12-2
Under this ordinance, extensions require an administrative hearing officer's approval following a public hearing, with a maximum extension of one year. Further extensions beyond the fourth year necessitate City Council approval.
The COVID -19 pandemic caused significant disruptions to the construction industry, including supply chai n 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 additional year beyond the three initial years . This ordinance is set to expire on April 21, 2025. Extensions under this ordinance are granted bas ed on adequate project progress and necessity for completion. Any additional extensions beyond the one-year granted by the building official 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 successfully completed. During the same period, 24 projects required public hearings for extensions, resulting in 12 completed projects and 12 still under construction. Additionally, five settlement agreements have been reached, and four projects are currently under review by CAO.
The high completi on 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 building official will lose the authority to extend construction permits, and the authority will revert to a public hearing process overseen by an administrative hearing officer. 522
Ordinance No. 2025-5: An Amendment to Section 15.02.095 of the NBMC Related to Timeframes for Completion of Construction
March 25, 2025
12-3
Property owners seeking extensions beyond the third year must 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.
Additionally, the cost of obtaining an extension will increase. The current fee for an extension granted by the building official is $221. If the ordinance sunsets, extensions requiring a public hearing will cost $1,496 due to administrative expenses, including hearing officer fees and public notice requirements.
Transitioning to a public hearing process may also cause delays. If a hearing cannot be scheduled before a permit expires, construction must be suspended until a decision is issued. This could result in project downtime and increased costs for property owners.
Draft Ordinance
The proposed ordinance removes the sunset provision from Ordinance No. 2022 -8, granting the building official authority to approve up to two 180 -day extensions for projects entering their fourth year. This amendment eliminates the public hearing requirement for these specific extensions, streamlining the process and reducing costs for permit holders. However, any request for a third or fourth extension will still require a public hearing with an administrative hearing officer.
Additionally, the proposed ord inance introduces new requirements for applicants seeking extensions. Requests must include:
1. A detailed explanation of the reasons for the delay and supporting justification.
2. A comprehensive completion schedule.
3. A record of any past complaints or enforcement actions, which will be considered in evaluating the extension request.
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.
523
Ordinance No. 2025-5: An Amendment to Section 15.02.095 of the NBMC Related to Timeframes for Completion of Construction
March 25, 2025
12-4
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
524
Attachment A
Ordinance No. 2025-5
12-5
525
12-6
526
12-7
527
12-8
528
12-9
529
12-10
530
12-11
531
12-12
532
Attachment B
Redlined Ordinance No. 2022-8
12-13
533
ORDINANCE NO. 2022-82025-5
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SECTION
15.02.095 (SECTION 105.3.4) OF THE NEWPORT BEACH
MUNICIPAL CODE RELATED TO TIMEFRAMES FOR
COMPLETION OF CONSTRUCTIONOF THE NEWPORT
BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE AUTHORIZING AN
EXTENSION OF THE TIME LIMIT TO COMPLETE
CONSTRUCTION FOR AN ADDITIONAL YEAR
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 with respect to municipal affairs subject only to the restrictions and limitations contained in the Charter 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 City has increased substantially over the past eight eleven years, which has resulted in increased impacts to residents from construction related noise, loss of on-street parking, and traffic;
WHEREAS, Chapter 15.02 (Administrative Code) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code (“NBMC”), adopts and incorporates by reference Chapter 1, Division II of the California Building Code;
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2019-8 on April 23, 2019, adding Section 15.02.095 (Addition of Section 105.3.3, 105.3.4, and 105.3.5), which sets 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 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, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2022 -8 on March 22, 2022, amending Section 15.02.095 (Section 105.3.4) of the NBMC to allow for the extension of the timeframe to complete construction due to the impacts of COVID - 19;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 outbreak;
WHEREAS, on March 4, 2020, Governor Gavin Newsom declared a State of Emergency to make additional resources available, formalize emergency actions already underway across multiple state agencies and departments, and help the state prepare for broader spread of COVID-19;
12-14 534
WHEREAS, it is in the interest of the residents of the City to place a reasonable time limit on the duration of construction projects and to streamline the extension request process, to balance the needs of the owner of the project with the health, safety and welfare of the neighbors; andWHEREAS, due to the impacts caused by COVID-19 disrupting the supply lines for products and materials, and the health impacts to skilled workforce, some construction projects may take longer than three years to complete; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to modify Section 15.02.095 (Section 105.3.4) of the NBMC to ensure that reasonable time extensions are granted, when necessary, with the primary objective of ensuring construction projects are completed promptly.WHEREAS, it is in the interest of the residents of the City to place a reasonable time limit 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. 12-15
535
Ordinance No. 2022-8
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Newport Beach ordains as follows:
Section 1: Section Subsection 105.3.4 of Section 15.02.095 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code 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 by 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 one hundred and eighty (180) calendar days three hundred and sixty -five (365) calendar days ; (v) how many previous extensions have been granted; (vi) criteria that establish the cause(s) of delay and the reason for the extension request; (vii) a comprehensive completion schedule 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) past complaints and enforcement history; and (x) any other information requested by the City(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. The application for extension to the Building Official shall be accompanied by a fee adopted by resolution of the City Councilthe fee set forth in the City’s master fee schedule.
c) Within forty-five (45) days of a request for extension, the Building Official may ministerially grant, conditionally grant or deny a request for extension for a period not to exceed one hundred and eighty (180 three hundred sixty-five (365) calendar days with a maximum of two extensions being granted by the Building Official under this subsection. The Building Official shall only grant an extension if he/she determines adequate progress has been made towards completion of construction and the request for extension is necessary for its completion. The decision of the Building Official shall be final and non-appealable.
