City Council - Regular Meeting

The time is 04:00, and I will now call 02/24/2026 regular city council meeting to order. Madam Clerk, roll call, please.

Six council members present and council member Barto absent.

Okay. Do we not have the reverend here? For the for the invocation? Is he not I don't see him. Okay. Councilmember Grant is going to lead us in invocation followed by Mayor Potem Blom who's going to lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance.

Okay. I'll give this a try. Thank you for this opportunity, for this council to meet with our community in an effort to promote good guidance and good governance in our city. We're very fortunate to live in a place where we have a beautiful environment, wonderful residents, a vibrant business community, and a fabulous opportunity to enrich the lives of everyone who lives, works, plays here in Newport Beach. And we should appreciate that, and make sure that we make note of it at each and every meeting, so that we do not forget that we are here to govern in the best interests of our community.

Thank you.

Please join me in supporting the greatest country in the world. I pledge allegiance to the flag of The United States Of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation

Okay. It is my great honor now to recognize the incredible young men and women of the Newport Harbor High School boys water polo team. Under the leadership of head coach coach Ross Sinclair, the sailors completed an extraordinary 33 to one season and earned the title of Sunset League champions. They went on to capture back to back CIF open division championships defeating Corona del Mar high school in a thrilling championship match. The team continued its dominance by winning the CIF Division one Regional Championship and earning national recognition as national champions, an incredible accomplishment.

Your hard work, teamwork, and dedication have made our entire community proud. Congratulations on an unforgettable season. At this time, I'd like to invite the team up to say a few words.

Good afternoon, mayor and councilman. First off, I'd like to recognize that Ross, our head coach, is not here right now. He's coaching the girls in their CIF regional play, which hopefully they're gonna win. Not sure. But I'd like to start off by, thanking you guys for giving us the opportunity to be recognized here. It's a great honor to play for this city. I mean, most of us have spent our entire life here and have loved every second of it. So winning with Newport on our cap is super sweet every time. We love it. This season was super special.

It was led by 14 seniors that have played together our whole lives. I think 12 of which are going off to play in, college next year. Two are going to serve our country at the Naval Academy, so a pretty special group. We it was super cool to be able to play in the new pool. Being able to practice and win there was super special, and I'm super proud of the team and the season we put together. And hopefully next year we're gonna keep kicking butt. So thank you guys.

Thank you. We're gonna have you all join us right here in front of the dais for a photo. And at this time, I'd like to recognize the Corona del Mar High School girls flag football team for an incredible season. Under leadership of head coach Theo Rocos, the team captured the program's very first CIF Southern Section Championship, an extraordinary accomplishment in only the second year of the sports inclusion in CIF playoffs. This talented team features mostly underclassmen, including sophomore quarterback Addison Stern, who was named CIF player of the year and coach Rocos, who earned CIF coach of the year honors for guiding the team to the division two championship.

Please join me in welcoming the team forward to say a few words. Come on up.

Thank you for having us. A couple of couple of quick thank yous. Council member Weber was fantastic in our run. And then on the way up to the championship game, we received a video from council member Stapleton. That goes a long way in support and was very cool. And, you know, he finished with, know, you're either first or last, and that's absolutely that's absolutely right. So just to talk about the season real quick. Coach of the year honors are kind of silly. I got the best staff in in all of flag football. Coach Joseph Weber, coach Josh Calvin, coach Jimmy, coach Kathy are here, coach Billy Morris is not here.

I got a great group of parents. Got a great school that supports us. The team, the the ladies that are here are Reese Briding, Sam Matloff, Father Prohoshka, ASD, Hannah Sofia Dickens, and then we have Mia Balabanian, Brooke Morris. These three or three of our captains, Adi Stern couldn't be here. Shannon Perot and our center Hudson Rasek. So we were a sub 500 team going in the playoffs, 80% freshmen and sophomores. Put it together at the right time, parent support. We got a great team. Our goal is to be the best team in the country, full stop, and save us a spot next year. But we really want to say how much that we felt that the town was behind us.

The people that came out that really had nothing Friday night, right, Saturday night, better things to do. But thank you to the city. It's awesome. You guys do great work, and we really appreciate everything you do for us. So thank you.

Congratulations again. We'll join you down there for a picture. Madam clerk, please read the notice regarding public comments on agenda and non agenda items.

The city council of Newport Beach welcomes and encourages community participation. Public comments are invited on items listed on the agenda and non agenda items. Speakers must limit comments to three minutes per person to allow anyone to speak. Written comments are encouraged as well. The city council has a discretion to extend or or shorten the time limit on agenda or non agenda items.

Just to clarify, the the reason for this rule is not to take anyone's First Amendment right away, but make sure that people don't get two bites at the apple on any one issue, that everybody gets equal time. We'll now proceed with public comments on agenda and non agenda items. Please note that members of the public will still have an opportunity to comment on agenda items under consent, public hearing, and current business later in the meeting, provided they do not offer comments on those items at this time.

Good afternoon, Adam Leverins. On February 7 and February 12, I'd emailed mayor and council materials. And then on the last regular council meeting on the tenth, I'd handed seven packets of correspondence to staff which were to be distributed to each of you. With these, seeking as you've heard me say that you spend some time, I know you're all very busy, but becoming more fully informed of what's going on with the Tidelands management in Newport Harbor. At the last meeting an ad hoc committee was formed.

But there's a lot of things to be considered here and nuances and significant downside risks and facts and considerations. Some of that I'll start with, if I can only do this three minutes at a time, I'm kind of limited, but this on the screen is from the annual Tidelands, a city annual Tidelands financial tied and submerged land statement. And it notes that in Newport there are 1,200 moorings, 1,200 residential piers and 1,900 commercial slips and ties. The revenue from those 1,200 moorings, which are the most primitive and difficult form of boating access in Newport, They contribute 1,900,000 annually into the Tidelands funds. More than half again as many commercial for profit slips and sideline ties 1,380,000.00 and 1,200 about the same number of residential peers 282,000.

In 2024, the city received letters from the coastal and state lands commission using words as fee discrepancies and significant disparities that's based on figures like this. And the letter from the Coastal Commission says quote, the city informed commission staff that similar to mooring rental rates, private slip rental rates are not also not consistent with fair market rent close quote. A horrible can of worms has been opened up by particular past and present harbor commissioners trying to redefine what market rent is. There's a lot of risks to everybody. I'm I'm advocating for affordable coastal access for everybody.

And there's ways to do this. And I'm just those letters from the State Lands Commission the same month those were received by the city mayor and council at that time 07/09/2024 voted unanimously to increase residential peer rates 1.7% and to increase mooring rates three to over 500, even having it been advised of the significant disparity. And this is the kind of votes that result from only listening to staff in the harbor commissioner. I like some harbor commissioners. I like some former harbor commissioners, but there are others who seem to be advancing agendas that are going to harm everybody.

And as you're the ultimate decision makers, it's your duty to become informed. Thank you.

The next speaker.

Good evening, mayor Kleinman and council members. My name is Wade Womack. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. And Mayor Kleiman, thank you for engaging the public. Really appreciate it.

You know, we're all always trying to improve in the spirit of city improvement or what have you and all to put in our best foot forward, I just wanted to share some thoughts. Dear city council, I'm concerned about what appears to be recurring pattern of expedited decision making on significant policy and capital projects. Recent examples include the quick action directing staff to begin design plans for relocating the police station in our public park. The Lower Castaways pool design expenditure that was ultimately for not. The creation of non public and non transparent ad hoc committees or subcommittees at numerous council meetings.

While each issue distinct is may be distinct, there appears to be a consistent acceleration of major policy and spending decisions without customary depth of public engagement. Over time, this pattern risks diminishing public trust in the city's deliberative process. Good governance requires transparency, measured analysis, and genuine community participation, particularly for land use and public access issues. When multiple high pact decisions are advanced on abbreviated timelines, it creates concern that the process safeguards are being bypassed rather than strengthened. The cumulative effect of repeatedly advancing significant initiatives under compressed timelines gives the appearance of urgency driven policy making rather than data driven necessity.

I respectfully urge the council to recommit to a transparent and deliberate process that ensures meaningful public engagement, adequate review time and clear documentation before significant commitments are made, a measured approach will strengthen both the outcome of these decisions and the public's confidence in them. Thank you for your consideration.

Next speaker, please.

