City Council - Regular Meeting

Okay. It's quite a buzz in here today. The time is 04:00, and I'll now call the 05/12/2026 regular city council meeting to order. Madam clerk, roll call, please. All council members present. Now is the time for the invocation that will be led by council member Bartow. And following that, mayor Pro Tem Blom will lead us in the pledge of allegiance. Dear heavenly father, we thank you for this beautiful city and for all the residents, volunteers, community members, elected, and staff who serve this city. We pray that you bless this meeting with wisdom, counsel, and the joy of service of others.

If you'll please join me in the pledge to this great nation. I pledge allegiance

to the flag of The United States Of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, liberty and justice for all.

Okay. Don't get too comfortable. I am now going to read a proclamation recognizing National Public Works Week, and then we will head outside after we hear from public works director Dave Webb to visit our new trolley. Whereas public works professionals focus on building and maintaining infrastructure facilities and public services that are fundamental importance to sustainable and resilient communities and to public health, safety, high quality of life, and the well-being of the people of the city of Newport Beach. Whereas this infrastructure facilities, parks, harbors, beaches, and maintenance services could not be provided without the committed efforts of public works professionals who are engineers, managers, and employees at all levels of government and the private sector.

Their efforts are responsible for building, improving and protecting our nation's transportation, water supply, water treatment, solid waste systems, parks, buildings and other structures and facilities essential for our citizens. And whereas, it is in the public interest for the citizens civic leaders of Newport Beach to attain knowledge of and maintain an ongoing interest and understanding of the importance of public works and public works programs in their respective communities, and whereas this year, 2026, marks the sixty sixth annual National Public Works Week sponsored by the American Public Works Association. Now therefore, I, Lauren Kleinman, mayor of the city of Newport Beach, on behalf of the entire city council, do hereby proclaim May 17 through the twenty third twenty twenty six as National Public Works Week. Mister Webb and mister Pokoebek.

Yes. Good afternoon, mayor, council members. Thank you for the opportunity to come before you today and just celebrate this great time. We are we are excited as, your public works team. We have a lot of your managers here today, and we brought some equipment over, to take a look. And as the mayor mentioned, we have a new piece of equipment out there. Our trolleys are now arriving. So we have three of the, five that are coming. Excited to see that, but thank you. We we, appreciate the community support, council support. You've always been understanding of the infrastructure and the foundational basis of that for our city. So just thank you, and we appreciate the acknowledgment today. Want Mark to give a little

shout out there. Yeah. Just on behalf of Public Works, utilities, and municipal operations, which is the whole Public Works family of how we operate, build, and maintain our infrastructure, Really appreciate city council support. It shows how much you care about the stuff, the infrastructure, our roads, our communities, our, you know, our parks, and things like that. It makes such a difference, and it's very noticeable to us as staff and to the community. Thank you for your support.

So we've set up. If you'd like to take a picture, we'd love to go out and, actually get on the trolley. It's got a new smell to it. It smells like our new car car trolley smell. It's really nice. Take a quick kick the tires and look at it, and then we can come back in.

Can't wait to find out what new trolley smell is. If I can get it without you, please give my tea. Thank you. I would otherwise. Win again.

Okay. We are back in session. Moving right into our study session item self certification building permit program. I'll now turn it over to our city manager.

Thank you, madam mayor. Good afternoon, city council. So as part of the conversation about how do we improve customer service for our members of our public and our applicants, in addition to implementing customer service training, we wanna look at what can we do from a permit permit issuance service standpoint. We're already adopting online program, but now we wanna look at a new program with regards to self certification. So we have a short presentation for you. I'm gonna turn it over to Jaime Marieu, community development director, and Tony Tai, our deputy community development director.

Thank you, Simone. Good afternoon, mayor Kleinman, members of the council. Jaime Murillo, community development director. And, again, with me is Tony Tai, our building official and deputy director. And as Simone mentioned, we wanted to kinda daylight a new program we're looking to implement, which is a self certification building permit program. Before I get into the program itself, just wanna provide a little bit of background and context. So on this slide, you can see the amount of construction activity that we see in the city. As you know, construction is very active in Newport Beach. There's a lot of redevelopment, reinvestment in properties. We currently have over 2,600 active building permits in the city.

A majority of these building permits require some level of plan checking, which is review by city staff to ensure code compliance. And so the purpose of plan checking is really to provide the additional layer of protection. So although architects are responsible and trained to provide safe and code compliant designs, city staff does review plans to ensure that they do comply with state and building standard codes, state mandated energy conservation, handicap accessibility requirements, and also zoning. So zoning differs from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, and even within our own city, zoning changes dramatically from neighborhood to neighborhood. So it really provides this added layer of protection, and it helps ensure that there's no errors in design.

So during construction, there's a a smooth construction period. And also reduces legal liabilities for that designer. Simone touched upon. In Newport Beach, we expect platinum level customer service, and that includes as part of our plan check process. So we do have performance measures to ensure that we can quickly review plans and provide permits to our businesses and property owners.

So our goal is for 80% of plan checks to be reviewed over the counter or a one day turnaround. We have very experienced staff that can review those plans. And then 90% of our plan checks to be reviewed in approximately ten days. And so we're pretty good at meeting those targets. But obviously, there's more complex projects that require a longer review period.

And we also wanna make sure construction maintains its momentum. So once permits are issued, we wanna make sure we can keep those projects going and provide inspections with a one day turnaround. In terms of volume, you can see in 2025, we had approximately 28,000 customers we assisted in combination through online or in person. And we do survey our customers. And so overwhelmingly, our customers are extremely happy with our staff, the level of courteousness we provide, the thoroughness.

However, we do receive comments related to our process. And with process, it's mostly related to time, How long it took at the counter or how long plan check took. So we've implemented a number of measures to improve things. So so far, we've really invested heavily in our digital infrastructure. And so now we're transitioning away from paper plans to online plans and submittals.

We have something we call the Civic Portal where customers can access the portal twenty four hours a day and submit plans, receive their corrections without even having to come into the city. We're transitioning more and more of our projects to online, and customers are starting to adapt or I'm sorry, adopt that more and more. We also have this over the counter plan check process. So for projects that we can review in about an hour, we will take those and make sure we can do them that in a one day turnaround. We've also implemented express permits.

And so there's simple types of projects that don't even require plans to be prepared. A homeowner or a contractor can apply for those permits online, get their permit instantly, and then just schedule for an inspection. And so that really helps reduce the number of plans in our queue. We've also implemented review cycle management. So for more complicated projects that are in review, if we have three rounds of corrections, our engineers and reviewers will reach out to the designers and ask for a meeting, and try to resolve those corrections to try to see where that disagreement or miscommunication occurs.

And then obviously more bodies we can throw out plan checking helps, and so we're expanding the use of our consultants. Going back to the goal of the self certification program, this is really intended to be an additional tool in our tool belt, our plan check alternative. So this would allow still for lower risk simple projects, such as tenant improvements for a business owner looking to improve their existing space or move into a new retail or office space. A homeowner looking to build an accessory dwelling unit or just doing a two year remodel. We would require plans to be prepared.