12-16
536
Ordinance No. 2022-8
2. Application for Additional Extension(s).
a) If construction of the project has not been completed within the timeframe authorized by the 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 by 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) criteria that establishes the cause(s) of delay and the reason for the extension request; (vii) a comprehensive completion schedule 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; (ix) past complaints and enforcement history; 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 and noticing fee adopted by resolution of the City Council 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 third second application for extension, or fourth third application for extension, shall be granted, conditionally granted, or denied. The City Council shall hear and decide whether any additional application for extension beyond four total extensions, shall be granted, conditionally granted or denied. The applicable 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 appoint a Hearing Officer with the requisite qualifications and experience to consider the application for extension. The Hearing Officer shall not be a City employee and the employment, performance evaluation, compensation and benefits of the Hearing Officer, if any, shall not be conditioned, either directly or indirectly, upon the outcome of any decision by the Hearing Officer. 12-17
537
Ordinance No. 2022-8
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 disqualified after a showing of good cause under the laws of the State of California.
The City Manager will review any request for disqualification and decide make a decision as to whether a Hearing Officer shall be disqualified. The City Manager's decision shall be final. If the 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 hearing. 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 subject 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 requested; the new end project date if the application is approved; the name of the applicant and property owner; a brief description of the improvements; the date, time, and place of the hearing; and a statement informing the person they have the ability to attend the hearing and provide comments; and
(ii) Posted by the applicant at the project site, that is the subject of the application, at least ten (10) calendar days before the scheduled hearing. The size, location and number of sign(s) shall be posted as determined by the City Manager or his/her designee. The applicant shall be responsible for maintaining the sign(s) in a satisfactory condition and shall remove all 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 12-18 538
Ordinance No. 2022-8
given.
12-19
539
Ordinance No. 2022-8
b) The review authority shall only consider evidence and testimony, presented by the applicant or any other interested person, relevant to whether: (i) special circumstances warrant an extension of time; (ii) the failure to meet the time limit was caused by circumstances 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 that 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 caused 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 consider whether conditions are necessary to ensure timely completion of the project in a manner that limits impacts on surrounding property owners. The review authority shall deny the application if it cannot make the findings set forth in this subsection.
d) A hearing may be continued without further notice, provided the Hearing Officer or chair of the review authority announces the date, time, and place to which the hearing will be continued before the adjournment or recess of the hearing.
e) The review authority may announce a tentative decision and defer its action on a final decision 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 the decision shall be final and effective on the date the decision is made, unless otherwise specified by the review authority. The review authority shall provide the City Clerk with its final decision within three (3) calendar days of the date of decision and the City Clerk shall mail a copy of the final decision to the applicant within ten (10) calendar days of receipt of the 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 the City and the property owner or a term of a court order/judgment. 12-20
540
Ordinance No. 2022-8
6. Judicial Review.
The decision of the review authority shall not be appealable to any City body. A person shall not seek judicial review related to any application for extension until the person has first exhausted all administrative procedures set forth in Section 15.02.095.
Section 2: Any ordinance or portion thereof that conflicts with Ordinance No. 2025-5 including, but not limited to, the applicability of the sunset provision set forth in Section 5 of Ordinance No. 2022-8 is hereby repealed.
Section 23: The recitals provided in this ordinance are true and correct and are incorporated into the substantive portion of this ordinance.
Section 34: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall notaffect 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 45: The City Council finds and determines that the introduction and adoption of this ordinance 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, 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: Except as expressly modified in this ordinance, all other sections, subsections, terms, clauses and phrases set forth in the NBMC shall remain unchanged and shall be in full force and effect.
Section 67: 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.
12-21 541
Ordinance No. 2022-8
This ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach held on the 8th 25th day of March, 20222025, and adopted on the 22nd 15th day of MarchApril, 20222025, by the following vote, to-wit:
AYES: ________________________________________________________
NAYS:
ABSENT:
12-22
542
On the Agenda: March 25 City Council Meeting
The next meeting of the Newport Beach City Council will be on Tuesday, March 25 at 4 p.m. The full agenda is available here.
Agenda items include:
• A 5-year agreement with Kit Coffee (operating under Kit at the Library, Inc.), to operate the retail concession facility at the Central Library, 1000 Avocado Ave. City staff is recommending Kit Coffee, a locally owned coffee shop with facilities in Newport Beach and Irvine, after evaluating proposals from interested food-service operators. Kit Coffee proposes to offer coffee and tea -based drinks and a limited food menu with items such as toasts, sandwiches and salads at the library location. • 2024 General Plan annual progress report, including a Housing Element report. Under State law the City must prepare and submit an annual report on the status of the City’s General Plan and implementation progress. The Council action would approve the rep ort and authorize staff to submit the report to the California Department of Housing and Community Development. • Amendment of a municipal ordinance 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 Council will consider an amendment to remove a sunset provision from the ordinance and grant the building official authority to approve up to two, 180-day extensions for projects entering their fourth year. This amendment eliminates the public hearing requirement for these specific extensions, streamlining the process and reducing costs for permit holders. Requests for a third or fourth extension would require a public hearing with an administrative hearing officer. Additionally, the proposed ordinance introduces new requirements for applicants seeking extensions.