Carmen Brosso. When addressing the Item three of the agenda that is Ordinance twenty twenty six-two, I would like to get feedback from the city, Mr. Harp, Mr. Georges, regarding Item A-nine that talks about the proper propounded runs of the evidence shows that any person has violated any of the rules in any way related to a short term lodging permit, the permit shall be revoked. I know that there was a little bit of a discussion back on July 10 about that.

I read preponderance in civil cases, no criminal cases, is evidence of 50%, so much less than beyond reasonable doubt. Shall be revoked means it's mandatory, there is not another option from a legal term. So if there is a this basically says you will revoke the permit period. I understand that the staff report has verbiage that this will be enforced only when there is a gracious activity or whatever, but reality is a few years from now, you may not be here, Mr. Ehren, Mr.

Georges may not be here. And what people are going to refer, the city staff are going to refer to is the ordinance. The staff report is simply a document that is going to be buried in the website. So really, the language that is important is what is in the ordinance, not the staff report or a verbal comment from Mr. Harp saying, Oh, we will only do that when it's a severe case. That's not what the document reflects. That is the legal document that shows the law, the ordinance. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Council, Mayor Kleiman and staff. My name is Ann Stenton. I'm with Newport Mooring Association. The NMA appreciates the city's efforts to move forward with the Tidelands Management Committee. These are important issues for the harbor and we recognize the time and attention that they require.

While we would have welcomed and continue to encourage a more inclusive and transparent stakeholder process from the outset, the Newport Mooring Association does remain committed to working constructively with the city towards equitable and sustainable outcomes for all Thailand users. We look forward to participating in a truly collaborative process that reflects the shared goals of fair access and responsible stewardship of the Harbor. In that light, we are requesting monthly meetings beginning as soon as possible. So we are aware of updates and can offer input from the community. We believe meaningful regular and ongoing stakeholder engagement is crucial to the success of the committee. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other speakers?

Good afternoon, Mayor and City Council members and staff. My name is Jeff Flint. I am the Executive Director by Contract for the Newport Beach Short Term Rental Alliance. I know past couple of occasions, Todd Priest, is a friend of mine has spoken on behalf of our industry, he's not available to be here tonight. So you get me, that's a poor job replacing Todd, but I'll do my best at it.

So first of all, think it's important to say on behalf of the industry association is we totally respect the intent and the goals behind the City Council on what you're trying to achieve here tonight. I think the 1,500 permit holders, small businesses, property owners in the short term lodging program in the city, they care just as much as you do about this being a safe destination for the residents, for the guests. And so we have no quarrel with the intent behind what you're trying to do tonight. What we've the concerns we've expressed, you heard it from the previous speaker, two speakers ago is the black and white text of the ordinance says violations under has been clarified under certain provisions in the code shall revoke rather than may revoke or there is a procedure to consider revocation, it says shall revoke. Now and our objections to that language continue, that has not been changed.

What we do appreciate is the dialogue with the city after the last council meeting where you asked the city attorney to engage with us and get some intent language in the staff report, which is reflected and we are very appreciative of that. That is part of the legislative record right now. It is something that enforcement staff and hearing officers and other legal proceedings can refer to if there's a dispute over whether or not a permit should be revoked or not. And we do appreciate that. It is an improvement.

It doesn't satisfy all of our concerns. This is an industry that generates $10,000,000 a year in revenue for the city, which gets to pay for really important things like public safety protection and the like. What I would point out is under this ordinance, there is a very real chance, would say perhaps even a likelihood that a property owner or a property management company will do everything right. They will screen their guests, they will try to police their guests and the guests themselves turns out to be a bad actor will do something wrong and you will impose a greater penalty on the property owner and the property management company who tried to do everything right than the guest who was the real bad actor. That will in almost all certainly happen under the ordinance if you pass it tonight as is.

That being said, we would hope going forward that you engage in a constructive dialogue with the industry, try to work with us. I think the people who operate these properties have some really good suggestions on how you can achieve the goals you're trying to achieve better than the ordinance that you are looking to pass tonight. So again, we appreciate the improvement. We appreciate the staff direction and the changes since two weeks ago. Hopefully the process going forward can be better in collaboration with the industry and thanks for your time.

Thank you. Any other speakers?

Good afternoon. Madam Mayor, council members and city officials, thank you for your time today. My name is Robert Van Dyke, I'm Managing Director for Beachview Rentals. We're a short term property management company here in Newport Beach. We take care of a little over 150 homes in Newport Beach.

We support the intent of the ordinance that's before us all today. The public safety issues that drove this proposal are serious. Residents deserve peaceful neighborhoods and first responders deserve clear rules and support during peak periods when elevated service is required. While we support it, we're also a little bit conflicted. And I say that because last year after spring break, which was a difficult one, city called in a debriefing session, law enforcement was there, city officials were there.

And the first thing we were told because it was property managers that were in the room is quote, you're not the problem. And we sat there and we tried to you know brainstorm and share some best practices. Time went by and then of course, fourth of July came. And by everyone's recognition, he was one of the worst on city records. And yet with those two major times of year, our our company came through and we didn't receive a single citation on any one of our homes.

In fact, we look at all of of 2025, we only received one parking citation for the entire year for the properties we manage. And I share that with you not for a pat on the back but more out of fear. As the gentleman just before me said, we can do a lot of things right but we're not infallible and no one person or company is. And as a result, if a bad actor, a bad egg, a bad guest in this case sneaks through our rigorous process that we put people through just to stay in one of our homes, The outcome can be devastating for a family. And that family, I mean a property owner.

And several property owners in our portfolio are legacy families, meaning grandparents have passed down their property to children to grandchildren. And now all of a sudden, if a bad egg, a bad guest sneaks through the system, that family potentially loses an income flow, okay, having done nothing wrong themselves. And so I'd like that to be considered if possible when this ordinance is moving forward. And our request is narrow and practical. Your staff report in the last two weeks has already addressed most of the concerns that we had with the ordinance.

So we're very happy about that. But we're asking that you please adopt strong enforcement tools while also ensuring the ordinance text matches the intent in the staff report. We're aware that California courts follow statutory interpretation doctrine tied heavily to legislative intent and staff reports are considered a primary source of that intent. But why force the city and owners into litigation when improving the language in the actual ordinance would solve a lot of problems. Our recommendation is simple, adopt the ordinance but include clear language in the ordinance text that aligns enforcement with the city's stated intent distinguishing responsible operators who take reasonable measures from operators who do not.

Okay, I thank you for your time today.

Thank you. Any other speakers?

Mayor Kleiman and members of the council, my name is Jim Mosier. I don't know if this is an agenda or a non agenda comment, but I downloaded what I thought was the agenda packet last Thursday when it was first posted. And over the weekend I read that, and yesterday and the day before I wrote some comments which I submitted to you. So I was quite surprised today to see that the agenda is not the agenda that I was commenting on, at least in the sequence of events that is on it. What I thought was item number six on the agenda, on the copy that's in the lobby, has been moved to number 12.

So I would point out to you in the written comments I submitted, all the numbers that I cited after number six are not the current numbers for those items. My suggestion is, and I guess you were somehow informed that the agenda had been changed, for the public's information I think it would be good that when we download an agenda, it says in bold letters at the top that it's been revised, if it has been and actually note on it what the revision is. Because I now know the numbers have been changed, but I don't know if the staff reports may be different than the ones I read. I don't know if the resolutions before you may be different than the ones that I saw. And I think that's a real problem.

My recollection is, in the past, there was red letters up here saying revised. I don't see those now. I think we need to get back to that practice. Thank you. Thank you. Any other speakers?

Good evening,

my name is Laura Curran. I brought both pairs of glasses depending on how much you need to read versus versus see. First I want to thank the CERT team, David Gibson and Matthew Minicker for leading the flood training at the lifeguard station this Friday. Amazing, great to be at the beach and do CERT flood training. So that's important.

But I'm here today to talk about Civic Center Park, often known as the Library Park, Bunny Henge, or the Sculpture Park. On January 31, and if you look in the video starting at minute one fifty or hour one fifty four, council approved a $1,500,000 addition to the CIP budget for study of the Civic Center Park as the location for the new police station, helipad, fuel tanks, parking structure. So I thought it would be helpful to talk about why this, first of all, is not a this building a police station in Civic Center Park is a bad idea, and that we've already studied this park. In fact, this is one of the most studied sites in all of Newport Beach, and I would say Orange County. So let me start with, in 2005, I I started walking this park with Jan VanderSloot, after whom the Castaways Oak Grove is named.