However, this would provide the opportunity for an architect to self certify that their design complies with all building codes and necessary zoning standards. But we still wanna make sure that, you know, these developments are safe. And so it would incorporate some safeguards to ensure that ultimately the project meets code compliance, and then that would include a full building inspection. So there's a number of cities that have implemented some variation of this program. A lot of cities like Los Angeles, Chicago, I think Bellflower, they have self certification programs for building code compliance only.

Santa Monica is another jurisdiction that has expanded the program to include zoning compliance as well, similar to what we're looking to implement. They're still preparing their program, but I think they're rolling it out pretty soon. But the main components of these programs is one, qualifications. We wanna make sure someone who is qualified and has the expertise prepares these plans. And so we would require that it be prepared by a licensed architect and carried out with a licensed contractor.

An additional standard, I think, we would like to require is ICC, that's International Code Council, for certified plans examiners. So it's a certification that a lot of architects already have, but ensures they have training to review plans for code compliance. And then probably, like, prior city experience. So if they, for example, have prepared three similar projects in the city, that would make them eligible. But a big component of this project would be that responsibility.

So since the city is no longer reviewing the plan check, the architect would have to assume full risk and responsibility for those plans that they've designed and take on liability for compliance. And then to ensure that the resulting project is safe and fully compliant with code, we would have quality assurance measures. So full inspection would still be required by a building inspector. And then for projects that turn out to not comply with code or maybe they're doing work beyond the scope of what we've permitted, there would be kind of consequences built into the program that would disqualify that individual from participating in the future. And then depending on how successful the program is, we would likely implement some sort of auditing program.

So the types of projects we anticipate would be eligible at least in the beginning of this program rollout Are these listed? So the city does have standard plans for more lower risk projects with very objective standards. This includes residential remodels, accessory dwelling units, wall permits. Also, we do anticipate we could use this for custom design work for interior remodels as well. And then where we think it'll really help the business community is for those, you know, tenants who have, you know, created a entered into a lease and wanna start work, but they have to wait through the plan checking period.

This would give them a quicker path towards construction. So if they're moving into a space that was already office space and they just wanna reconfigure that office space, this would be a a good path forward. Or a retail tenant looking to move into another space that was already used for retail. So basically, like, lower risk concepts there. I think certain things that would make them ineligible, though, is if there's structural requirements.

So if there's major structural changes, that's gonna require a deeper level of review and calculations that have to be reviewed by our engineers. And then changes in occupancy type, there is some hazards there. So if a space was existing used for office and they wanna use it for, like, an assembly use, increasing the occupancy has potential fire hazards. And so we gotta make sure there's sufficient exiting and fire sprinklers. So those types of more complicated changes in occupancy would not be eligible at this time until we roll out this program and then possibly figure out how to expand the program.

In terms of just comparison, what we think this can help, the current process now an applicant would submit for building permit application. It goes through the initial plan check, and that would take approximately two to three weeks. Once corrections are issued, the architect would take those corrections, make revisions to the plans, resubmit them back to the city. That time is out of our control, but it's up to the architect. But once resubmitted, it takes our staff approximately one to two weeks to rereview those plans, and then the cycle continues until the plans have been determined to be fully compliant.

Permits issued, inspections occur, and an occupancy can occur. So through the self certification project process, we anticipate a savings approximately two to four months that the architect or business or homeowner could gain. And so the difference would be they would apply for the self certification application. There 'd be completeness check by our staff just to make sure they have the appropriate components. You know, they've signed the liability form, and then a permit would be issued right away.

Inspections occur and then occupancy would be issued. And so, obviously, there would be a time savings, but also a plan check cost savings to the applicant because no longer do they need to recover staff time involved in that plan check. And then there'd be certainty as far as when they can start construction. So a lot of times, a business owner might have a contractor ready, but they can't start until we finish the plan check cycle. So this would give them more certainty as far as the start date.

And then for the city, we would benefit by removing a lot of these plans ahead of our plan check log or a queue. And then that would allow our staff to get to the more complicated projects sooner. Some potential issues that, you know, we anticipate is there may be some reluctance on behalf of the architects to actually assume full responsibility and liability. We anticipated to be some increased burden on our inspectors knowing that the plans weren't fully reviewed by city staff. They would be a little bit more cognizant to look for code violations.

And then if violations are found out in the field, it could result in construction delays later associated with having to rework some of the improvements and then revise plans for compliance. So as far as staff, next steps with city council support, we would look to conduct that additional outreach with architectural community just to make sure we get their buy in and develop a program that would be successful at launch. We'd also work with our city attorney's office to prepare the necessary indemnification and liability forms, and really put together a very clear process and guidance for the community. So we anticipate over the next four months, we can begin to implement this and hopefully have a program ready to go. And then lastly, I just wanted to touch upon an additional tool that we get asked about a lot, and that's the use of artificial intelligence or AI.

This is something that's been really interesting for us to follow. We our staff has participated in a number of demos or demonstrations with various companies that are popping out, and there's a ton of new software focused on code compliance using AI. It's pretty fascinating to see how fast it's evolving. But in our opinion, it's not quite there yet, but it's gonna be there pretty soon. I think pretty soon, we'll be able to leverage this as an additional tool to help with prescreening.

So there'd be an opportunity to offer this program to architects as a courtesy where they can run their plans through review, work through any code issues before they actually submit to the city in hopes of reducing the number of plan check reviews and corrections issued. And also just an opportunity to use it for completeness review. Oftentimes plans are submitted and they're not fully complete and that kinda wastes around of review. So there's a possibility we can use this to ensure plans are fully complete before our engineers and planners even review the plans for the first time. And we think it's a a good tool for our staff to use as well.

So they're not starting from a baseline of zero. They can run it through the software, identify the big issues, and help expedite their review as well. And then lastly, we think once it's we have a program we're comfortable with, we can make it a prerequisite to run the plants through before they're eligible for self certification. But we're hopeful that this will be a technology you can leverage further in the future. But that concludes my presentation.

Thank you so much for that thorough presentation. Do we have any questions? Oh, council member Wigan.

Yeah. Thank you, Jaime, and thank you, Simone. It's great because you came from that community development background, so you saw firsthand what's going on in the city. Could you bring up that very first, I think, slide that kinda talked about how many dollars or

Council member Wagon, if I may. So that number there, the dollar amount you see is the valuation that doesn't translate equally to construction value. I always say just double that, and that's pretty much the true construction value of what's being invested in our community.

And so all those blue dots or any type of construction, you know, majority probably are are just homeowners that are doing either simple remodels or major remodels. Would you would you say that that's kind of the bulk of

Yes. According to the pie chart, there is approximately about 74.

So those are just your average Joe resident trying to do either something minor, something, you know, completely major, any anywhere in between. I think that's probably the biggest source of frustration that I see, you know, just being on council. I get a lot of people reaching out to me like the process is, you know, slow or that, you know, somebody along the way, their contractor tells them one thing and they've come to find out after me doing some digging with city staff that it's really the contractor, not not the city that's holding them up. But I find that to be mostly the issue, but I think this gives an opportunity to let the homeowner sort source out the correct architect, find somebody who's willing to do the the self attestation and get that certification process going so this process gets so much easier on the average resident who's looking to do it. I know tons of people up and even just down my street that sometimes are pulling out their hair.

And this is, you know, buying a car, buying a home, and then doing a home remodel. Those are probably the biggest expenses that anyone's ever gonna have. So I think that streamlining this and saving some dollars, saving some time because every day that this is being built, it costs the homeowner money. So I appreciate staff putting together something in this and it's a good step forward. As far as our staff time and contracted out work, do you feel that that's gonna be a major expense or use of time to get started?

