval of On-Call Maintenance and Repair Services Agreement

for

Roll-Up

Doors

and

Gates

with

Excel

Door

Gate

Company,

Inc.

Door?

addition

that?

Item 10. Amendment No. One to Purchase and License Agreement with

Systems

Canada,

Inc.

for

Multi-Space

Pay

Stations
It would seem reasonable to ask if, when the existing pay stations were originally purchased, there

was

expectation

they

would

only

last

for

ten

years?

And

the

new

“more

reliable”

ones

are

expected

have

any

longer

useful

life?

and

the

Newport

Theatre

Arts

Center.

place

any

restrictions

how

the

grants

will

used,

and

unclear

the

Commission

has

done

so.

For

example,

how

expensive

attendance

the

proposed

events

might

and

whether

the

grants

would

used

reduce

ticket

costs

for

some

other

purpose.

Indeed,

seems

completely

open-ended

whether

the

grantees

would

even

presenting

program

offering

some

other

kind

“service.”
Wouldn’t some clearer guidance be useful?
Item 13. Ordinance No. 2025-5: An Amendment Deleting Section 5 of Ordinance

No.

2022-8

Removing

Sunset

Date

April

21,

(sub)

Section

105.3.4,

especially

since

there

not

even

footnote

that

code

319
March 11, 2025, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 6 of 6 mentioning the existence of Ordinance No. 2022-8. And according to the codifier’s Ordinance List, Ordinance No. 2022-8 has already been “Repealed by 2022-26.” Since Ordinance No. 2022-26 says it completed deleted and replaced Chapter 15.02, including (sub) Section 105.3.4, and in enacting the present provisions, itself appears to contain no sunset

language,

would

seem

that

sunset

clause

Ordinance

No.

2022-8

irrelevant,

and

nothing

about

expire.

In that case, no action is necessary, unless the current (sub) Section 105.3.4 enacted by Ordinance

No.

2022-26

different

from

the

one

the

Building

Official

sees

Ordinance

No.

2022-8

and

wants

continue

following.

As best I can tell, there is no difference, and no action is needed.

Item XVII. CLOSED SESSION The Brown Act requires the public be given an opportunity to comment regarding the items listed

under

this

heading

the

agenda

before

the

Council

considers

them.

Since the former opportunity for this public comment has been moved from its position immediately

preceding

the

closed

session

the

agenda

template

specified

City

Council
Policy A-1, it seems important for the Mayor to invite comment after the CIty Attorney has announced the closed session topics.

320
March 11, 2025, City Council Agenda Comments
The following comments on items on the Newport Beach City Council agenda are submitted by:

Page 271 ends

Scarbrough’s previous comments regarding her and Mr. Klobe’s GPAC appointments and thought the discussion regarding the Council Aviation Ad Hoc Committee (Item 5) was less than enlightening.”

Page 274 ends

to distortions and site sight line issues as the screen size increases.”

Page 274 ends

0.08%. It would be clearer to say “Director Webb clarified that the 0.8% of cost overrun compared to the 10% of the contingency allowance is correctly stated.”]

Page 274 ends

Received After Agenda Printed
March 11, 2025
Written Comments
321
March 11, 2025, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 2 of 6 In fact, although titled differently, the text under this item is identical to that appearing under “IX.

NOTICE

THE

PUBLIC”

which

makes

appear

notice

than

invitation

comment.

If that is its purpose, it would seem the notice should be given before Item “II. CURRENT BUSINESS”

since

the

public

must

allowed

comment

least

some

those

items

(for

example,

Item

“SS5.

Capital

Improvement

Program

(CIP)

Early

Look”),

yet

will

not

have

been

told

what

the

rules

are

prior

their

opportunity.

Item 4. Ordinance No. 2025-3: Designating a Portion of Corona del Mar as

Safety

Enhancement

Zone

and

Expanding

West

Newport

Safety

Enhancement

Zone

Include

Memorial

Day,

Fourth

July,

and

Labor

Day

Holidays
The description of the boundaries of the proposed Corona del Mar Safety Enhancement Zone were

revised

shortly

before

the

introduction

this

ordinance

was

introduced

February

25. While the more precise definition (similar to the Police Department Reporting District 44 illustrated

Figure

1 on

page

4-2

the

staff

report)

proposed

page

4-9

the

ordinance

appreciated,

puzzling

that

both

mention

the

intended

zone

“
shall

include

Pirate's

Cove,

Corona

del

Mar

State

Beach,

and

Little

Corona

Beac
h,”

but

not

mention

China

Cove

Beach,

even

though

China

Cove

Beach

clearly

within

the

area

described

the

text.