And we talked about a vision for this park to be an active park, habitated primarily with coastal natives. And I have an email from February with Jim Cinacek and Mr. Enright about the geological features of the park. So we were studying this back then. The residents in 2008 voted for a city hall in the park.

In 2009, LSA Associates conducted geological and environmental studies in the park. In 2010, the park plan started to move forward. In 2013, the park opened. Studies were conducted for all options throughout that process. In fact, one of the studies found by LSA and also by Ron Vanderhoef of Rogers Gardens that the park has a riparian wetland, which is also a v shaped ravine at the northern end.

And that any building in this area would encounter significant drainage issues. Ron Vanderhoef, the general manager of Rogers Gardens and visit Tomatomania this weekend, also completed a study for city in 2014, which showed there are over 60 native plant species existing in the park. These native plant species bring out creatures including birds, bees, bunnies, and butterflies, which live in the park. And if you stand in the park, you will hear them actively while you're visiting.

So

if you are interested in learning more about the park, please contact me. If you have an issue and you wanna share it with council, you can email council@councilatcitycouncilNewportBeachca.us. Thank you. Thank you. Any other speakers?

Reverend Jordan, my apologies. I now see you sitting back there. Do you want to just come up and maybe give us some updates on what's going on locally?

Good afternoon. I apologize, I was a little tardy and my goodness, the Newport Beach City Council is on time and I missed the implication. So I just stand simply to offer a prayer if you entertain that and to thank you for inviting me. On this February, black history month, I think I may be the only African American pastor to lead a church in the city of Newport Beach and I'm proud of that and I hope you are too. So I'd like to offer an invocation and then I'll take my seat because I know you've got lots of business to take care of.

Pray with me please. Good and gracious God, we have gathered into this set place and time seeking your direction, yearning for your love, longing for your wisdom. For oh God you are intentional. Your provision is connected to renewed vision and your power always centered in divine purpose. May our hearts and minds be open to the leading of your spirit.

May our decisions be crafted in your mercy. May our work be covered by your grace and may our city be guided by your love. Forgive us, Oh God for the times when our hunger for wealth and power, you serve your command for love of neighbor. Forgive us for times when our personal ambition outweighs your calling upon our lives. Pardon our neglect for the least of these within our community.

Help us, oh God to turn away from fear and turn toward love. Empower us, oh God, to do better, to live better and be better. Bless our city we pray. May Newport Beach be a beacon of your light to all the world. A city that sits upon a hill welcoming all, embracing all, loving all, being neighbors to all. In your precious and holy name we pray. Amen. Thank you.

Thank you. Now is the time for council announcements, oral reports from council members on committee activities and the time for council members to request an item be placed on a future agenda. Council member Wigand, do you have any announcements or reports?

No, none this evening.

Council member Barto.

No, I do not.

Council member Grant.

I just want to mention that this past weekend, we were able to have a lovely mayor's dinner sponsored by Speak Up Newport, who has been doing the mayor's dinner for almost fifty years now. We were able to honor our mayor Lauren Kleinman, and about 500 people from our community came out in appreciation of this council, past mayors, and especially Mayor Kleiman. And I just want to thank Speak Up Newport for their continued support in our community, and encourage people to take a look at what they do because it's an important organization that's been going on and it's a lasting organization in our community for many, many, many years. Thank you. Councilmember Weber.

None. Councilmember Stapleton?

Yeah, we just echo that congrats well done at your mayor's dinner last Friday. A great effort to showcase your state of the city and the city of Newport Beach. And thank you to speak up Newport, but most importantly, congratulations, Mayor Kleiman on a job well done.

Thank you. Mayor Pro Tem Blom, back just in time for, I'm guessing, a nonreport.

A nonreport. Okay. Thank you.

Madam Clerk, would you please read the notice regarding public comments on consent calendar?

This is a time in which council members may pull items from the consent calendar for discussions, items one through nine. Public comments are also invited on consent calendar items. Speakers must limit comments on to three minutes. Before speaking, please state your name to the for the record. If an any item is removed from the consent calendar by council member, members of the public are invited to speak on each item for up to three minutes per item.

All matters listed under consent calendar are considered to be routine and will be all enacted by one motion in the form listed below. Council members have received detailed staff reports on each of the items recommending an action. There will be no separate discussion of these items prior to the time the city council votes on a motion unless members of the city council request specific items to be discussed and or removed from the consent calendar for separate action.

Council member Weigand, do you have any items pull from the consent calendar or conflicts to announce related to items number one through nine?

No, I do not.

Council Member Barto. I'd like to pull item three. Council Member Grant. None. Council Member Weber. None. Council Member Stapleton? None. Mayor Potem Blom?

I have a conflict to announce on item four due to a real property interest at 224 Marine Avenue.

And I have none. Are there any members of the public that would like to speak on the consent calendar?

Adam Leverends again. Thank you, Council Member Barto for pulling three. That was fast. On item seven is an amendment to a professional services agreement for video production and programming services with TV pro gear. This is for filming and putting online specific city meetings.

Mr. Mosier wrote I think quite eloquently in his submittal. I hope you read those every time, but I've shared this opinion as well as others. As I pointed out earlier, mooring permit holders pay 1,900,000.0. Last July, the harbor master said to manage the moorings is $316,000 That leaves like an extra 1,600,000.0.

These Harbor Commission meetings are incredibly important. People are paying out of their own pocket to film them. I think with all the talk I hear about transparency, consideration should be given to expanding that, especially given the amount of money these individuals are paying in and what it costs to manage them, I just ask that Harbor Commissions begin to be filmed because they are incredibly important as you will see going forward.

Thank you.

Any other public comments?

Again, Ann Stenton with the Newport Mooring Association. Actually, I was going to say the same thing on item number seven. Considering the importance of the work the Harbor Commission does. I think it would be really important to consider filming that as well. Right now, we're paying to make sure they're filmed and put online and I think that that would be a really great step towards transparency and greater public engagement. Thank you. Thank you.

For three of the ordinance changes on the consent calendar.

It's been removed.

I'm sorry?

It's been removed, so we'll discuss that next.

Okay, thank you.

Any other comments on consent?

Good afternoon, my name is Laura Curran. First of all, have we changed the process on consent calendar where it used to be items were pulled and then we came back around for comment. So are we now taking comments at the same time?

We're taking comments on items number one through nine except for number three that's been pulled which we Okay, will discuss

want to make sure

I understand the process and can explain it to others. So I wanted to comment and commend the council on ordinance number twenty twenty six dash two, which amends various sections of the municipal code to address illegal activity during high risk periods.

So that item got pulled, you have an opportunity to comment in just a They're going You

want me to

come back?

Yeah, that'd be great.

Thank you.

It's for item number three? Yeah. Okay, yes.

Wasn't sure because I heard people commenting.

It's been pulled, we'll discuss that next.

Okay. And I will make a separate comment. There was only one agenda packet. So when I went to read that item, I had, it used to be we had all of these outside and we could read them. If there's only one binder, only one person at a time can read an ordinance. So, okay, thank you.

Thank you. Any other comments on consent calendar? Okay. Do I have a motion?

Madam Mayor, I have the motion to move the balance of the consent calendar with adjustments to the minutes. Council Member Barto pulling item three and my recusal on item number four.

Do I have a second? Council Member Weber seconds. Let's go ahead and vote.

Motion passed by unanimous vote.

Do we have any oh, no, we don't have any reading of the ordinances yet. Okay. We will now discuss item number three that was removed from consent from Councilmember Barto. Did you have specific questions or did you want a staff report?

I had a couple of specific questions, and I just wanted to say that I think my question is probably a different section than some of the public comment. But for such a small matter as shade structures and umbrellas and that portion, which I very much support. I have received so many emails on the topic, so I just wanted to ask for clarification for that and also to talk about what the process would look like because as I asked around, it sounded like that had not been floated to other agencies. And I know from my daughter's experience that a lot of times lifeguards are put in the position of having to enforce changes, particularly municipal codes. So it seems like somewhat of a missed opportunity to work with across agencies.

However, I wanted to ask how that was going to be rectified to and who would be doing the enforcement if we had a plan for that, if that was coming. And also how that would be clarified to the public since there were a lot of of the 50 or so emails I seem read a lot there were a lot of confusion and clarification needed as to what that would entail.