But once it's implemented, then we'll kinda have a developed list of architects that are, you know, running around doing city work because I would say there's, you know several builders and you know a list of folks that continuously do Newport work. Same with realtors there. You know you're not finding out of town realtors, you're finding local realtors and a lot of these homebuilders or more like general contractors or locals or folks that specifically do Newport work. So having that kind of good list of folks who are already doing Newport work, getting them to that self certification period. Once that's passed, then I would imagine the staff workload drops, and then this runs smoothly.

So I think we're on the right step here. I broke down some notes, but I think I covered most of them. But, yeah, again, I think the average resident gets frustrated with the process either being a contractor that's doing it slow or just seeing how long it takes to get these approvals. So I think speeding this up is is a good thing. So thanks for putting this together. Any

other comments up here before we go out for public comment? Seeing none, we'll open it up. Any comments or

Adam Leverence. I'm a big fan of reduced red tape and bureaucracy. So this sounds like a good idea. I appreciate Jaime's explanation of of still some level of oversight, plan review, possible audit process for those who use this, and still on-site inspections. Just as a cautionary tale, I'll tell a story from Coastal Commission in February.

Humboldt County has something like this, but it's beyond the scope of what this is gonna entail. A builder architect up there got a permit to build an 8,000 square foot home and move 1,500 cubic yards of fill. He built a 21,000 square foot home and moved 15,000 yards of fill. The result being that all kinds of fines and penalties and the house has to be torn down. Again, the projects here aren't on that scope. Ideally, everyone would be an ethical actor, but we live in the real world and know that's not true, but it sounds like the safety checks in there should help. And again, just to reduce time, make things efficient. Good idea. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi. Anna Gromis representing the Building Industry Association of Southern California, specifically the Orange County chapter. I typically attend these council meetings in opposition of fees or bad policies, but I'm actually here before you to commend to the city and staff for taking such an important step in, creating more predictability and cert certainty for development. I understand the concerns that were raised, but I I feel like staff is doing it correctly starting at on a smaller scale as much as we would like to see single family residential attached and detached, type five construction included in that one day. We do think that it's important that you start small, see what the results are like, and then build upon that.

And just to add, as part of our advocacy over adversity campaign this year, we're meeting with every city in the county. And I don't tell every city this, but you guys have been, one of the cities that really have stood out, as being forward thinking and really innovative in your processes. One of the biggest complaints that we get from our builders and our developers is the plan check process is terrible. It's cumbersome. The comments are different in every city. It can, you know, go back for multiple reviews. So we feel this is a step in the right direction to kinda add more certainty and predictability in that process. So I thank you for your time and consideration of these comments.

Thank you. Next speaker.

Good afternoon, mayor council members. Denise Oberman.

Nancy Gardner and I seem to be in the spirit of things. I went to the Cronomr Residence Association meeting last week. Police, fire, library, public works and community development all had tables there staffed by employees. And I'm sure if you ask those employees what you want to do after a full day at work, going and talking to residents for two hours would probably not be number one. But you couldn't have told it from their demeanor. They were so enthusiastic and so informative. They were such great ambassadors for the city. And you work with them all the time, but for those of us who don't, it was a great reminder of just how fortunate we are in the people who serve our city.

Thank you for that. We certainly echo that sentiment up here. Any other comments?

Jim

Moser again, and I I would second that comment as well. I I had another process question, because of this comes before your announcements, I can't anticipate what your announcements will be, but I I think you'll be hearing that the finance committee is gonna be meeting on Thursday to review the budget, which has just been posted. And I know some of the council members are uncomfortable with the way the finance committee works and it kind of shuts out the council members who are not on the committee from being fully apprised of what happens at those meetings. And so the process comment I wanted to make, which I made at the last finance committee meeting, but it was not heard by the five of you who are not on the committee, you should check or can check with the city attorney. But I believe it's always been true that the five council members who are not on the finance committee are quite welcome to attend the meeting if they want to do so as observers.

So they can come here and see the full discussion which will be taking place on Thursday.

Thank you. Thank you.

Hi there, mayor and council members. My name is Shaylee Hilkama, and I'm a Newport Beach resident and a mooring permit holder. Tomorrow is the Newport Harbor Foundation State of the Bay luncheon, where tickets start at $500 a plate, and one can be a platinum supporter of this nonprofit organization for $25,000. Past Harbor Commissioner Skip Kenny will be there to give a mooring permit fees update, and Harbor Master Paul Blank and past Harbor Commissioner City Council Member and Mayor Duffy Duffield will also be speaking about Harbor related matters. Council member Joe Stapleton, is also a past harbor commissioner and a past mayor, and a current member of a two person ad hoc committee that will in his words, do a complete review of everything regarding harbor management will emcee.

In an effort to inform myself about what goes on and who does what, I've gone to the foundation's website. Mister Kenny informs us that the city of Newport Beach is obligated to manage the public tidelands and trust for the people of California, wherever private parties use or occupy these public tidelands. What he fails to mention in his article titled Update the Moorings is that mooring permit holders already pay much higher fees than like user groups, including those that are commercial and for profit. For those who are unaware, the city has threatened mooring permit holders with a three to 500% increase in their fees, and it wants to end our mooring transferability, so it can instead charge much higher fees for its city owned mooring license product. Mister Kenny also fails to mention that those with residential pier permits pay nothing to store their boats at their private docks, they pay a fraction of the fees we pay for much larger footprints on the public Thailands, they enjoy exclusive use rights, the city allows them to rent dock space for their private gain, which can amount to many thousands of dollars of profit per year, and the city hasn't threatened to revoke their permits.

I don't know what will be served up at the luncheon, but the unfair dealings of our policymakers really sticks in my throat. Thank you.

Thank you.

Had some slides I was hope hoping could be called up. And I wanna thank both the city attorney and the clerk for addressing some of the issues I'm talking about now. I I try to look at the agendas as soon as I expect them to come out, and there are several different ways you can do that on the city website. If you log on to the city website, this is a home page. There's usually a list of upcoming meetings on the right hand side. There you see tonight's meeting and tomorrow's Harbor Commission meeting. You would click on a link there, go to the next page, and it would take you to the meeting where you would find the agenda. Next slide please. And for Harbor Commission, well that's that's the calendar. That's another way to find agendas that lists the meetings for the month.

And in in May, so so the clicking on the homepage will take you to this on the city calendar. And you'll notice for Harbor Commission it says the agenda will be posted seventy two hours prior to the meeting. It said this Monday morning and Monday afternoon. Previously, have been able to see the agendas for tomorrow's meeting by clicking on that there, but there's no clickable link. And then the next slide is the calendar page.

There's about 10 meetings, city meetings on there. All of them I clicked on, I could see the agenda for those meetings except for the Harbor Commission meeting. And and that again, when you click on Harbor Commission, final slide, it goes to another page showing the Harbor Commission meeting saying the agenda will be available in seventy two hours. And the the I know the website is being reworked. I'm not blaming anybody.