Additionally, it is not clear the City has a clearly defined boundary to “Little Corona Beach,” which,

according

Figure

1 of

the

staff

report,

the

neighboring

Police

Department

Reporting

District

45. It

term

that

does

not

seem

appear

anywhere

else

the

Municipal

Code.

All this said, I continue to think the increased days and areas of the proposed safety enhancement

zones

place

increased

burden

City

staff

and

citizens

that

not

justified

sufficient

evidence

need

for

the

action.

Item 5. Ordinance No. 2025-4: Amending the Newport Beach Municipal Code

Update

Administrative

Procedures

Good

Cause

Determinations

and

the

Extension

Deadlines

for

Short-Term

Lodging

Permits
Although not clearly explained in the staff report, I believe this ordinance is being proposed as an

administrative

alternative

persons

making

appeals

the

City

Council.

Setting aside the merits of that choice,I have two problems with the proposed implementation. First, a significant operative part of the scheme is buried in a portion of the ordinance that will not

codified,

result

which,

most

the

public

reading

the

proposed

code

(pages

5-21

and

5-22)

will

not

know

exists.

Specifically,

the

proposed

ordinance

contains

(uncodified)

Section

7 saying

“
The

Finance

Director

hereby

authorized

retroactively

extend

deadlines

provided

Sections

2 through

5 of

this

ordinance

upon

determination

the

Finance

Director

that

good

cause

has

been

shown

so
.”

322
March 11, 2025, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 3 of 6 Not only would this apply, contrary to what it says, to only Section 2, 3 and 5 (not 4), but I can think

reason

this

should

not

included

the

codified

text

those

sections.

accomplish

that,

the

three

sections

where

proposed

appear,
1 the

following

phrase

could

simply

modified

to:

“...

the

Finance

Director

determines

that

good

cause

has

been

shown

for

extending

the

apply

the

entire

municipal

code,

rather

than

just

short

term

lodging

matters,

don’t

think

wise.

The reason it is not wise is that what “good cause” means depends on the context, and the conditions

that

constitute

“good

cause”

for

missing

short

term

lodging

permit

deadline

may

quite

different

from

what

constitutes

“good

cause”

some

other

circumstance,

such

terminating

employee

permit

“for

good

that

purports

apply

“
Unless

specific

definition

provided

the

context

which

they

are

used

clearly

requires

otherwise
”

seems

only

add

confusion

and

uncertainty.

work

the

STL

chapter,

but

not

alter

its

(possibly

quite

different)

intent

the

others.

As to the merits of this ordinance,I believe the deadlines were enacted to emphasize that having a

short

term

lodging

permit

privilege,

not

right;

and

limited

privilege

for

which

there

long

waiting

list

possibly

responsible

people

seeking

the

privilege.

While the proposed code specifies the circumstances under which the Director “ may ” excuse a missed

STL

permit

deadline,

not

all

clear

the

circumstances

under

which

she

should

choose

not

so.

For

example,

there

may

complaints

that

the

applicant,

although

having

“good

cause”

miss

the

deadline,

also

bad

operator

for

whom

leniency

should

not

considered.

And

those

circumstances

might

not

surface

without

formal

public

hearing.

That

would

argue

for

appeal

the

Council

being

better

solution

what

seem

the

rare

circumstances

which

deadlines

are

missed.

Regarding defined words in general in our Municipal Code, it should be noted that, at present, readers

have

easy

way

tell

they

are

encountering

word

with

special

definition

within

the

code

one

that

intended

read

with

its

common

meaning.

A solution to this is for the vendor codifying the ordinances to display the defined words in a special

typeface

(such

italics

underlined)

and

provide

links

the

definitions.

2 Subsection

5.95.030.F

already

gives

the

Director

authority

extend

certain

STL

deadlines,

but

does

not

say

that

authority

retroactive.

Nothing

the

present

ordinance

changes

that.

Was

this

intentional?