VIEW THE FULL AGENDA >>
543
March 25, 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 March 11, 2025 City Council Meeting The passage shown in italics below is from the draft minutes with a suggested correction shown in strikeout underline format. The page number refers to Volume 66.
HOA meeting, the trash interceptor ribbon cutting, the OCIACC Nowruz Spring Festival, and the Fire Station 2 demolition party and extended congratulations to Bob Olsen Olson.” Item 3. Ordinance No. 2025-4: Amending the Newport Beach Municipal Code to Update Administrative Procedures Related to Good Cause Determinations and the Extension of Deadlines for Short-Term Lodging Permits
This matter involving who should be authorized to grant exceptions to STL permit deadlines, and for what reasons, is unusual in that parts of it have had fairly extensive Council discussion even though it has never been publicly announced on any agenda, including this one, as a matter for such discussion.
The proposal started as part of Item 3 on the October 8, 2024, consent calendar (along with an unrelated Finance Department matter about demolition debris hauling), from which it was pulled for a discussion that was continued to a future planning session.
That discussion was indeed continued (see video) at the Council’s February 1, 2025, planning session, and a person hoping for relief from the STL deadlines was apparently even expected to plead their case to the Council. However, nothing on the agenda reminded the public that such a discussion by the Council was planned for that day.
In the February 1 discussion, Council members seemed to agree that what qualified as “good cause” needed to be defined (which it had not been in the October 8 offering). But curiously, the example of an aggrieved person, who turned out to be a professional asset manager who had apparently failed to properly manage his client’s asset rather than a property owner who had innocently missed a deadline due to some special hardship, never explained the unusual circumstances that had caused him to miss a deadline (see video), nor did the Council discuss whether they would agree his circumstances constituted “good cause” for relief or, more generally, how they thought “good cause” should be defined.
The matter returned as Item 5 on the March 11 consent calendar, where a definition of “good cause” was proposed, but not discussed, although I provided extensive written comments.
As a policy matter, I think it is good for the City to have flexibility in the administration of its regulations. However, in the case of STL permits, since having one is a privilege rather than a right, and there is a long waiting list of people not presently having a permit, but hoping to get one, I would think leniency for those who have the permits but fail to follow the rules, including Received After Agenda Printed
March 25, 2025
Written Comments
544
March 25, 2025, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 2 of 6 failing to meet deadlines, should be very limited. I would also think that in evaluating whether a missed
STL
permit
deadline
should
be
excused,
factors
in
addition
to
the
existence
of
good
cause
should
be
considered,
such
as
whether
the
property
has
been
the
subject
of
complaints
or
other
enforcement
actions.
The
Council
might
also
want
to
include
in
the
ordinance
examples
of
circumstances
which
staff
should
not
regard
as
“good
cause”
or
limit
how
long
after
a
missed
deadline
a
request
for
extension
can
be
entertained.
It is, therefore, disappointing that on March 11 the Council did not publicly discuss whether the rather
broad
definition
offered
by
staff
meets
their
expectations
(and
how
it
would
be
applied
to
the
unknown
circumstances
of
the
asset
manager
at
the
February
1 Planning
Session)
–
or
whether
there
should
be
a
very
narrow
definition
provided
for
staff
to
use
to
which
a
mechanism
could
be
added
for
more
problematic
claims
to
be
referred
on
appeal
to
the
Council.
Even assuming the Council members individually reviewed the proposed definition of “good cause”
for
missing
an
STL
permit
deadline,
and
found
it
met
their
expectations,
I
continue
to
think
the
proposed
ordinance
is
defective
for
two
reasons.
Making Definition Applicable to Entire Municipal Code is a Bad Idea First, rather than placing the definition of “good cause” in the chapter of the Municipal Code regarding
STL
permits,
to
which
it
is
intended
to
apply,
staff
proposes
putting
it
in
a
section
that
will
make
it
applicable
to
the
entire
Municipal
Code.
This a bad recommendation, or, at the very least, a decision that needs further review. As I pointed out in my March 11 written comments, the phrase “good cause” appears 27 times in 19 different
chapters
of
the
code,
in
each
of
which
it
may
have
been
intended
to
be
understood
differently.
Inserted
after-the-fact
a
definition
that
may
or
may
not
have
been
intended
is
not
wise.
A recent example of the problems this can cause was the entry of Pacaso fractional ownership homes into the Newport Beach market. As indicated in my comments on that subject on pages 12-44 & 45 of the March 14, 2023, Council agenda packet, since 1982, with adoption of Ordinance No. 82-14, Newport Beach had perfectly clear regulations in its Zoning Code (Title 20 of the Municipal Code) intended to prohibit such activity (time-share arrangements in residential areas).
However,
the
original
language
used
the
phrases
“time-share
projects
”
and
“time-share
development,
”
which
were
explicitly
intended
to
apply
to
conversion
of
existing
residences
to
a
time-share
model,
including
fractional
ownership,
even
though
the
terms
“project”
and
“development”
were
not
explicitly
defined.
However,
without
considering
this,
the
Zoning
Code
was
repeatedly
rearranged
and
revised,
and
eventually,
definitions
of
“project”
and
“development”
applicable
to
the
entire
Zoning
Code
were
added.
And
even
though
the
introduction
of
those
definitions
was
presumably
not
intended
to
alter
the
meaning
of
the
time-share
regulations,
by
the
time
Pacaso
came
to
town,
staff
said
they
did,
and
they
could
not
prohibit
conversions
of
existing
homes,
only
new
construction.