I just don't want this to happen again. The clerk has informed me that you need to go to Granicus to find the agendas, but for the couple years I've been watching and and mister Harp says, oh, it's my computer. It's a lot of people's computers from different IP addresses. And this was fixed after I brought it to the attention of mister Harp yesterday afternoon. And I don't know what happened, but to expect everyone to follow one particular procedure and go to Granicus to find agendas. One for a couple years, people have been using a number of different procedures. That creates these concerns about transparency. And again, I'm not blaming anyone. I think it probably just was a computer glitch. But I hope to not see this happen again. Thank you.

Any other speakers?

Hello, mayor and council members, and, my name is Axel. I am part of Creek Team. I live in District 2. Thank you, council member Barto. I, I grew up in Newport, and I wanted to share some of the what has been going on in our county.

Over the last couple of months, we've uncovered violations that Orange County Public Works has had with their application of herbicides, specifically glyphosate throughout our Orange County and Orange County, especially within our waterways. The Santa Ana River, the San Diego Creek, which is North of 405 near the airport, and also in San Juan Capistrano on the San Juan Creek. They're they're currently currently multiple investigations going on for various violations with the agricultural commissioner as well as the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. We're concerned with the current policies that we've have not been followed as far as application and usage of chemicals, monitoring, and record keeping. This is having a biologist and looking for nesting birds in the area, that would protect these waterways flow right into the Newport Back Bay.

Growing up in the area, I've been told that Newport has some of the highest water quality in Southern California. So I'm I'm just I'm concerned that this is at risk for our city. It's something that's seen in the city of Newport Beach logo as sailing and water and fish. As a county, we should start to move in the direction of an organic first approach. Many other cities and counties already do this throughout California, specifically Irvine, San Clemente, San Juan Capistrano, Costa Mesa, and Laguna Niguel.

And we understand the need for targeted application for invasive species of glyphosate, which is an herbicide in specific instances, but the blanket spray of this herbicide is that is currently being done is outdated, out of compliance, and causing harm to endangered species, critical habitats, and our communities, and our children, and myself who swim in the bay and a surf in the ocean. Our creek team, Orange County creek team has updates for the integrated pest management system that we're asking Orange County to adhere to the mechanical removal and using herbicides like suppress, re re reintroducing native plants and the targeted application of stronger chemicals when needed with clearly defined thresholds. We're looking for the board of supervisors to add this as an agenda item and then get this voted on ASAP. Our CREE team is currently working on communicating this concern to each one of our supervisors, and we're looking for every city in Orange County to support this progressive transition to improved policies. This is where you come in.

Newport Beach Bay Newport Beach Back Bay is already designated as an impaired body of water. It's been scarred by the legacy of chemicals that have indiscriminately over the fifty the last fifty years been used in its watershed. We need to ensure this practice is adjusted and our water and our people are protected. I hope you can stand with us to better our county for communicate by communicating our city's desire to move in this direction. Please stand with the CREEK team and let the board of supervisors know this is an important matter to us all. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Newport beloved mayor, council members, and citizens. I am Steven Gerard Seplowski, a third order of Saint Francis. Do have an MBA, do have an engineering degree, and I am an have an honorable discharge with the United States Navy. I continue to amplify new USA pre born personhood cities, especially right here in Newport Beach because you have a city charter. And as you I hope you've had a moment to review the resolution in support of a Newport Beach California declaration of a safe pre born personhood city.

And for the citizens who do not know it, there are 10 whereas statements on this resolution, and there are four, be it further resolved statements. And I just would like to talk about one of the whereas statements. I believe it is whereas statement number five. It says, whereas California's motto is Eureka and the Golden State, and citizens prefer to honor the golden rule. And let's just go to the golden rule right in the holy bible.

The golden rule in the holy bible is Jesus teaching to treat others the way you would want to be treated, found in Matthew seven twelve and Luke six thirty one. It famously phrased Matthew seven twelve, so whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the law and the prophets. In a nutshell, we're called to love God and love our neighbors ourself. And to me, that means that fatherhood, motherhood, childhood, and preborn personhood are so very important to every city in the country, and it should always be under the greatest protection of public safety. So for you to put this resolution on the agenda, possibly between Mother's Day and Father's Day, it's a meaningful moment to actually do this.

I pray that God gives you the wisdom and understanding to know that we can now move in this new direction because of the US Supreme Court Dobbs decision. And I just want to reemphasize that about 4,000 citizens showed up at the California March for Life last March 16. So let the beating heart show you there is life in the womb, and we all have one thing in common anyway. Our mother said yes to us. Thank you for permitting me to speak. God bless you all.

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 Weigand, do you have any announcements or reports?

Just a brief, thank you. A resident reached out to council and myself directly. There was, some mulch that was placed in the castaways that was purchased, or not purchased, but donated from the county. And we had applied it out in the park and it had non organic material such as plastics and litter essentially. And the resident alerted us and it was late on a Friday I believe.

And so we reached out to staff and public works, wrote back right away and had a team out there the next morning sorting through that material and cleaning it up. So I just wanna appreciate Mark Bokowicz and Dave Webb, Kevin Bakar and your whole team for getting on that immediately. That is that platinum service that was mentioned in the study session that this city does care about and their employees care about the well-being of the city and coming out on a Saturday morning to get that in advance of knowing that the exchange club will be out at Castaways Park for the next two weeks and maybe council member Weber who's a member of the exchange club can give an update as to what's going on out there. But knowing that in advance that was coming, and the fact that staff got it right away. Simone, thank you to your team and and and public works for cleaning that up right away.

So thank you.

Councilmember Barto. No report. Councilmember Grant?

Just wanted to bring everybody up to speed about one of our partners in the community, the Boys and Girls Club of Central Orange Coast. We partner with them in a facility that we provide in East Bluff and had an opportunity to attend their twenty twenty six Impact Summit. It was very impressive. They demonstrated how instrumental this organization is for our community. They're located right in the heart of East Bluff.

They serve our Newport Mesa Unified School District. They've been working with us since 1971. We do partner with them. They're out there working with our youth, cultivating skills, and making sure that they are a strategic partner in working with our children in this district. So I wanna thank the Boys and Girls Club of Central Orange Coast, and I'm proud that, you know, in my district, East Bluff, we're able to provide that facility and offer that opportunity for our children in the district.

Council member Weber? I had to

pull up the flyer, but yes. So, on Saturday, it's Armed Forces Day at the Field Of Honor at Castaways Park at noon, And then there will be a Field of Honor Memorial Day ceremony on Monday, the twenty fifth at noon as well. Council

member Stapleton.

Both great events. Yeah. I just wanna echo former mayor Nancy Gardner's comments on the CDMRA. I did have a chance to attend that, and kudos to that entire organization from the board to the community members and to our staff who showed up in support. That was a wonderful day a wonderful evening. And congrats to all the local yacht clubs. A lot of opening days this last week and then a few more this week. And so the harbor, thanks to our harbor master, is clean, safe, well enjoyed, and I can't think of a better way to celebrate Newport Harbor. And like mister Moser said, we do have finance committee this Thursday at 03:00 in the room next door. Thank you.

Mayor Proton Blom.

Nothing, airport. Thank you.

And I just want to congratulate Ben Zadiva, who was just promoted to deputy city manager. On a personal note, Ben and I have come up together all of our years working on planning commission while I was on that board. We also went through Citizens Police Academy, feels like a million years ago, probably ten or eleven years ago, actually. Ben is a very dedicated employee of the city and is certainly deserving of this leadership role. Madam clerk, would you please read the notice regarding public comments on the consent calendar?