So our office did work with the manager's office and the fire department, lifeguards, police, and code enforcement regarding the regarding the ordinance. We specifically sent it over to Joseph Carr over at the fire department for him to circulate amongst his staff, which includes, you know, lifeguards. And we sent the police department code enforcement. So I think there was a lot of opportunity internally for input on the ordinance before we adopted it. A lot of the provisions are similar to some of our neighboring cities.

So it's not like other cities aren't doing something similar to this. It would typically be code enforcement that would enforce these type of rules. And I think the police, you know, may be called to do it, but typically, it'd be code enforcement. So I'm happy to answer any other questions you have if I haven't answered them already.

Yes. Well, I guess that addresses it, but do we have any kind of plan to kind of do any because again, it's probably not residents who are gonna be having those issues because I would say the number of residents who go down with a single umbrella or use it to swim, it's probably not the issue. It's more of these, know, BRBOs who set it up for their tenants as a service or people who are using it as like a pop up party who have these, you know, 10 tents tied together or, you know, big holiday weekends. Do we have any kind of thing planned for that?

Yes. I I think it's a good point. We'll work with the staff to make sure that people are properly notified, you know, of the new rules and changes. We are gonna be sending out some information to the short term lodging units as well as there'll be periodic notification regarding the safety enhancement zones. So maybe we'll put some additional information in there about all the new ordinances so that make sure everyone's on the same page. Typically with this type of thing, code enforcement issues a warning. It's not like they move right into citations so that individuals are informed of kind of what the rules are.

Okay. Thank you. Councilmember Grant?

Thank you. That addressed some of my concerns as well. We did get quite a few emails from residents on both sides of the issue. I would say I'm fully in support of better safety down at the beaches. We've all been observed what happens sometimes in high use situations and definitely having all the tools that are necessary to enforce good operations down on the beach is essential.

I would say I guess there's a little disconnect because did reach out independently with specifically fire and lifeguards, and I did not get the same answer. I felt that there was not adequate communication with them. I think that had we had a little bit more connectivity with the fire and lifeguards, might even have a better ordinance. I felt it was my responsibility to reach out because I hadn't really understood where exactly how we shape this if it came from, as you mentioned other cities, I did look at other cities ordinances. And again, I'm fully in support.

I just want to make sure that the process is followed so that we satisfy the actual needs of the lifeguards in providing the safety, the police or code enforcement in enforcing the safety. And I did not get that feeling that we did adequately address this with fire and lifeguards. So maybe I just didn't ask the right people, but I think we just need to make sure that we're following a good process going forward.

Yeah. So I don't know if Tara's here, but she was managing the overall process and you know, I was kinda brought in last minute to kinda do the writing up of what what they've been discussing. But last meeting I went to, there were probably 25 city employees in there, and there are plenty of firefighters and lifeguards in there. And when I wrote it up, I sent it to them for input. So I think there was plenty of engagement, but I, you know, I appreciate you're looking into it. And I think if Tara said she could probably explain more of the process of what she went through and kind of, getting the ideas for these type of that went into the ordinance.

Okay, appreciate that. Maybe like I said, maybe there's a disconnect with how the communication came to me and at the end of the day, think we reached the right spot. It's just making sure that we follow that process and craft ordinances that are going to be enforced to our residents and our visitors and businesses and everyone else that really hit the mark. I appreciate all the work on this.

Thank you.

Councilmember Weigand.

Yes. Councilmember Bartow had brought it up in her comments just kind of on the side, but I have been noticing this a lot more in the last few years is the and and this I could speak to mister Flint and his organization if he could relay some of this back to some of his guys, but setting up the beach at 6AM with beach chairs and pop ups and all of the things that block the beach off and and paying people to set up the beach is unacceptable. And I hope that we can have our code enforcement guys go out there and cite those that are bad actors, but it's not something that is appropriate. You can't just set up a beach paying somebody in advance. So I want to make sure that that gets resonated to that and this is kind of addressing some of it I think by eliminating some of the pop ups.

But we have to do a better job of going after those bad actors because you can't just reserve in a section of the beach and ruin it for people who come down just at a normal time of the day. I appreciate that.

Mayor Potenblom.

Thank you. And I appreciate my colleagues' comments up here. I think sometimes, you know, we lose sight of what the purpose of the beach is, and it's for people to enjoy it and safely. And every year, we always tout how many rescues we have, how much we've saved people out there, how safe Newport is. This is just to further ensure that they have the ability to do a job.

And I know that people's enjoyment sometimes takes top precedent for them, but unfortunately, as a municipality, that cannot be our top priority. Our priority has to be the safety and well-being of everyone that shows up to enjoy it. And, you know, I I get it, and you want five shade structures to enjoy the beach and not be in the sun? Yep. But we wanna make sure that we can get every emergency personnel person we need there, we wanna make sure lifeguards have a line of sight, we wanna make sure that people can rescued and saved. And that is the basis and structure of this ordinance. So my full support is behind it.

We'll now go out to public comment on this item.

Hi, this is Jeff Flynn again. And obviously, we'll just incorporate what we said in general public comment. I think everybody on the STLP program into this item now that it was pulled. Just Eric, mean, seen how many see the same thing people that try to get down early and carve off their whole section of the beach. Totally appreciate where you're coming from. What I want to say that's new is we have been working with staff to set up a more regular working group process between the short term lodging program, permit holders and operators on operational issues like that. So that's I think was mentioned that's totally So

just briefly, when you made comments earlier on this topic, that was your chance to speak on it.

Okay. I was trying to address the new item that council member like you brought up.

I'll ask you a

couple That's fine. Okay. I'm good. Yeah. Then just we'll incorporate what we said before in this agenda item, and I'm I'm fine.

Yeah. And I I think it's important that if if people have made comments at the very beginning of the meeting on this agenda item, that was your opportunity to make comments on it. So there's no two bites.

Totally agree. I I wouldn't have gotten up if Eric didn't call me out in a good way.

Well, I wasn't aware of that, but you have not made that comment in previous meetings. But I would like to talk I about

think was actually announced at the very beginning of the meeting that if you make comments on that item on the agenda, that's your chance.

Okay. Can I make a comment on something that has been brought up in the discussion?

So typically, you just have one chance to make comments on an item and you've made your comments.

This is new information that has been just discussed.

Okay, please

go ahead.

And it's regarding the enforceability. You mentioned code enforcement. My experience with code enforcement, you have a very small group and they do a great job, kudos to them, but they are not available late at night. They are not available before 8AM or whatever they start. You call code enforcement, and they are not available. So if you're going to use code enforcement to do the enforcement, they are not going to be able to handle it. Regarding the you mentioned had So

your opportunity to speak. Can't lift

Short term lodging, right? No, I would like to know that you also make the information, you send it to residents because the short term lodging individuals are not the only ones setting EC apps and all that. So really, you should contact all the residents.

Okay, thank Thank

you. Next speaker please.

Good afternoon. Yep, it's always a little hickey when there's a changeover. But so item three reads that the council introduced the ordinance to address recurring public safety concerns during periods of elevated visitor activity because the city has experienced increased calls and violations related to large gatherings, excessive noise, alcohol related offenses, illegal fireworks, and violations with short term lodging units. So as this person said, it does affect all. And I'll just go from experiences I have with my friends who live on Oceanfront or elsewhere in the Peninsula, where people have had parties, they've been at midnight, and it has taken significant time for enforcement to arrive.

Or, there have been people urinating in front of their houses, and when they've called police, they've been told, we don't come for that anymore. Now, I doubt that's our standard response, but one of the things that this ordinance brings up is we are, to your credit, taking enforcement of good behavior at the beach from six in the morning to six at night to six in the morning seriously, and we all appreciate that. So that really calls for more code enforcement, and it calls for more police. And it calls for more police on patrol in our neighborhoods and especially in the Peninsula. So I would posit that one way we can ensure that we have funds for police is to build our police station in the most cost effective manner possible.

So, the proposals to build at 121 Dove cost $90,000,000. Laura. The proposal up at the hill would So, be almost 200,000,000 let's be efficient and effective and careful in stewarding our funds so we can provide our police staff with the resources they need to enforce these ordinances on the Peninsula and throughout the city. Thank Thank

you. Next speaker please.