One has to wonder if the Council members have reviewed the 18 Municipal Code chapters unrelated
to
STL
permits
in
which
“good
cause”
appears,
and
determined
that
applying
to
them
545
March 25, 2025, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 3 of 6 the definition proposed in the STL permit context does not alter the meaning of “good cause” that
earlier
Councils
intended
in
those
other
contexts?
Placing Substantive Regulations in Uncodified Portions of Ordinances is a Bad
Idea
Second, although neither the Council nor the public heard the circumstances of the speaker seeking relief at the February 1 Planning Session (only that “things come up”), it appears the intent
of
these
code
revisions
is
to
allow
staff
to
excuse
people
who
have
missed
STL
permit
deadlines.
Yet
the
proposed
code
revisions
are
written
entirely
in
terms
of
extending
deadlines,
which
implies
a
request
to
extend
the
deadline
has
been
received
before
the
deadline
comes.
The fact that an “extension” can be granted retroactively, in effect excusing the missing of a deadline
is
relegated
to
an
obscure
reference
in
uncodified
Section
7 of
the
proposed
ordinance,
on
page
3-13
of
the
agenda
packet.
Not only could the fact that a deadline can be extended retroactively have easily been included in
the
codified
portion
of
the
code,
where
all
those
reading
the
code
would
see
it,
but
the
code
might
even
have
limited
how
long
after
the
fact
a
retroactive
extension
can
be
granted
and
how
long
such
an
extension
can
be.
The problems that can be created by not codifying substantive portions of regulations is illustrated
by
Item
12 on
the
current
agenda.
In
that
case,
when
enacting
a
Building
Code
revision
in
2022,
the
Council
only
intended
for
it
to
be
in
effect
until
April
21,
2025,
at
which
time
the
unrevised
text
would
return.
It
would
have
been
relatively
easy
to
include
this
proviso
in
the
code
(the
state
legislature
does
this
quite
frequently).
Instead,
much
like
here,
it
exists
only
in
an
obscure
uncodified
section
of
the
2022
ordinance
(see
page
12-21
of
the
present
agenda
packet).
Despite
a
subsequent
ordinance
reenacting
the
code
section
in
question
without
any
mention
of
an
expiration,
the
proviso
in
the
earlier
ordinance
seems
to
remain,
like
a
zombie,
completely
unknown
to
those
reading
the
existing
code,
which
does
not
even
mention
the
ordinance
containing
it
in
its
revision
history.
In the present case, the fact that STL deadline extensions can be retroactive will not only be unknown
to
readers
of
the
code,
but
it
may
assume
a
similar
zombie
status
if
the
code
were
subsequently
revised
without
an
intent
to
be
retroactive
but
without
explicitly
repealing
the
present
ordinance.
Item 4. Resolution No. 2025-12: Creating the Ad Hoc Refuse Committee
I think the idea of staff reaching out in considering its response to refuse regulations is a good one,
and
the
present
proposal
is
an
improvement
over
the
roll-out
of
the
three-cart
residential
collection
system,
regarding
which
input
seems
to
have
been
sought
from
a
3-member
Council
Ad
Hoc
Solid
Waste
Committee
that
was
never
formally
appointed
and
which
the
public
knew
nothing
about.
546
March 25, 2025, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 4 of 6 That said, I think it would be better for the Council to appoint a committee of affected residents and
business
owners
from
whom
staff
could
seek
input.
The
advantage
of
that,
is
that
the
Brown
Act
would
require
the
discussions
to
be
noticed
and
public.
The problem with Council-appointed ad hoc committees (and with ad hoc committees of the City boards
and
commissions
in
general,
is
that
they
are
created
precisely
to
avoid
public
visibility.
Since
the
Brown
Act
does
not
require
it,
their
discussions
are
rarely
if
ever
public.
As
a
result
there
is
a
complete
lack
of
transparency
as
to
how
their
recommendations
were
arrived
at
and
what
input
was
considered.
A happy recent, but still extremely rare, exception was the PB&R ad hoc committee seeking to make
a
recommendation
about
the
proposed
Aquatic
Center
at
Lower
Castaways,
which
held
a
noticed public workshop in the Community Room on February 12.
Item 5. Irrigation Controller Replacement Phase 2 – Award of Contract No.
9735-1
With a low bid of $472,186 to acquire(?) and install 37 controllers, that comes to nearly $13,000 per
controller.
This contract is clearly for something more than a typical home controller, so it might have been helpful to provide a little more information on what is being contemplated. From the bid package, it looks like it is some version of the Toro 21-1196-IRC-DXi-Controller-SS.
Item 9. Concession Agreement with Kit at the Library, Inc. for Use of the
Concession
Facility
at
the
Central
Library
Located
at
1000
Avocado
Avenue
Why is no information provided regarding the 16 other proposals that were received but rejected by
City
staff?
Why are “limited cosmetic tenant improvements to the Space” anticipated to take as much as 12 months
to
complete?
Libraries are known to attract children, and I seem to recall seeing them in the entry area adjacent
to
the
concession.
Does
the
menu
contain
any
items
that
would
appeal
to
young
children?
Item 10. Amendment to Professional Services Agreement with Dudek, Inc.
for
Consulting
Services
on
the
Comprehensive
General
Plan
Update
(PA2022-080)
The City Council has, in my view, caused significant delay to the general plan update process by
announcing
its
plan,
in
December,
to
dismiss
all
the
GPAC
and
GPUSC
members
and
make
new appointments in the new year, which finally happened as Item 11 at the February 25, 2025, meeting. I am grateful for my reappointment, and as chair of the subcommittee reviewing the existing Noise
Element
in
the
GPAC’s
prior
configuration,
I
have
considerable
interest
in
the
current
item,
although
I
don’t
yet
know
if
I
will
be
continuing
that
role
in
the
new
iteration.