This is a time in which council members may pull items from the consent calendar for discussion, items one through 13. Public comments are also invited on consent calendar items. Speakers must lee limit comments to three minutes. Before speaking, please state your name for the record. If any item is removed from the consent calendar by a council member, members of the public are invited to speak on each item for up to three minutes per item.

All matters listed on the 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.

City staff has requested that item number four be pulled from the consent agenda. Other than that, council member Wigan, do you have any items to pull from consent calendar or conflicts to announce related to items one through 13?

No. I do not.

Council member Bartow. I do not. Council member Grant? None. Council member Weber? None. Council member Stapleton?

Yeah. Recusal on item number 11 based on my real property interest in personal residence.

Mayor Pro Tem Blom.

Thank you. Madam mayor, I have a recusal on item five to a real property interest at 22 Fort Marine.

We'll now open it up for public comments. Are there any comments on the consent calendar? Seeing none, I will bring it back up here. Do we have a motion?

Thank you, madam. I have a motion to move the balance of the consent calendar, noting that staff has pulled item four, my own personal recusal, due to real property on item four, and council member Stapleton's recusal on item 11 due to his personal residence, as well as adjustments to the minutes.

Do I have a second? Second from council member Bartow. Let's go ahead and vote.

Motion carried by unanimous vote and, council member mayor pro tem Blom abstain.

No. No. I just didn't have an option. Oh. But I'm for it. So seven o.

Unanimous.

There's a computer glitch. I know I hate this.

Okay. We'll now move on to public hearings. Before consideration of agenda item number 14, are there any council members that have a conflict related to this item?

Yeah. I've got a conflict based on, interest in property at 414110 McArthur.

I will also be recusing myself on this item as my husband's working with Intercorp on a project outside of the city and county. So I will now turn it over to mayor pro tem Blom.

Thank you very much. Do we have any comments up here on the dais before we move out to public comment on this item, or do we need a staff report on this? Looks like neither. Let's move into public comment. Well, this is gonna be a short recusal for us, isn't it? All right. Bringing it back up here. Any further comments after that deliberation that we just dealt with? Seeing none. Wonderful. I'm going make a motion to approve staff recommendation on this. And I have a second from council member Weber. And I've just executed the shortest approval in the history of the city of Newport Beach. Alright. And we can get the other members back here, and we'll be all set.

Motion carried by five yes and, two recusals.

I'm happy to keep going if we wanna beat a speed record today, but I think we'll probably wait for the mayor. Don't get excited, Keith. I won't be fast tomorrow.

Talk about efficient.

We've lost council member Stapleton in the efficiency.

Okay. Moving on to item number 15, ordinance amending Newport Beach municipal code section related to cost recovery percentages and resolution revising and adopting fees within the schedule of rents, fines, and fees. Mister Georges, do we have staff report?

Thank you, madam mayor. We do have a brief staff report. This is kind of our annual review of our different fees. This year, it's it's the community development department, fire department, and the police department. Abigail Marin is here. She'll make a brief presentation, and our finance admin's administrative services director, Jason Aleman, is here also.

Good evening, mayor and members of the city council. My name is Abigail Merritt. I'm a budget analyst administrative services department, and I'm just gonna dive right into the presentation. So every year, administrative services department takes a look at all our cost of service fees. We do a rotational study for each department every three to five years.

During this fiscal year study, we took a look at the community development, fire, and police department, and we reviewed all their user fees and charges. These departments were last studied as a whole in fiscal 2223. And there was also a few one off fees in departments not studied, including but not limited to the short term lodging permit fees. The scope of the study did not include taxes, development impact fees, or utility rates. And our finance committee actually reviewed these proposed changes on April 16, and they recommended that we bring them to you here for your review and consideration.

So the authority that we have to charge these the city has to charge these fees start with the Newport Beach municipal code or fiscal sustainability plan and certain council policies. Most of the city's fees are set at a 100% cost recovery as mandated by our municipal code with the exception to those that are designated as a subsidy. And then this slide before you shows you that when we're talking about cost recovery fees, there's a general spectrum that we are allowed to charge for kind of these fees. There's a general benefit provided whether there's a general benefit provided or a private benefit. We tend to see that if there is a general benefit, these fees tend to be subsidized by general revenues.

And when that fee is more of a private benefit, such as a single person or a single company type of fee, that benefit is usually not subsidized by any general revenues. So we're now gonna touch I'm gonna touch upon all the the changes that happened in the departments. I'm not gonna get into all the details since that's thoroughly outlined in the staff report. The community development provides an array of services, including plan review, permitting, and inspection. In the study this year, various fees under this department have updated notes or adjusted the presentation of the fee for easier reference and to be clear on the components that are included in the fee.

For example, various categorizations of fees where there is a plan review have identified the two sections of the fee, both the building and the planning components. And we also wanted to note that the affordable housing implementation plan fee that you're seeing is broken out from previous deposit based structure. For clarification, this is actually not a new fee. And, also, our staff and the community development department did meet with the building industry association on April 2 to review these proposed fee changes to continue to ensure transparency and collaboration and trust between our our city and the development community. The overall fiscal impact associated with the proposed fee changes in CDD is $316,000.

And then in the police department, we tend to see services such as specialized permit review, police reports, and animal regulation fees. In this department, we are proposing a new ebike impound release fee proposed due to the increasing number of ebike impounds across the city. Various reports in the schedule you will note have been consolidated under one police reports fee. The alarm fees throughout the schedule have also been grouped together, and the bike license fee is proposed to be removed from the schedule because these are no longer provided and the fee is obsolete. Additional updates to this municipal code section in Newport Beach at three point three six point zero through 30.

We will be removing that bike license fee, and we're also gonna be adjusting the fingerprinting city portion figure to $30, removing the secondhand pawn dealer tag check and renaming some of the impound feed dogs, cats, small animals to other similar sized animals instead and adjusting those rates. The taxicab permitting fee that you used to see in the police department is now gonna be moving to the administrative services department. And the overall fiscal impact associated with these proposed changes is $35,000. And then we are moving on to the fire department, which was our third department review. They provide risk services to the community by protecting life, property, and the environment through prevention, training, education, and response.

There were a few changes proposed to the fire fees. New fees include the care facility hospital lift assist, which is for list assist services provided to private care facilities. I'd like to point out that this fee had an update today, which would allow one assist per calendar year at no charge instead of the three figure that was previously listed, which with each additional assist thereafter subject to the full cost recovery fee established in the schedule, and this has been updated in the resolution for your approval. The hazard materials response fee is also new. There are some planned revisions for fire staff reviewing planned revisions.

It won't be charged in fifteen minute increments. The general inspection fee that's listed here is for fire prevention inspections that are not otherwise categorized under established inspection programs or permits. And we also have a multifamily apartment and condos fee. And then additionally, for our emergency ambulance transportation fee, this is being proposed to be removed as a standalone fee as this is incorporated into the free fee rates for the advanced life support and basic life support per transport fee. We'll also be re making a recommendation to you to make changes to Newport Beach municipal code 3.360.03 to change the subsidy amounts reflected in the advanced life support, nontransport, basic life support, nontransport ALS first responder fee, and the BLS first responder fee.