Ken Rawson. I guess I'm a little confused because as I read the ordinance, it very clearly calls out fire, excuse me, lifeguards, police, and code enforcement. So if you're gonna include it written that way, your residents are gonna read this. They're gonna be knocking on the lifeguards tower saying, hey. That's wrong over there. Or they're gonna be call I'm gonna be calling the police department based on that. So why don't we change the wording? If you're saying it's gonna be code enforcement, only say in the document code enforcement. And I agree with what's been said. Our experience with code enforcement, they're very busy taking care of other issues on the Peninsula.

I'm talking about the Peninsula. That's where I live. So I really wonder if we're gonna have an effective use of this code change. The old amendment that's in here, the old code says that shade structures have to come down at 7PM. I live on the oceanfront. I've been there now for twenty years. I have never seen shade structures come down at 7PM. So I'm saying we're still incorporating these same rules, and they haven't been enforced in the past. I'm wondering what's gonna happen in the future. I strongly question why we're changing it from 10 by 10.

My own review of Huntington Beach and other cities is that's the standard that they use. They nobody have I found is a a six by six pop up canopy. Nobody. So I I'd like to have that information if you're telling me that you found that. I'd like to know what city that is.

Umbrellas, this this new code change is saying five foot spacing between umbrellas. Think about that. That's what I wrote in my email that I sent to the council. If you take a family of four, they sit down with their umbrellas, two umbrellas, five foot spacing, that means the two end people are 14 feet apart. So mom, you wanna be at this end and try to talk to your child down here 14 feet apart.

Every umbrella has got to be spaced five feet from the next umbrella. That doesn't happen now. And I don't believe that's gonna happen in the future. And I don't think it makes sense for codify something that we're not going to enforce. I challenge us that we're really gonna enforce that. Okay? So I'd like to really end this with, I understand, I saw all the emails that were sent in back and forth. Corona Del Mar's got a beach, it's only a mile and a half long. Our peninsula is 5.2 miles long, much different. It can handle the larger canopies. Can't we move this to Parks, Beach, and Recreation Commission and have further discussion to resolve this?

Thank you. Next speaker, please.

Mayor Kliment, members of the council, my name is Jim Moser. First comment about this is to note that ordinances don't go into effect for thirty days, including this one, whatever you do with it tonight. It will not be in effect during the first of the spring break periods that you designated at your last meeting. Second comment I wanted to make is nobody has mentioned the expansion of the enhancement area on the July 4. Until this goes into effect, we have the triple fine enhancement zone in West Newport only for the July 4 day.

This is proposing when it comes near a weekend to expand it to the whole weekend. I'm not sure if you're aware that when the way it is currently written, and I think this ordinance has many problems and should not be adopted tonight. If the fourth of July comes on a Friday, the enhancement and the triple fines will now go on Friday, Saturday, Sunday. And Monday, even though Monday is a workday, do we really have a problem on the Monday after the July 4? This year it will fall on a Saturday, and again it will the enhancement period under the current ordinance would just be on that Saturday, but now it will be Friday, Saturday, Sunday, and Monday, even though people are supposed to be back to work.

I'm not sure why you would be doing that. Other speakers have said that they, regarding the mandatory revocation of short term lodging permits, that they would be they are happy to see the intent language in the current staff report. I am not an attorney, but my understanding is the intent language has no effect whatsoever if the ordinance is clear and unambiguous. This one, as Carmen pointed out, is clear and unambiguous. You've also been insured it only has to do with very egregious criminal activity.

But if you read the long, long list of things that can cause mandatory revocation, one of those is a guest at a short term lodging reproducing sound before 10:00 in the morning. It doesn't even have to be audible. They just have to be reproducing it. They could be using a cell phone in speaker mode, and a neighbor could tell the city, You need to revoke the permit because that person, during one of these enforcement periods, was reproducing noise outside the lodging. I don't think you want to enact that.

And the shade structure thing, as Council Member Wagon said, if the problem you're trying to address is paid people setting up and taking over the beach at 06:00 in the morning, why don't you enact an ordinance that addresses that problem and not this one? And the way it's written, I don't think it even allows a six by six foot pop up because it would be wider than six feet at its widest point. It needs work. It should not be adopted tonight. Thank you.

Adam Leverends again. I agree this needs work. I'm going to read from the agenda materials, item three, what we're talking about. Ordinance number twenty twenty six-two, amending various sections of the Newport Beach Municipal Code to address illegal activity during high risk periods. I emailed staff about this shade ordinance and Mr. Harp responded. The shade ordinance is all year. So that's not in alignment with the way it's noticed on the agenda. That is a problem. That's enough reason to not pass this tonight.

If I could have the clerk call up my slide number three. This is a photo I took last Friday of a bunch of young girls at a 13 year old birthday party on a pretty much deserted beach on the peninsula. And looking at the ordinance, they are violating at least five provisions of this ordinance. They're connected, two of them. They're positioned not five feet apart.

They are grouped to arrange to allow multiple shade coverings to function as a single structure. They exceed six feet in height and six feet in width, and they're using coolers as prohibited anchors. I understand you don't want these things blowing around, but all the limitations of anchors in here, you can't even use a cooler to hold one of these down. And if you look at these, the peaks if you look at the peak, you lower the peak can't be higher than six feet. Disabled people are gonna have to crawl under these things to get into them.

There are so many and I read all the emails too. There's I I see concerns on both sides, but the way this is written, it's it's incredibly problematic and it's all year. And do you really wanna keep some girls from having a party on the beach? I mean, is that the intent here? And I've seen people abuse the beach and people who don't.

And my position on a lot of things is that there are generally existing laws in place to fix a lot of things. There's noise ordinances, public drunken ordinances. It's it's like to keep making new ordinances that it sounds like haven't been enforced previously, the preexisting ones, it's it's an exercise in just looking good. So I really encourage you to give this further looking at before passing it tonight. Thank you.

Mayor Klein Klein and council members, thank you for the opportunity. Wade Womack. Just wanted to comment on, in general, this ordinance package. There was no public engagement, no stakeholder meetings. It came out of nowhere two weeks ago and was instantly approved.

And it's great that staff talks to one another and comes up with ideas, but we're not a city if we don't have public engagement. So in looking at some of the details here, just specifically on the shade covering, The standard shade cover is 10 by 10 or a 100 square feet. It fits like a family of four. My family and I go down to Orange Street once a year. It looks about like that.

There's plenty of room and zero problems. And I I don't wanna be punished for some other issues that the city is trying to address. I'd like to be able to use my easy up with my family, with grandma, with the kids in peace. So they're limited to as mister Moser pointed out, it shall not be any longer than six feet at its widest point. So if you take a square easy up, six feet would be the diameter would be the longest part.

So the sides would be no bigger than maybe five feet. So you're actually down to 25 square feet of shade for my family. And you're not allowed to push two together. And I don't think this is right. And I I think the problem is, like everyone's pointing out, it needs work. It needs public engagement. Let's kick this down to parks, beaches, and rec and get it squared away. We're all we all want the same thing for the city, but if we could work and have public engagement, then do we actually have a city? It's overly restrictive. There's been no alternatives in that analysis.

I get lifeguarded for the city for thirteen years. We had pretty good success coning off paths for the jeeps or at the time it was jeeps and putting cones around the towers. We had a lifeguard on foot patrol at the berm when there was lack of visibility. You could push towers closer. Half the towers in the city are right up on the groin.

There's no visibility problem whatsoever. So there's been no alternatives analysis and other ideas to solve the problem that that some folks are trying to solve or the perceived problem. And honestly, I think it's totally unfair to a family that packs up the minivan in Riverside, comes down here with six kids and gets a code enforcement officer in their face when they start to pop up their standard size ten by 10 easy up. No. You're not welcome here to go home. And I know that's not the full intent, but I'm afraid that that's how it's gonna go come across.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay. I'll bring it back up here. Do I have a motion?

Thank you, madam mayor. I would love to make the motion on this, and I would like to take one quick moment to just let everyone know that the Laguna Beach Municipal Code 18DotO4DotO2 zero mirrors this. So Laguna Beach, our neighbors to the south, have a six by six rule. They don't seem to be having major issues with it five feet apart. We're just trying to make sure that we have the access, the security, the safety we need. So I'd love to move staff recommendation on approving this item.

Do I have a second?

I'll go ahead and second.

Seconded by council member Wepper. Let's go ahead and vote.