547
March 25, 2025, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 5 of 6 I might note that at the time the subcommittee and full GPAC made our recommendation, we were
unaware
the
traffic
noise
contours
resulting
from
the
addition
of
6th
Cycle
RHNA
units
(for
everything
but
the
73 freeway
and
toll
road)
had
already
been
projected
by
a
prior
consultant
as
part of the recent Housing Implementation Program EIR (PA2022-0245), specifically in Chapter 4.11 and Appendix E. It appears Dudek is proposing to do something more supported by measurement. In that regard, I am a little puzzled by proposed Task 1.2.b (agenda packet page 10-10), calling for
Dudek
to
evaluate
noise
in
the
Airport
Area
“
based
upon
sound
level
contour
mapping
from
the
corresponding
Airport
Land
Use
Compatibility
Plan
(ALUCP)
.”
This
seems
to
be
a
reference
to what the County calls the John Wayne Airport Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP). Dudek seems not to have been informed that the contours in that plan were created in 1985, or before,
and
included
projections,
made
then,
to
the
anticipated
contours
in
2005.
The
City
has
an ongoing dispute with the OC Airport Land Use Commission as to whether the projections published in 1985 are still appropriate contours for planning purposes, and has, indeed, substituted a different set of contours in the November 14, 2023, Item 22 Noise Element revisions mentioned on page 10-2 of the staff report (prepared and adopted without GPAC input).
The
ALUC
does
not
accept
that
change,
and
rejects
submissions
based
on
them.
There
is
a
particularly
acute
disagreement
as
to
the
noise
impact
of
the
small
piston-powered
planes
that
fly
over
what
the
City
calls
the
“Airport
Area”
north
of
Bristol,
yet
no
one
seems
to
have
any
actual
measurements
to
support
their
view
of
what
the
current
situation
there
actually
is.
Assuming this item is approved, I hope staff will instruct Dudek to perform some of its long-term monitoring
(Task
1.1)
in
that
area.
I am also a little concerned about the clarity of Task 2. Although entitled “GPAC Subcommittee Coordination,”
the
unnumbered
opening
paragraph
suggests
Dudek
feels
it
has
more
than
fulfilled
its
obligation
to
attend
meetings
of
the
full
GPAC,
since
the
ones
it
has
attended
to
date
ran
longer
than
the
1-hour
anticipated
(as
future
ones
may
also).
Do
Dudek
and
staff
have
a
clear
understanding
of
how
many
additional
full
GPAC
and
GPUSC
meetings
Dudek
is
expected
to
attend?
Is
there
sufficient
budget
for
them?
As to the GPAC subcommittees, the Council may wish to know there are six subcommittees, organized
to
review
various
combinations
of
general
plan
elements,
as
well
as
one
for
the
Vision
Statement.
The
proposed
12 meetings
would
mean
Dudek
attendance
at
at
most
2 each
to
review
their
proposed
revisions,
none
of
which
have
yet
been
seen,
before
they
go
to
the
Planning
Commission
and
Council.
That
seems
possible,
but
minimal.
Does
staff
anticipate
the
possibility
of
a
need
for
additional
GPAC
subcommittee
discussion
meetings
without
Dudek
present?
548
March 25, 2025, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 6 of 6 Item 12. Ordinance No. 2025-5: An Amendment to Section 15.02.095 of the
Newport
Beach
Municipal
Code
Related
to
Timeframes
for
Completion
of
Construction
As noted in my comments when this item was first introduced (and then withdrawn) on March 11, it is unusual in that the current Municipal Code cites Ordinances No. 2023-22 § 693 and 2022-26 § 1 as the source of the language presently found in NBMC Section 15.02.095, and makes no mention of Ordinance No. 2022-8, where the sunset provision resides. I concluded from this that no action was needed since neither of those ordinances makes any mention
of
the
provisions
they
added
being
subject
to
sunsetting.
But
perhaps
action
is
needed,
since
neither
seems
to
have
explicitly
repealed
the
uncodified
parts
Ordinance
No.
2022-8.
Assuming the April 21, 2025, sunsetting provision in Ordinance No. 2022-8 is still operative, it would
appear
the
present
ordinance
repealing
it
will
not
be
adopted
until
a
second
reading
on
April
15,
and
will
not
become
effective
until
30 days
later,
on
May
15. What will happen to projects that, under the prior code that staff believes will be restored for the 24 days
from
April
21 to
May
15,
would
need
to
file
for
an
extension
during
that
time?
Item XIII.A. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS This item involving three non-City-owned properties with no explanation of what the City’s interest
in
them
might
be,
also
seems
rather
unusual.
One of the properties, the former Balboa Theatre at 707 E. Balboa Blvd., the City formerly owned
and
sold.
What
happened
to
that
new
owner’s
plans?
Is
the
City
considering
buying
it
back?
Another, at 12 Corporate Plaza Drive, is the subject of an active Preliminary Application, PA2025-0017, for 38 residential units in an 85-foot high tower. Is the City contemplating becoming a partner in the development? And the remaining one, at 3848 Campus Drive, has been the subject of prior closed session agendas, such as on January 28, and also seems to have a pending application, PA2023-0145, to construct a private self-storage facility on the site. What became of those?