Currently, the subsidy amounts that are charged is $400, and we are proposing that to be increased to to $450. Though the full cost of providing these services exceeds the proposed fee. And then we also have our junior lifeguard program fee that is being proposed to be phased in with a 6% annual increase to align with the full cost of service. This too is reflected as a proposed subsidy until the full cost recovery target is met. The overall fiscal impact associated with proposed fees is an estimated a $143,000 in revenue.

And then also we had some other studies in the administrative services department for the short term lodging permit fees. On 05/13/2025, our finance committee actually asked us to take a look at this fee, and we've incorporated those estimates for cost of service in annual volumes across all the fee subsections for this fee. And this is reflected in the cost of service estimate and proposed to have an estimated revenue impact of $443,000. And then just as a note to you today, a parking penalty fee will be included $22,500 subsection n for California vehicle code parked near Crosswalk to align with assembly bill 400 prohibition on stopping, standing, or parking within defined distances of marked or unmarked crosswalks to improve pedestrian safety. And the slide before you is just giving you a recap of all the departments that we studied.

The proposed fee updates will result in approximately $937,000 of additional revenue in the next fiscal year. Before you is a timeline of our study process. As mentioned, we did meet with our finance committee on April 16. Today, we are proposing a review of the first ordinance reading and the changes that are highlighted in all the attachments related to the staff report. A second reading of the ordinance would be brought forth on May 26.

The effective date for most of the fees can be immediately, but we are proposing an effective date of July 1 for most of those to align with the start of the new budget season. And increases of CPI adjustments in nonstudy departments is 3.16%. The building and development fees will be recommended to be effective on July 25, and this is because California government code section sixty six zero one seven provides that building and development fees may not take effect until at least sixty days following adoption of the resolution or ordinance establishing or increasing the fees. So today, we recommend and ask of you to conduct the public hearing and approve the 2526 fee study update and the related recommendations and reflected in the staff report. And that concludes the presentation.

Thank you, Abigail, for the presentation and all the work on this. Council member Wigan.

Yes. Just on, page 39 of the fee schedule, I think, booklet, I just the ALS BLS response. There's section seventeen, eighteen, 19. I wanted just to make sure well, not make sure, but state that there's no increase to the medics program, and that's while I have the soapbox here that I have. The medics program provides you as a resident to and there's some homeowner association members here, but I would stress everyone, get this program.

It's $7 on your water bill that you can have added, and then it covers your ambulance charges. So anyone in your household, anything happens on your property, an ambulance gets called up and they need to transport you to Hoag or wherever, your insurance covers that cost, and then the difference, the city takes care of. You don't have to pay anything out of pocket. So for $7 a month, it's a great program. The chief's eyes, I hope, are lit up on this because if you don't use it, then the supplies get replenished and we can purchase more stuff for our department.

But it's a great program. I've actually used it in my house, but you can have anyone. So if somebody trips and falls on your property, they need an ambulance, it's covered. You don't have to worry about anything. There's also a tab here for businesses, that pay the same fee, and then if they have extra employees, it's a little bit more. So this is a great program, and I get the opportunity to highlight it, but I hope everyone here gets an opportunity to put it on their water bill.

Thank you. Seeing no other comments up here. We'll go ahead and open it up for public comment.

Mayor Kleinman, members of the council, my name again is Jim Bossier. It it might be pointed out that the fee schedule as currently printed, it used to be in a kind of a spreadsheet compressed format. It now takes 85 pages to print it out and several more pages in the municipal code of cost recovery percentages. So it's a very complex thing and it's difficult to get all the parts synchronized properly. One of the things we saw in the slides was that you're introducing a e bike impoundment fee, which was part of an ordinance that you passed in December.

The ordinance also though set up a diversion program for people to commit violations and the ordinance expected that there would be a fee for that and it seems to have fallen through one of the cracks. I assume the diversion program is gonna be implemented this year if it's not been already, but the fee does not seem to be established and the cost recovery program doesn't say that it's free. So there there is some problem there. Also, more recently, you amended the tree policy, which is overseen by PPNR. You wanted to insulate yourself from that.

Part of the new policy creates for the first time a fee for people putting in requests to remove a city tree. It takes quite a lot of staff time to process those requests. Through some oversight, there'd never been a charge for those, even though it's personally serving one person, and there'd been no charge for the appeals of tree issues, which you did not want to hear, but PBNR still would be hearing them. A lot of staff time goes into those. The fee has never been established for that.

And then my final comment is I don't really understand why this council is moving in the direction of wanting 100% cost recovery for participation in our junior lifeguard program. Past councils thought that it provided some public benefit to do safety training for people, making young people more aware of ocean safety. So it seemed to justify some subsidy. And I would point out, although it's not mentioned in the cost recovery program that we subsidize that, I don't think we charge for participation in the CERT program put on by the fire department. I don't think we charge for participation in the Citizens Police Academy, which have some similarity to the Junior Lifeguard program.

So I'm not sure why we're singling that out for a full cost recovery and also why we don't indicate the subsidy for the others in our cost recovery table. So, again, that's a very complex thing, and it has a few loose ends that should be tidied up. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other comments with the public hearing open? Seeing none, I will go ahead and close the public hearing. Any additional council comments or questions? Council member or mayor Potomac Blom.

Thank you, madam mayor. I did just wanna talk on the junior guards program very quickly and to mister Moser's comments. I think they're very valid, and I agree with the sentiment of them that, yes, of absolutely, do we wanna encourage young people to be part of the ocean? I think it starts getting very difficult when we have so many applicants that not everyone can attend. I think it is an amazing amount of work from both our fire and lifeguard departments to put these things on.

And the cost, as I very well know, because I have a three year old and I'm trying to get her into every possible summer program that exists on this planet right now, is minuscule in comparison. And even though I fully agree that we're constantly trying to push to build people that are more involved in these things, as mister Moser put out, attendance is not our current issue, But cost recovery does give us a huge amount of benefits. And I think for some of the other questions out there, you know, are we leaving out others then? Well, we have a huge amount of programs that make it available for a lot of different people of all socioeconomic levels. So, you know, charities and foundations that work exactly for this program, but somehow it is always difficult for me from any perspective to say that our job up here is to just spend, spend, spend.

And as we're looking through some of these things, we have to understand that sometimes our job has to be to save and spend on things that we can recover. So And this one, it has my full support, even though I'm not super excited when Sterling gets there to pay the extra $140 it might be. But thank you, mister Mosher.

Council member Weigand.

Yeah. I I had I had kinda had some questions on the junior guards myself, and then I asked the chief and and staff, and you know, it's $850 minus the $1.50 uniform cost. Twenty eight days total, three hours a day is $8.4 an hour. I mean, that's pretty good, you know. That's a that's a great babysitting tool that Citi has, but I mean, they are educating and are, as mister Mosier said, getting you know, water certified and safety at the beach.

So I think it's it's still a good value. There are 25 of the participants I think are actually from Costa Mesa, Irvine, and surrounding cities. So, you know, Newport is subsidizing a little bit of their ability to be in the program, but the Beacon Bay bill prevents us from charging a different fee structure for out of town or not new non Newport Beach residents. So I think we're on the right track here, and and my kids are both going to be junior guards this year, and yeah, I mean, nobody wants to see a fee increase, but as we see, I think they're getting a good value for the amount of time that they're they're out on the beach and they're learning a lot. So I think it's great.