Motion carried by unanimous vote. And I will read the title of the

Thank you.

Ordinance number 20 twin twenty twenty six dash two, an ordinance of the city council of the city of Newport Beach, California, amending sections one point zero four point zero six zero, safety enhancement zone of chapter 1.04, code enforcement section 5.95.045, conditions and five suspensions and revocations of chapter 5.95 short term lodging permit and sections one one point zero eight point zero two zero use of shade coverings of chapter 11.08 conduct on beaches and piers of the municipal of Newport Beach municipal code to address illegal activity during high risk periods.

Thank you, madam clerk. We will now move on to public hearings. Item number 10, resolution number twenty twenty six dash 14, substantial amendment to the twenty twenty five twenty twenty six annual action plan for the federal community development block grant program. Do we have a short staff report?

We do. Thank you madam mayor. Lauren Witting Whitlinger will go ahead and

just make a very brief presentation.

Good evening mayor, members of the council. Thank you very much. We have a presentation in front of you this evening for substantial amendment to the annual action plan for the Community Development Block Grant Program. So the last year Council approved a five year consolidated plan for the CDBG program. That plan outlines the needs identified in the community and the city's goals for spending the grant money during the next five years.

Two of those goals were to improve public facilities and infrastructure and address material barriers to accessibility around the city. The annual action plan was also approved last year and included specific projects and an allocation of the grant funds for the fiscal year, which runs from 07/01/2025 through 06/30/2026. The city's grant for the current fiscal year is $402,000 It should be noted that any money not spent during any given fiscal year carries forward to the next year or subsequent year and can be programmed in the action plan and spent on capital projects. The city must be diligent about spending these funds because they will eventually be forfeited and reclaimed by the Treasury. At the time that the current action plan was approved, no capital projects were identified.

Since last July, however, Public Works has identified over a 100 locations around the city where concrete sidewalks, driveways, curbs and gutters are not in conformance with current ADA standards and can be improved using CDBG funds. For your consideration today is a substantial amendment to the action plan allocating $750,000 of CDBG funds to a new citywide ADA improvement project. The proposed amendment would allocate funds from two prior years, which funds have carried forward, and then the available capital projects money from the current grant year. So the recommended next steps for you this evening is for City Council to hold this public hearing, and if Council adopts and approves the resolution for the Substantial Amendment. Assuming that happens, then staff and the consultant would work to prepare and submit the Substantial Amendment documents to HUD.

And then also in front of you this evening under item number 12 on the agenda, Public Works has the award of contract for this project which would allow them to start construction.

That's the presentation. You, Lauren. Bring it back up here. Does anyone have any questions?

Just real quickly, was that a comprehensive list of needs in that regard or is that just all we can afford for 750,000?

Yes, there were 103 locations identified and scope of work would fit within the funds available

right now.

So there's additional needs that we'll have to hit another opportunity, okay.

We'll go ahead and go out for public comment. Seeing none, I'll bring it back up here. Do we have a motion?

Well, Madam Mayor, I'm happy to make the motion. I'll second.

Okay. We have a motion and a second. Let's go ahead and vote.

Motion carried by unanimous vote.

It's now time to move on to current business. Item number 11, approval of proposed revisions to various council policies. I don't think that we need a staff report on this item. It'd be difficult to deliver one. Does anyone have any specific questions for staff? Council Member Grant? So

I do want to take a little bit of time on some of the revisions just to sort of clarify some questions maybe. I don't know if we have a particular staff member to address them to or would it be to city manager?

Yeah.

Okay.

So

I'm noticing, let see, I've got a print out so maybe that'll correspond to what you have. But I'm noticing on page 15 which is in the section relating to, I mean it's kind of hard, this is kind of broken up, but would you, does your page 15 correspond to what would have printed out? The first page 15.

Perhaps you just give us the policy number and patient policy.

We're looking at recordings of open meetings after that. City, it comes up under city council member request for research and information. We deleted the whole policy.

That's correct.

Okay, so just starting with that first sentence, I'm just wondering about intent with respect to what we're doing here. I understand that we're giving more flexibility to council members to request service by the staff and I'm not opposed to that necessarily. But the first sentence here is sort of an interesting sentence with respect to what we do here. Says the city of Newport Beach is a city council, city manager form of government. We've deleted that and I'm wondering if the intent is that we no longer are a city manager form of government or we just aren't stating what form of government we are or we don't need to state that?

Correct. So so that that we're a government agency. It's in our charter. So we're just we weren't trying to duplicate it. It's already written in charter. That's why it got removed.

So this particular concept is included in our charter and not unnecessary here. Okay.

That's right.

I think in general, there's a very long, I mean, obviously this is the printout. It's a very long document. And I think had we had a study session to explain the changes maybe in some instances, a lot of the changes are very, very minimal, just grammatical or adding new facilities that have come online, whatever. Those obviously don't need an explanation, but we do have some meaty sort of changes in here. So I'll just continue through with a couple more questions.

I noticed on page discretionary grants, we've deleted or the third page, page three. The city reserves the right to audit the expenditure of these funds within a year of receipt. I didn't see that replaced anywhere. We no longer going to have the right to audit or do we have the right to audit elsewhere? I I mean

So our intent is that it's removed from here but we're gonna when we issue a grant, we're gonna have a grant agreement and then we'll have those auto provisions in the grant agreement.

Okay. So we

We'll still have auto rights. Yeah. But we're gonna enter into agreement to do that.

I guess I'm wondering like why was it necessary to take it out of here if it was just reserves the right. It doesn't say we'd automatically audit. I understand we're gonna add in an agreement but agreements come and go. These are our policies. It's a little bit and I think that the audit process is essential with respect to the grant. I've participated in them a long time. So I would propose leaving that sentence in. The next page, we had some comments from the public about the changes to the airport and aviation policy. I don't specifically have any questions related to it, but I would, just like a clarification. We had one comment that said that there were additional compacting of ordinances.

I'm only seeing very few changes in the red line here. Was that not a accurate statement by the public? Is this these are the only changes to the ordinance?

These are the only changes to the policy.

The red line to the policy. Correct. So we had a member of the public, I think it was mister Moser, that commented that there were other changes. I wasn't able to identify exactly what he was talking about but I assumed that only the red line here. So it's very minimal. We just added the EV tolls and drones and just some small clarification about that. Okay, moving on. Going to let's see what this is, B13. When we're talking about public use of city facilities, don't we make a lot of changes here but I'm wondering about the language. Maybe we do need to make a change.

So when we're talking about the regulations and restrictions in b 13, that's a one, we're talking about alcoholic beverages in facilities operated by the department. I'm wondering, can explain this provision to me? We added Whitty Hall in which I think is important. Obviously we're going to be probably serving alcohol at Whitty Hall. But I wonder if we're too limiting here when we talk about facilities operated by the department. Do we have any municipal facilities that wouldn't be operated by the department that obviously we don't want alcohol being used in any of our facilities.

So we we do allow beer and wine. We just don't allow the spirits, hard spirits.

I understand that and that's written in here very well. What I'm saying is is that this provision says use of alcohol and it says that alcoholic beverages are prohibited in any in or on any municipal facility operated by the department. Do we have municipal facilities that aren't operated by the department that we would also want to restrict alcohol in? Is it what what department are we talking about?

The recreational and senior services department.

For example, do they operate this facility, let's say?

No, they don't.

Okay. So we don't somebody in the in the audience could be drinking a beer and there wouldn't be any restriction or shouldn't that be included?

That's a good a good point. We don't allow alcohol Or a staff

member be in sick hall drinking at their desk.

Well, don't we have an alcohol policy for staff standpoint. So we do have alcohol provisions.

And there must be other facilities in the city maybe that aren't regulated by recreation. I don't know.

Well, like our fire stations are not regulated by the recreation. So we have alcohol drinking policy.

So is this too limiting is what I'm saying? Would the public be able to walk into a fire station holding a beer?

I'm gonna have a friend

here and have the I think I can

get this one because this question comes up a lot when people come in and say, wanna have alcohol at x facility. It's not allowed at any of our facilities unless you you can do it with a special event permit. So that's the one way you could do it if you wanted to have an event. Let's say at a fire station and and there was there was the will to want to do that, you could do it with a special event permit that allows that. You have to get insurance, there's lots of things you have to do to do that. But yeah, alcohols in it, the key here is alcohols not allowed at any of our facilities except the ones that we name in this policy.