549
March 25, 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 March 11, 2025 City Council Meeting The passage shown in italics below is from the draft minutes with a suggested correction shown in strikeout underline format. The page number refers to Volume 66.
HOA meeting, the trash interceptor ribbon cutting, the OCIACC Nowruz Spring Festival, and the Fire Station 2 demolition party and extended congratulations to Bob Olsen Olson.” Item 3. Ordinance No. 2025-4: Amending the Newport Beach Municipal Code to Update Administrative Procedures Related to Good Cause Determinations and the Extension of Deadlines for Short-Term Lodging Permits
This matter involving who should be authorized to grant exceptions to STL permit deadlines, and for what reasons, is unusual in that parts of it have had fairly extensive Council discussion even though it has never been publicly announced on any agenda, including this one, as a matter for such discussion.
The proposal started as part of Item 3 on the October 8, 2024, consent calendar (along with an unrelated Finance Department matter about demolition debris hauling), from which it was pulled for a discussion that was continued to a future planning session.
That discussion was indeed continued (see video) at the Council’s February 1, 2025, planning session, and a person hoping for relief from the STL deadlines was apparently even expected to plead their case to the Council. However, nothing on the agenda reminded the public that such a discussion by the Council was planned for that day.
In the February 1 discussion, Council members seemed to agree that what qualified as “good cause” needed to be defined (which it had not been in the October 8 offering). But curiously, the example of an aggrieved person, who turned out to be a professional asset manager who had apparently failed to properly manage his client’s asset rather than a property owner who had innocently missed a deadline due to some special hardship, never explained the unusual circumstances that had caused him to miss a deadline (see video), nor did the Council discuss whether they would agree his circumstances constituted “good cause” for relief or, more generally, how they thought “good cause” should be defined.
The matter returned as Item 5 on the March 11 consent calendar, where a definition of “good cause” was proposed, but not discussed, although I provided extensive written comments.
As a policy matter, I think it is good for the City to have flexibility in the administration of its regulations. However, in the case of STL permits, since having one is a privilege rather than a right, and there is a long waiting list of people not presently having a permit, but hoping to get one, I would think leniency for those who have the permits but fail to follow the rules, including Received After Agenda Printed
March 25, 2025
Written Comments
550
March 25, 2025, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 2 of 6 failing to meet deadlines, should be very limited. I would also think that in evaluating whether a missed
STL
permit
deadline
should
be
excused,
factors
in
addition
to
the
existence
of
good
cause
should
be
considered,
such
as
whether
the
property
has
been
the
subject
of
complaints
or
other
enforcement
actions.
The
Council
might
also
want
to
include
in
the
ordinance
examples
of
circumstances
which
staff
should
not
regard
as
“good
cause”
or
limit
how
long
after
a
missed
deadline
a
request
for
extension
can
be
entertained.
It is, therefore, disappointing that on March 11 the Council did not publicly discuss whether the rather
broad
definition
offered
by
staff
meets
their
expectations
(and
how
it
would
be
applied
to
the
unknown
circumstances
of
the
asset
manager
at
the
February
1 Planning
Session)
–
or
whether
there
should
be
a
very
narrow
definition
provided
for
staff
to
use
to
which
a
mechanism
could
be
added
for
more
problematic
claims
to
be
referred
on
appeal
to
the
Council.
Even assuming the Council members individually reviewed the proposed definition of “good cause”
for
missing
an
STL
permit
deadline,
and
found
it
met
their
expectations,
I
continue
to
think
the
proposed
ordinance
is
defective
for
two
reasons.
Making Definition Applicable to Entire Municipal Code is a Bad Idea First, rather than placing the definition of “good cause” in the chapter of the Municipal Code regarding
STL
permits,
to
which
it
is
intended
to
apply,
staff
proposes
putting
it
in
a
section
that
will
make
it
applicable
to
the
entire
Municipal
Code.
This a bad recommendation, or, at the very least, a decision that needs further review. As I pointed out in my March 11 written comments, the phrase “good cause” appears 27 times in 19 different
chapters
of
the
code,
in
each
of
which
it
may
have
been
intended
to
be
understood
differently.
Inserted
after-the-fact
a
definition
that
may
or
may
not
have
been
intended
is
not
wise.
A recent example of the problems this can cause was the entry of Pacaso fractional ownership homes into the Newport Beach market. As indicated in my comments on that subject on pages 12-44 & 45 of the March 14, 2023, Council agenda packet, since 1982, with adoption of Ordinance No. 82-14, Newport Beach had perfectly clear regulations in its Zoning Code (Title 20 of the Municipal Code) intended to prohibit such activity (time-share arrangements in residential areas).
However,
the
original
language
used
the
phrases
“time-share
projects
”
and
“time-share
development,
”
which
were
explicitly
intended
to
apply
to
conversion
of
existing
residences
to
a
time-share
model,
including
fractional
ownership,
even
though
the
terms
“project”
and
“development”
were
not
explicitly
defined.
However,
without
considering
this,
the
Zoning
Code
was
repeatedly
rearranged
and
revised,
and
eventually,
definitions
of
“project”
and
“development”
applicable
to
the
entire
Zoning
Code
were
added.
And
even
though
the
introduction
of
those
definitions
was
presumably
not
intended
to
alter
the
meaning
of
the
time-share
regulations,
by
the
time
Pacaso
came
to
town,
staff
said
they
did,
and
they
could
not
prohibit
conversions
of
existing
homes,
only
new
construction.