And then I think CERT is is paid for by FEMA or by the Feds. So I think that's that's those costs there are covered by by the federal agencies. So thank you.

Thank you. Any other comments up here? Okay. I will just add, I am glad to see the addition of this fee for or recovery, I'll call it, for assist calls in our care facilities, particularly the new change after the first time so that businesses aren't using the backs of our first responders and taking them out of service for other calls where they might really be needed. So I'm hoping that this will encourage those operators to staff appropriately and and as they're really required to do by law.

Going forward, I'd also like to see staff take a look at full cost recovery or partial cost recovery for admin site and parking hearings to the extent that that's legally allowed. Any other comments or a motion up here?

Thank you, madam mayor. I'd love to make the motion approving staff recommendations on these fee structures.

Do we have a second? Seconded by council member Weber. Let's go ahead and vote.

Motion carried unanimously.

It is now time to move on current business resolution dissolving the Newport Beach Police Headquarters Assessment Committee and creating the Newport Beach Police Headquarters Advisory Committee. Do we have a staff report?

We do, madam mayor. This item is a recommendation from the Newport Beach Police Headquarters Assessment Committee, which is made up of mayor pro tem Noah Blom, council members Michelle Bartow, and council member sir Weber to reform a new Newport Beach Police Headquarters Advisory Committee. And our newly deputy city manager, Ben Zadiba, will have a brief presentation just to go over the the resolution.

Thank you, Simone, and good evening, madam mayor, council members. First of all, just appreciate the congratulatory message. It's an honor of a lifetime to continue serving the city of Newport Beach in

the city manager's office, and

I just couldn't be more happy. So thank you. However, I'm not effective yet, so I'll be making this presentation as your acting deputy community development director today. Just by way of a brief background, this came to light through an a one item that was initiated by then mayor Joe Stapleton and supported by council to, engage in a comprehensive evaluation of replacing the outdated Newport Beach Police Department headquarters. An assessment committee was formed with three council members who began meeting.

And then at the city council special meeting or the planning session earlier this year, a preview of that research was shared. There was a dedicated study session held on March 10, where staff sought guidance on four potential locations. Ultimately, city council directed staff to continue evaluating the Civic Center campus, but to let leave the other locations in play if that location does not come to fruition as being feasible. The advisory committee that we're looking at forming today would be comprised of three council members and four residents. Two of those residents would have qualifications, one being in real estate financing, one being in construction management related real estate development field or architecture and land use planning knowledge and experience.

The other two would be at large members with no particular requirements for qualifications. The purpose and responsibilities is up here on the screen, but generally, that advisory committee would be charged with evaluating the feasibility of the Civic Center Campus as a potential site for the new headquarters and then assessing the cost and design and making the recommendation ultimately to city council. If you choose to adopt the resolution this evening, these are the next steps. So there will be a notice posted by the city clerk. Interested residents will have one week to apply.

The mayor will form an ad hoc committee to review those potential appointments, and then ultimately, the city council will confirm all appointments, at which point in time, the advisory committee will be sworn in and will be begin meeting starting to identify their work plan and ultimate schedule providing council updates along the way. That concludes my very brief presentation. I'm available for any questions. Thank you.

Thank you. So we're going to, of course, go out to the public, but I wanted to see if we could get some clarity up here first. I believe the intent behind this new committee, if approved tonight, would be to have a broader scope and purpose than the language that was in the draft resolution. My expectation is that the committee would discuss, assess, and get public input on the three options that were considered by the council ad hoc committee. So perhaps it would be productive to just get a quick straw vote up here on support for that understanding before we move forward?

Can you explain further what in detail the three options you're talking about?

Sorry? Go ahead.

Why? I can't speak for the mayor, but I believe what she's asking is to just make it clear that, this committee's formation is to look at the probable three sites. And sometimes there is a little language in this that did not make that entirely clear. So is that the clarification I'm looking for, madam mayor?

That's that was my, my understanding, and yes, that is what I was suggesting.

It oh, go ahead.

Councilmember Grant?

Can we get a description of each of the sites, please?

So let me try to make that, madam mayor, that address. So we have the Civic Center site, 100 Civic Center Drive. We have the property up in the airport area at 1201 Dove Street, and then our Santa Barbara property. Does anybody know the street? So our existing site is 870 Santa Barbara.

Thank you. And

does this amendment to the resolution include some amendment to the $1,500,000 that was allocated on spending for the Civic Center site? Are we reallocating that money to all three sites, or how are we dealing with that allocation?

So it wasn't an amendment. It was just a request for clarification up here if the intent was reflected in the draft resolution or if the intent is as I described it. Council member Stapleton?

Yeah. I think the intent is to, to your point, to somewhat reset level set, get the public involved, and study the three sites that we just discussed.

Okay. So we'll go back to the straw vote for description of the intent just so we can start there when we open it up for public comments.

Sorry, mayor. I'm still not clear on exactly what we're amending in the intent, and I'll restate my question. We originally allocated $1,500,000 to study the Civic Center site. Are we amending that with this clarification, or is that a separate issue?

So I think you're doing is for us.

Sorry.

It go ahead.

So I think all you're doing is is kind of amending the scope of of what the ad hoc committee scope and responsibilities are to make it broader as opposed to, you know, it may be a rather being too limited. So I think it's just to expand the scope in in that. It's not dealing with any of the money at all. It's only dealing with kind of what are the purpose of responsibilities of the committee.

I appreciate that clarification, but I'm still unclear, so I'll continue. At one point along this timeline, we allocated $1,500,000 to study to commence environmental studies on the Civic Center site. Are we still continuing with that $1,500,000 allocation to environmental studies on the Civic Center site? Are we holding off on that? Are we spending the 1,500,000 on all sites? I I'm I'm not clear with what we're doing there.

So, madam mayor, if I may, What I would envision with this amendment, so now if this gets support tonight, you'd have a advisory committee. And if the advisory committee wants to see more conceptual design for 1201 Dove, then we would have to come back to council and say, we have an architect, we need a contractor, we need to expand the scope of work. So everything's being based off recommendations from the advisory committee. The council has set aside 1 and a half million dollars, and if that's not enough, we're gonna have to come back to city council. We'll get recommendations from the advisory committee.

But we we we don't have the ability to even discuss or vote on that allocation at this time. It wasn't agenda. Is right? So we're just talking about this ad hoc committee at this

This advisory committee. Correct.

Yes. So to further clarify for me or maybe for the public, we previously approved $1,500,000 to study the Civic Center site. We're not amending that. We're just broadening the scope of this particular committee, but we continue to move forward with the allocation towards the Civic Center site. Is that correct?

Nothing else has changed except reforming this advisory committee.

Thank you.

We will now open it up for public comments.

Adam Leverence. Thank you, Council Member Grant. The perception, two separate things, the 1 and a half million not agendized. But if this money is designated to look at Civic Center Park, which reading all the letters to the editors and talking to people and interacting with people seems to be incredibly unpopular. I appreciate the inclusion of citizens on this new committee, should you form it.

It still looks like though there's kind of a single-minded focus, you know, which maybe you have to, as was perhaps suggested by mister Durges, this 1 and a half million could maybe be used to look at all sites. And I'll talk about a letter I wrote to the editor probably a year ago. The the concept, Newport is spread out enough. The traffic is crowded enough of possibly police substations rather than $163,000,000 building in one single location. This helps with response times to the individual districts in town.