So that would be my understanding with the way this is written, it says only the ones operated by the department. So that's what I'm asking, are there municipal facilities that aren't operated by the recreation department that would also need to be included in this limitation on alcohol use in those facilities? Maybe it's covered some other way, but it just seems like this is very limiting to just and maybe we need to take another look at that. I don't know.

It's a good really good question. I'm thinking out loud. I mean, most of our facilities are run by other departments, which we

have no drinking policies, right?

It shouldn't be any municipal facility other than as allowed. It should be written the opposite way.

I see. I understand what you're

I think. I don't know. I'm just so that I have a question about that. And then on B27, I guess I don't really have a question on B27, I resolved that. And then just finally on the tree policy, that was a big hit in here.

We really changed the tree policy. And we did get a number of questions from the Parks and Recreation Commission about these changes and a request that we defer making these changes until they have a chance to take a look at it. They had an opportunity, it wasn't enough time and they've requested that. I'm in favor of giving them a chance to weigh in on it. I'm not a tree expert and I don't really want to, this is a very, this can be a very thorny issue in the community.

And so instead of being, I just want to be mindful that we can maybe make a really proactive change with respect to the tree policy, but I would defer to the Park and Recreation Department to make some suggestions or review it before submitting it to counsel. So that's my comments.

Do we have any other comments up here on the dais before I go out for public comment? Do we have any public comment? Excuse me, Councilmember Wiggin.

I'll pine after.

Mayor Kleinman, members of the Council, my name is Jim Moser. The 150 pages are a little difficult to comment on in three minutes. But highlights are policy A2, which has to do with appointments to boards, commissions, and committees. I am concerned, I would think the council members would be concerned, if the mayor chooses to use an ad hoc appointments committee. In the current policy, that committee is supposed to put forward two nominees for each position.

They now only have to designate who they think should be appointed. And apparently, there will not be a confirmation and then appointments at the next meeting. They will just present their recommendation, and you are expected to rubber stamp that. I think that's a very bad change. Policy A-seventeen did get compressed from 10 pages down to less, about three. A lot got taken out. Much of it was history and background. I cannot say for sure that none of the policies were changed. But the red line you're seeing is not how it changed from what it is today. Recommending deleting policy D four about the city incentive program for employees.

I would think you would want to retain some oversight of that as to who can get incentives and have some dollar limit on them so that the staff doesn't decide to award themselves $1,000,000 each. One that I could not add time to review before the written comments is policy F27, extensively revised about tickets. And I am sure nobody is going to actually use it the way it's written because it lists a whole bunch of conditions under which a ticket can be given to an employee. And it was supposed to say one of the following, but it doesn't. It says the following conditions.

So the person receiving the ticket, actually the director designating the person, actually has to pay for the ticket. They have to report it as income, and it has to have a public surface. It's supposed to be one of those, not all of them. The tree policy, I definitely think that PB and R should look at that. And then we have the last one is policy L23 about siting of cell sites, telecom, on public property the way it is now written.

You were assured there would be some kind of notice The way it's written now for a application on public property, there will be no public process, no notification, no opportunity whatsoever for the public or even the council to provide input to the city staff. They will simply approve it under this policy. I don't think you want to approve any of these as they're written currently. And I really think the whole thing should be looked at more carefully. But especially the tree policies, that it's an insult to TBNR to not give them the opportunity that the charter obligates them to have. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other public comments?

Mayor Kleinman, esteemed council members, Keira Kirby. I am actually a PBNR commissioner, and I'm speaking to you from that role this evening. I did send a message. I do have concern about changes in G1 only because this was brought before our commission in our February meeting as an agenda item to essentially receive file and provide any additional comments or revisions. And speaking for the commission, but especially for myself, we care about doing a good job and didn't have sufficient time to give feedback, comments due to the I would say the nature in which we received the information.

I was able to download the redlined G1 policy and G6 policy today and take a look at some of it. But what we received at commission was just like, here are the changes. So we were trying to some of us were trying to do side by side comparisons. At that meeting, we requested or we made a motion to request to have an ad hoc. And we would, I think, be happy to have a quick turnaround.

We did a quick turnaround with GPAC back in September to October in terms of just taking a month. But I would say, myself especially, but I do believe our whole commission would appreciate the opportunity to provide you with some thoughtful, intentional feedback after being given some time to go through because a Thursday to Tuesday turnaround just we weren't able to get that done in that frame of time. So thank you for this consideration.

Thank you.

Adam Leverence again. I thank the council members that sat on this and went through this. And then council member grants like, you know, looking at detail as the previous two speakers noted, this much material coming before the public sometime Thursday to now really seems inadequate. I would suggest maybe in the future bringing one policy or two policies to a meeting at a time depending on the length of said policies. And I myself am not as informed as I would like to be, but the policy about procedures for city distribution of tickets or passes.

I'm just curious, I've seen materials where mayor and every council member are invited to a $500 to $1,000 plate function that says tickets are required. And in the future, and Mr. Moser mentioned exceptions, I have not read those. But if somebody were to want to invite certain ones of you, can they not do that anymore? And if there's a ticket, is there a waiver?

There's so many complications to that. And then as far as policy F seven, it says stated in here quote, state law requires the city to maximize its return on state managed properties. I believe that's inaccurate. I've read a number of things from the state over the past couple years. And they require that management be in the best interests of the state.

That is not always maximizing revenue. There's environmental concerns, there's access concerns, there's open space concerns. There's all kinds of other concerns. So I would hope that that could be changed. And that policy further down in items E and F actually indicates that there are exceptions that the city can look at and make findings and such. So I just think the way the opening statement is worded, it's inaccurate in both reflection of further down in the policy and with what I've read of state materials. That to me seems like an important correction to make. Thank you.

Thank you. Seeing no other further public comments, I'll bring it back up here. Councilmember Wiggin.

Yeah. I'm happy with this. I think the only one that I did have a concern with is the Parks Beaches Recreation part of it. And I'm just curious, did Mr. Harp, did we get is it going to final say still with PBR?

Or we, you know, what are the changes that were made? We did receive two commissioners responding to us about this. One, I want to know, you know, maybe you can explain it a little more detail since one of them are here. And then I guess if that is problematic for the council, know, is there a way to bifurcate out that section of it and pass the rest and then let them opine on it? Because it seems like the most red lines of this whole document affect them.

But I didn't sit on the ad hoc, so maybe those that did can maybe chime in as to the rationale and the reasoning and maybe that Mr. Harp you can maybe cover for them on that, just so that we get a good explanation for the public. Because there have been a couple instances recently that I appreciate the commission doing the hard work. Because it's not just parks, beaches and recreation. It's parks, beaches, recreation and trees.

And trees are usually the most significant part of their workload. And that can be problematic at times. And the public definitely has an opinion on that. And the PBR Commission shelters us a lot of times from those discussions and does a really good job at that. And I want to make sure that they are still given the tools necessary to do their job.

Yeah. I think that the G1 or the policy was probably one of the most convoluted ones. It had a lot of overlap and different procedures. I think the the gist of it is though that for specialty trees and for reforestation when you have a hearing or an appeal that the Parks Beach and Recreation Commission will be the final say on those. I mean, they have the expertise dealing with those issues.

And so rather than having a right to appeal to the city council or a call for review, that would just end at the at the commission level. And I think that makes a lot of sense. We'd already we had already revised it previously to take away the appeal rights and have that as the final decision there. There's still provision about call for review by the city council. But I think ultimately, people need finality in the decisions, and I think that they're the experts and that's a good place to have it. So that was the primary two changes to that policy.

Is it was there any other council members, though, that that took any issue that sat in ad hoc? Or you felt that that you're pretty comfortable of of accepting that change and if that there wasn't any concern coming out of you guys. Obviously, we're seeing it as what it is, but just any thoughts further to it or?

I think just to echo Mr. Harp's sentiments, it was basically we are looking to PB and R as the knowledge base for making these decisions. And so I look at PB and R as kind of the final say in these decisions, and I don't know that bringing it council really adds that much value considering we are not PBNR and we don't have that background. That was kind of the idea behind it, basically what Mr. Harp had said.

Okay. Thank you.

Councilmember Barto.