One has to wonder if the Council members have reviewed the 18 Municipal Code chapters unrelated
to
STL
permits
in
which
“good
cause”
appears,
and
determined
that
applying
to
them
551
March 25, 2025, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 3 of 6 the definition proposed in the STL permit context does not alter the meaning of “good cause” that
earlier
Councils
intended
in
those
other
contexts?
Placing Substantive Regulations in Uncodified Portions of Ordinances is a Bad
Idea
Second, although neither the Council nor the public heard the circumstances of the speaker seeking relief at the February 1 Planning Session (only that “things come up”), it appears the intent
of
these
code
revisions
is
to
allow
staff
to
excuse
people
who
have
missed
STL
permit
deadlines.
Yet
the
proposed
code
revisions
are
written
entirely
in
terms
of
extending
deadlines,
which
implies
a
request
to
extend
the
deadline
has
been
received
before
the
deadline
comes.
The fact that an “extension” can be granted retroactively, in effect excusing the missing of a deadline
is
relegated
to
an
obscure
reference
in
uncodified
Section
7 of
the
proposed
ordinance,
on
page
3-13
of
the
agenda
packet.
Not only could the fact that a deadline can be extended retroactively have easily been included in
the
codified
portion
of
the
code,
where
all
those
reading
the
code
would
see
it,
but
the
code
might
even
have
limited
how
long
after
the
fact
a
retroactive
extension
can
be
granted
and
how
long
such
an
extension
can
be.
The problems that can be created by not codifying substantive portions of regulations is illustrated
by
Item
12 on
the
current
agenda.
In
that
case,
when
enacting
a
Building
Code
revision
in
2022,
the
Council
only
intended
for
it
to
be
in
effect
until
April
21,
2025,
at
which
time
the
unrevised
text
would
return.
It
would
have
been
relatively
easy
to
include
this
proviso
in
the
code
(the
state
legislature
does
this
quite
frequently).
Instead,
much
like
here,
it
exists
only
in
an
obscure
uncodified
section
of
the
2022
ordinance
(see
page
12-21
of
the
present
agenda
packet).
Despite
a
subsequent
ordinance
reenacting
the
code
section
in
question
without
any
mention
of
an
expiration,
the
proviso
in
the
earlier
ordinance
seems
to
remain,
like
a
zombie,
completely
unknown
to
those
reading
the
existing
code,
which
does
not
even
mention
the
ordinance
containing
it
in
its
revision
history.
In the present case, the fact that STL deadline extensions can be retroactive will not only be unknown
to
readers
of
the
code,
but
it
may
assume
a
similar
zombie
status
if
the
code
were
subsequently
revised
without
an
intent
to
be
retroactive
but
without
explicitly
repealing
the
present
ordinance.
Item 4. Resolution No. 2025-12: Creating the Ad Hoc Refuse Committee
I think the idea of staff reaching out in considering its response to refuse regulations is a good one,
and
the
present
proposal
is
an
improvement
over
the
roll-out
of
the
three-cart
residential
collection
system,
regarding
which
input
seems
to
have
been
sought
from
a
3-member
Council
Ad
Hoc
Solid
Waste
Committee
that
was
never
formally
appointed
and
which
the
public
knew
nothing
about.
552
March 25, 2025, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 4 of 6 That said, I think it would be better for the Council to appoint a committee of affected residents and
business
owners
from
whom
staff
could
seek
input.
The
advantage
of
that,
is
that
the
Brown
Act
would
require
the
discussions
to
be
noticed
and
public.
The problem with Council-appointed ad hoc committees (and with ad hoc committees of the City boards
and
commissions
in
general,
is
that
they
are
created
precisely
to
avoid
public
visibility.
Since
the
Brown
Act
does
not
require
it,
their
discussions
are
rarely
if
ever
public.
As
a
result
there
is
a
complete
lack
of
transparency
as
to
how
their
recommendations
were
arrived
at
and
what
input
was
considered.
A happy recent, but still extremely rare, exception was the PB&R ad hoc committee seeking to make
a
recommendation
about
the
proposed
Aquatic
Center
at
Lower
Castaways,
which
held
a
noticed public workshop in the Community Room on February 12.
Item 5. Irrigation Controller Replacement Phase 2 – Award of Contract No.
9735-1
With a low bid of $472,186 to acquire(?) and install 37 controllers, that comes to nearly $13,000 per
controller.
This contract is clearly for something more than a typical home controller, so it might have been helpful to provide a little more information on what is being contemplated. From the bid package, it looks like it is some version of the Toro 21-1196-IRC-DXi-Controller-SS.
Item 9. Concession Agreement with Kit at the Library, Inc. for Use of the
Concession
Facility
at
the
Central
Library
Located
at
1000
Avocado
Avenue
Why is no information provided regarding the 16 other proposals that were received but rejected by
City
staff?
Why are “limited cosmetic tenant improvements to the Space” anticipated to take as much as 12 months
to
complete?
Libraries are known to attract children, and I seem to recall seeing them in the entry area adjacent
to
the
concession.
Does
the
menu
contain
any
items
that
would
appeal
to
young
children?
Item 10. Amendment to Professional Services Agreement with Dudek, Inc.
for
Consulting
Services
on
the
Comprehensive
General
Plan
Update
(PA2022-080)
The City Council has, in my view, caused significant delay to the general plan update process by
announcing
its
plan,
in
December,
to
dismiss
all
the
GPAC
and
GPUSC
members
and
make
new appointments in the new year, which finally happened as Item 11 at the February 25, 2025, meeting. I am grateful for my reappointment, and as chair of the subcommittee reviewing the existing Noise
Element
in
the
GPAC’s
prior
configuration,
I
have
considerable
interest
in
the
current
item,
although
I
don’t
yet
know
if
I
will
be
continuing
that
role
in
the
new
iteration.