1 To be sure, while this phrase appears in Section 3 (on page 5-13) and Section 5 (on page 5-14), in Section

2 (on

page

5-12)

appears

“
to

extend

the

deadline
”

instead

“
for

extending

the

deadline
.”

can

think

reason

for

the

different

phrasing.

323
March 11, 2025, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 4 of 6 Here is example, from the Snohomish County (WA) code, which is maintained by the same vendor as ours, but using a slightly different platform:

Pointing the mouse at the words with dotted underlines pops up a copy of the section defining the

term

(while,

our

code,

clicking

word

with

solid

underline

links

the

referenced

code

section).

Item 6. Resolution No. 2025-11: Waiving Section A.1. of City Council Policy

B-13

Allow

for

Alcoholic

Beverages

Charity

Polo

Event

Held

Peninsula

Park,

and

Repeal

Resolution

No.

2024-14
Since Newport Beach attempts to enforce an absence of alcohol on its beaches, I do not think it sets

good

example

allow

alcohol

event

beach-adjacent

park.

That

appears

set

double

standard.

That said, if a majority of the Council wants to allow this, I don’t see the need for a new resolution

repeal

the

former

one.

The existing Resolution No. 2024-14 appears to grant an indefinite, blanket waiver for the “Charity

Polo

Event

held

Peninsula

Park.”

While

references

the

“Newport

Beach

Foundation”

the

most

recent

and

likely

future

operator,

does

not

seem

limited

that.

waiver

being

indefinite.

If the intent is that the future validity of the waiver be contingent upon “the Event” being a charity event,

then

think

should

say

so.

And since the request is only for service of beer and wine, I think the resolution should include that

limitation.

Both of those conditions would improve upon what is proposed.

324
March 11, 2025, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 5 of 6 Item 9. Approval of On-Call Maintenance and Repair Services Agreement

for

Roll-Up

Doors

and

Gates

with

Excel

Door

Gate

Company,

Inc.

Door?

addition

that?

Item 10. Amendment No. One to Purchase and License Agreement with

Systems

Canada,

Inc.

for

Multi-Space

Pay

Stations
It would seem reasonable to ask if, when the existing pay stations were originally purchased, there

was

expectation

they

would

only

last

for

ten

years?

And

the

new

“more

reliable”

ones

are

expected

have

any

longer

useful

life?

and

the

Newport

Theatre

Arts

Center.

place

any

restrictions

how

the

grants

will

used,

and

unclear

the

Commission

has

done

so.

For

example,

how

expensive

attendance

the

proposed

events

might

and

whether

the

grants

would

used

reduce

ticket

costs

for

some

other

purpose.

Indeed,

seems

completely

open-ended

whether

the

grantees

would

even

presenting

program

offering

some

other

kind

“service.”
Wouldn’t some clearer guidance be useful?
Item 13. Ordinance No. 2025-5: An Amendment Deleting Section 5 of Ordinance

No.

2022-8

Removing

Sunset

Date

April

21,

(sub)

Section

105.3.4,

especially

since

there

not

even

footnote

that

code

325
March 11, 2025, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 6 of 6 mentioning the existence of Ordinance No. 2022-8. And according to the codifier’s Ordinance List, Ordinance No. 2022-8 has already been “Repealed by 2022-26.” Since Ordinance No. 2022-26 says it completed deleted and replaced Chapter 15.02, including (sub) Section 105.3.4, and in enacting the present provisions, itself appears to contain no sunset

language,

would

seem

that

sunset

clause

Ordinance

No.

2022-8

irrelevant,

and

nothing

about

expire.

In that case, no action is necessary, unless the current (sub) Section 105.3.4 enacted by Ordinance

No.

2022-26

different

from

the

one

the

Building

Official

sees

Ordinance

No.

2022-8

and

wants

continue

following.

As best I can tell, there is no difference, and no action is needed.

Item XVII. CLOSED SESSION The Brown Act requires the public be given an opportunity to comment regarding the items listed

under

this

heading

the

agenda

before

the

Council

considers

them.

Since the former opportunity for this public comment has been moved from its position immediately

preceding

the

closed

session

the

agenda

template

specified

City

Council
Policy A-1, it seems important for the Mayor to invite comment after the CIty Attorney has announced the closed session topics.

326

Newport Beach City CouncilMarch 11, 2025

Newport Beach City Council
March 11, 2025