Yes. I mean, I think

these are a lot of them really great changes, but I do echo sentiment of PBR and other commissions. This

is

a very meaty document with a lot of changes in a short turnaround, and I don't see the harm in bringing it back for a second reading because it's not just the PBNR commission that's affected. There are other commissions as well. And while I have sat on a policy committee, and I know the tremendous amount of work that it is, so thank you for taking that on, I don't think that it harms anything to give people who will be affected by these policies a bit of a heads up, if you will, and let I'll give them further time to review the changes that may be coming their way.

Councilmember Grant?

Yeah, just quickly, I want to repeat the objection is not so much to the actual content that's in the changes. It could very well be adequate, but once again, much as I said with relying on changes relating to the policy about the shade coverings. I think we have boards, committees and commissions for expressly this purpose. That's why they're appointed is to advise the city council. We are not experts here on everything.

Many of us are experts on one to maybe 10 things, but not on everything. So in an instance like this, exactly what you said, Mr. Harp and council member Weber is that the PBNR commission is the expert in this. That's why we appoint them is so that they become very well versed in these matters. And the idea that we're going to give them this authority is not a bad idea, but before we give it to them, we should check-in with them about what authority they need, what the guidelines they should be following.

Maybe all of this is exactly perfect. Maybe they would have additional revisions. Maybe they would like to retain some of the provisions. I don't know, and I think that they were clear in saying that they weren't asked, and they're asking us for some time to look at it, I don't see the harm in doing that. And then I would just repeat the provisions that I talked about relating to redrafting the language relating to alcohol in municipal buildings, and the language relating to, well, I have to go back and look. But in any event, I do have problems with those specific ideas.

I'll just add that council policy A17 was over a 100 pages. It did go to us on the aviation committee. I think the committee members got it on a Friday. We met on Monday. Both the committee members and members of the public had very thoughtful comments.

We incorporated one or two of those into the document that you're seeing today. It's also worth noting that you know these are living breathing documents. They're not set in stone. We can always revisit them. And as council member Weber stated, as well as our city attorney, the goal with PBNR was to actually give them more discretion rather than less. So I would hope that they would be happy and pleased with that outcome. Councilmember Stapleton?

Yeah, I would just it's not a motion, but maybe just an opinion. If it sounds like there's some issues on this G policy. I don't wanna blow up the entire effort on the ad hoc to punt this whole thing. But if there was an interest or a motion, I'd probably second that if somebody wanted to make a motion to approve the entire thing with the exception of the g policy, send it back to parks and rec. I would be supportive of that.

Any other thoughts up here? Councilmember Wigan?

So at the end of the day, if we did bifurcate it out, gives it just gives them an opinion. It doesn't really hold up the rest of it. And then it allows for them to opine. We don't have to accept their opinion. We can choose our own. Mr. Harp, how long does that process tend to take if we went that right? They meet monthly. So their next meeting, I'm sure Mr. Levin would know the answer when they meet next. But then they have to they have to post it and notice it. So if it's coming up sooner than later, then that holds another month.

I I do believe that the it did go to them for comments and they were looking to form a subcommittee to review it as opposed to consider as a as a body. They're looking to maybe form a subcommittee. I would think that if you wanted to send it back to them and just have them comment on it without some type of, you know, subcommittee, it could be done, you know, forty five days back to the council probably around that time frame. If if they spent more time on it, maybe it's sixty, ninety days.

Mayor Potemblom.

Thank you.

I actually didn't think I would still be up here and talking about trees after six years, because the first two years, all I spent was dealing with trees and the fears of cutting them down. So when this came forward to me, I was also not on the small committee for this. On Thursday, I had a great late night read of the new tree policy. And amazingly, I have heard from nobody that I did for those first two years on the issues we've had with our previous tree policies. In fact, I think this one took away a lot of the issues we previously had.

It cleaned it up immensely, and really kind of set forth what we need to do to move forward on a lot of these things. It took a lot of the ambiguity away. And by the end of reading that, I was 100% on board. I was actually very nervous about this one policy, because it has adjusted so many emotions throughout this city. But, you know, in a long read, and I will admit I had to read it a little bit again that next morning to fully comprehend all of it, But it cleaned everything up, and I think this is You know, even to Mr.

Mosier's points earlier on some of his written comments, it's very rare that you get a municipality that is trying to clean up and get rid of superfluous rules and laws throughout. And in this point, I understand the concern of PB and R. They want to be involved in this part of it. But this is the policy in which PB and R enacts. This is how they work. They work off of this policy. Their job is not to sit and clean up language. Their job is to look at the language that the policy body puts forth. And so when I look at the g policy, I'm thinking, wow, we did a really good job on this. It was not easy to do.

And I think many people have sat and said, wow, we have 150 pages. It's a lot of work that three members up here did with the help of our staff to really clean it up, make it more understandable for every citizen of Newport. And so, you know, I I am going to fully support it as written right now, and I would love to have that motion sitting on the floor.

We have a motion. Do we have a second? Second from Council Member Weber.

Madam Mayor, I want to just add some comment as we have second. I was kind of stuck in that and what to do to advance that, whether to bifurcate it or not. And Mayor Pro Tem Blom, I think you were spot on the comment. So I would be happy to support the motion. And I think, as the mayor said, we can come back to this item if for some reason this is problematic.

This isn't closing the book forever. This is just addressing what the ad hoc spent some good diligent time discussing in the future. If there are PB and R commissioners who wish to opine on this and say, hey, we think that this problematic and let us know. I think that gives us an opportunity also Mister Levin can can address to us saying, hey, we're kind of getting some trouble at our meetings. This might be better to address it down the road with with these changes. So this doesn't close the book. Think that we're making progress, and I'm happy to support.

Councilmember Barto. I just want

to add a secondary motion to kick this to second reading at our next

We actually have a motion and a second on the floor, Council Member Koretz. So we'll have to vote on that motion first.

I can make a substitutionary

resolution don't have a second reading. It's just one.

But if I wanted to request a substitutionary motion, can I request that for resolutions to have a second reading at our next

You can make a substitute motion?

That's that's the motion I'd like to make.

You need a second.

Can we clarify the motion?

I would like to make a substitute motion to move this to review at our next council meeting and to give PB and R a little more time to look at it, but to move this to our next council meeting for review and approval for a second reading.

And just for clarification, that'd be bringing the whole resolution back.

That's fine.

I'll second that.

We have a substitute motion and a second. Let's go ahead and vote.

And just for clarity, this is voting on the substitute motion.

Motion failed by four three.

Now let's go ahead and vote on the first motion.

Motion passed by vote five-two.

Can we get a repeat of the first motion? I didn't see the vote.

The substitute.

The substitute.

Oh, here. So on the substitute motion, can we can we see that what the vote was again? It's it did not pass?

It did not pass.

It it failed.

The people who voted in favor of the substitute motion were Councilmember Grant, Councilmember Barto and Councilmember Stapleton. Okay.

Thank you.

Okay moving on to item number 12 citywide ADA improvements award of contract number 9943Dash126R12 are there any council members who would like to see a staff report on this item okay are there any comments from the dais on this seeing none we'll go out to public comments seeing none I'll bring it back up here do we have a motion

So, I'm happy to move staff recommendation on this.

Do we have a second?

I'll second.

Seconded by council member Weigand. Let's go ahead and vote. Madam clerk, please read the statement on motions for reconsideration.

Motion passed by seven zero. And motion for reconsideration. A motion to reconsider the vote on any action taken by the city council at either this meeting or the previous meeting may be made only by one of the council members who voted with the prevailing side.

Are there any motions for reconsideration? Okay. We will now go out to public comments on closed session items. First, I'll ask, are there any recusals on our closed session?

Yeah. I have one or I guess two from closed session item. What item is it, Aaron?

So you have a conflict on items seven a

and Seven a, seven b. Yeah. I'm gonna accuse myself based on real property interest, conflict interest based on my interest in properties at 4104 Thousand 110 MacArthur Boulevard.

Okay. We'll now take public comments on closed session. Seeing none, we are adjourned to closed session.

The city council adjourned the closed session to meet with the city's legal council regarding the case titled Newport Beach Stewardship Association versus City of Newport Beach and the possible initiation of litigation regarding one matter, as well as to meet with the city's real property negotiators regarding negotiation with Henry Pyle of Chartwell Real Estate Development, and that's regarding the real property at 60608 East Balboa Boulevard at 209 Washington Street. And that's all on the agenda under seven a through c. Thank you.

Thank you.