553
March 25, 2025, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 5 of 6 I might note that at the time the subcommittee and full GPAC made our recommendation, we were
unaware
the
traffic
noise
contours
resulting
from
the
addition
of
6th
Cycle
RHNA
units
(for
everything
but
the
73 freeway
and
toll
road)
had
already
been
projected
by
a
prior
consultant
as
part of the recent Housing Implementation Program EIR (PA2022-0245), specifically in Chapter 4.11 and Appendix E. It appears Dudek is proposing to do something more supported by measurement. In that regard, I am a little puzzled by proposed Task 1.2.b (agenda packet page 10-10), calling for
Dudek
to
evaluate
noise
in
the
Airport
Area
“
based
upon
sound
level
contour
mapping
from
the
corresponding
Airport
Land
Use
Compatibility
Plan
(ALUCP)
.”
This
seems
to
be
a
reference
to what the County calls the John Wayne Airport Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP). Dudek seems not to have been informed that the contours in that plan were created in 1985, or before,
and
included
projections,
made
then,
to
the
anticipated
contours
in
2005.
The
City
has
an ongoing dispute with the OC Airport Land Use Commission as to whether the projections published in 1985 are still appropriate contours for planning purposes, and has, indeed, substituted a different set of contours in the November 14, 2023, Item 22 Noise Element revisions mentioned on page 10-2 of the staff report (prepared and adopted without GPAC input).
The
ALUC
does
not
accept
that
change,
and
rejects
submissions
based
on
them.
There
is
a
particularly
acute
disagreement
as
to
the
noise
impact
of
the
small
piston-powered
planes
that
fly
over
what
the
City
calls
the
“Airport
Area”
north
of
Bristol,
yet
no
one
seems
to
have
any
actual
measurements
to
support
their
view
of
what
the
current
situation
there
actually
is.
Assuming this item is approved, I hope staff will instruct Dudek to perform some of its long-term monitoring
(Task
1.1)
in
that
area.
I am also a little concerned about the clarity of Task 2. Although entitled “GPAC Subcommittee Coordination,”
the
unnumbered
opening
paragraph
suggests
Dudek
feels
it
has
more
than
fulfilled
its
obligation
to
attend
meetings
of
the
full
GPAC,
since
the
ones
it
has
attended
to
date
ran
longer
than
the
1-hour
anticipated
(as
future
ones
may
also).
Do
Dudek
and
staff
have
a
clear
understanding
of
how
many
additional
full
GPAC
and
GPUSC
meetings
Dudek
is
expected
to
attend?
Is
there
sufficient
budget
for
them?
As to the GPAC subcommittees, the Council may wish to know there are six subcommittees, organized
to
review
various
combinations
of
general
plan
elements,
as
well
as
one
for
the
Vision
Statement.
The
proposed
12 meetings
would
mean
Dudek
attendance
at
at
most
2 each
to
review
their
proposed
revisions,
none
of
which
have
yet
been
seen,
before
they
go
to
the
Planning
Commission
and
Council.
That
seems
possible,
but
minimal.
Does
staff
anticipate
the
possibility
of
a
need
for
additional
GPAC
subcommittee
discussion
meetings
without
Dudek
present?
554
March 25, 2025, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 6 of 6 Item 12. Ordinance No. 2025-5: An Amendment to Section 15.02.095 of the
Newport
Beach
Municipal
Code
Related
to
Timeframes
for
Completion
of
Construction
As noted in my comments when this item was first introduced (and then withdrawn) on March 11, it is unusual in that the current Municipal Code cites Ordinances No. 2023-22 § 693 and 2022-26 § 1 as the source of the language presently found in NBMC Section 15.02.095, and makes no mention of Ordinance No. 2022-8, where the sunset provision resides. I concluded from this that no action was needed since neither of those ordinances makes any mention
of
the
provisions
they
added
being
subject
to
sunsetting.
But
perhaps
action
is
needed,
since
neither
seems
to
have
explicitly
repealed
the
uncodified
parts
Ordinance
No.
2022-8.
Assuming the April 21, 2025, sunsetting provision in Ordinance No. 2022-8 is still operative, it would
appear
the
present
ordinance
repealing
it
will
not
be
adopted
until
a
second
reading
on
April
15,
and
will
not
become
effective
until
30 days
later,
on
May
15. What will happen to projects that, under the prior code that staff believes will be restored for the 24 days
from
April
21 to
May
15,
would
need
to
file
for
an
extension
during
that
time?
Item XIII.A. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS This item involving three non-City-owned properties with no explanation of what the City’s interest
in
them
might
be,
also
seems
rather
unusual.
One of the properties, the former Balboa Theatre at 707 E. Balboa Blvd., the City formerly owned
and
sold.
What
happened
to
that
new
owner’s
plans?
Is
the
City
considering
buying
it
back?
Another, at 12 Corporate Plaza Drive, is the subject of an active Preliminary Application, PA2025-0017, for 38 residential units in an 85-foot high tower. Is the City contemplating becoming a partner in the development? And the remaining one, at 3848 Campus Drive, has been the subject of prior closed session agendas, such as on January 28, and also seems to have a pending application, PA2023-0145, to construct a private self-storage facility on the site. What became of those?
555