It's also, you're familiar probably with the phrase, don't put all your eggs in one basket should there be a earthquake. You may not lose all facilities at one time. So I'd encourage the thought of maybe Santa Barbara being redeveloped, but also substations to mitigate some of the traffic concerns and response time concerns and not having all your eggs in one basket. I mean, it's quite clear to me that the majority of people don't want to lose the park. And I just hope that's given consideration. Thank you.

Good evening, mayor Kleinman and council members. Ron Rubino, a resident of East Bluff. I appreciate this change, so I'm in favor of the change for the committee, but I have a couple of items of clarification that I'd like you to think about as you go forward. In the scope of work that was written by staff, there were four options, including the land across the street from the Civic Center. In there, it's cited.

We think it's too expensive. I'd like you to keep option four included. Okay? Between not using a site in Northwood and selling it, you may have money coming in that would help you buy additional land right across the street and somehow finance any differential and keep the park. So in the study of the committee, that's recommendation one, all four options that were in that report should now stay in, not just the three that you mentioned.

Number two, on the attachment page two of the new committee, I just wanna say my expectation is, and correct me if I'm wrong, these will be open meetings. They'll be posted. There'll be agendas. There'll be minutes. The public will be invited to participate. It'll be like the airport advisory committee. I'd like to see you televise it if people can't attend. I think when you move the airport meeting in here, it became more available to the rest of the community, which I was in favor of, and I'm glad you did. I'd like you to do the same. I know it's tough finding the nights that the big room is available.

Alright? I'd like to have two staffs meetings as we progress. Somehow, as you dip into this and you're halfway, a meeting to the public, a meeting to the city council, let us hear this from the committee and let us comment on what we're hearing halfway through. Don't go all the way through and then give it to us when it's finished. Let us hear the progress. Let us dig into the details. We'll have more confident in the confidence in the process. In the appointment of the members, I'd like you to try to find a expert who's built a police department. It could be a retired police department. It could be even if you don't find a citizen who's volunteering, hire somebody.

I'll just tell a quick story. I had to build a data center for the county of Orange. Alright? I was IT director. I hired a colonel from the air force who was retiring, and he became the head of our team to design and then manage the processability, the best hire I ever made, and the best protection of the county to build a state of the art data center. Get somebody who's actually been involved in building and designing a police department. You'll have your staff. You wanna depend on them? Bring in some PD that are staff at the sergeant and lieutenant or even captain level. Let them dig into this a little bit about operational efficiency.

I'm not convinced, and I've stated it before. I don't think you need all the facilities in one place. It may be more cost effective to have certain items in a sec secondary places like the motor pool. Thank you very much. Thank submit written comments that'll give you more detail.

Next speaker, please.

Good afternoon, mayor Kleinman and members of the council. I'd like to focus especially on the paragraph a, which is the language that you're gonna adopt, and particularly that word feasibility. Feasibility is whether it's possible. So what this committee, as this language is drafted, is tasked with doing is looking at whether it's possible to take that land right north of us here and build a police station. That's not why hundreds of people were here on the March 10.

That's not why a 100 people at least will be there tomorrow night to hear Noah Blum debate Keith Curry. They wanna talk about whether it's a good idea or a bad idea. And as the prior speaker said, I think most people think this is a bad idea. So instead of feasibility, the word you want there is feasibility and advisability. That would allow this committee to consider, is this a good idea or not?

That would allow them to think about the environmental, the aesthetic, the safety, the financial, the moral reasons, pro and con. So, yes, let's expand to look at other places, but let's include advisability because as it's worded, I can imagine at a meeting of this committee, someone comes up and says, it's a terrible idea, and gets shut down by saying, no. No. No. That's not our purpose. We're only looking at feasibility. So as drafted,

I would vote no. Thank you. Next speaker, please.

Good evening, everybody. I'm Keith Curry. The, proposal to add residents to the advisory committee for the police station in the park plan is too little and it's too late. The overwhelming majority of city residents do not support this location. It is by far the most expensive site.

It has serious operational issues and very serious environmental issues. It also destroys one of the city's most popular parks. What you should do is to formally take the park out of consideration so that the resources can be focused on sites that enjoy community support and are more financially responsible. The continued insistence that all sites are still being considered is contradicted by the many public comments of several of you saying that Dove Street in Santa Barbara should be eliminated from consideration, endorsing this as the only site, and opposing any public financing for the project. Indeed, some of you have written op ed pieces in the paper endorsing the park.

The very action tonight where you are selecting someone with real estate finance experience supports this view because it is to pursue the sale of Santa Barbara and Dove Street. And so if the question was how to finance construction, you'd be appointing someone with public infrastructure finance experience. To make this evening productive, what you should do is explain to the residents why you believe that selling the Santa Barbara site to develop a 300 foot high, high density apartment house is a good thing for the city because I have not met a single resident who believes that it is. This is an integral part of the park proposal. It's how you're going to pay for the park proposal.

So Santa Barbara and Dove Street are really not sites being actually considered. And while you're at it, you might wanna explain how that site became entitled to 300 feet, but that might be a question for another day. Finally, to my astonishment, your action has inspired an entire catalog of songs that have not been seen protest songs, not seen since the Vietnam War. Some of them are on social media now. I understand some of you are gonna be name checked and there are people behind them will be rolling them out over the course of the year.

So congratulations, you've achieved what no other Newport Council has. You've been immortalized in song. I would just encourage you in the name of fiscal responsibility, in the name of unity in the community, and in the goal of moving forward for a new police station. Let's pull the plug on the park idea right now. Thank you very much.

Good afternoon, madam mayor and members of the council. My name is Nancy Skinner, and I've been thinking about how we got where we got and where we are. And I think that part of the problem is sometimes you don't always know what the people want. I know you work hard and appreciate the whole work that you do, but I think you when you first brought this up and you saw the reaction, at at this point, you should recognize that what we were headed for or what you were headed for is not popular with this city. I have not I like everybody else, I have not found anybody yet who thinks this is a good idea, and they're ready to go against it, whatever it takes.

So I hold really, frankly, hope that you will see what most of us are seeing and maybe hearing from your friends as well, that why would you continue with even putting a million and a half dollars into a study of something that I think the the chance of it actually ending up being the place for you to so that it was decided is very, very small. It just seems to me like waste of money and a little bit the same way we in buying the big thing on Dove Street may be a waste of money. And I'm thinking to myself, maybe one option is just to sell it. I don't I have not heard anybody say that, but maybe your committee would do that. So I agree with all the other people who have spoken on all the other issues too.

We don't want the park. We know that. So when you're looking at options, if you could see what we're seeing to take that one off the table and anything else because we all love the police, and we want a good the right thing for them, but not there. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Evening, counsel. I'm Andy Gerken. Just had some things to say that have, been changed a little bit since I've learned that you're at least looking at some of the other options, which I think is great. But I think, part of the my problem is that the whole process started the wrong direction with that not enough of the right people, just a few people making the decisions, and then we found about out about it later. And I'm still a little bit concerned about the makeup of the the added, people that are gonna be on the committee, which I think is great, but I don't think they need to be specialists.

I think we need they need to be, like, taking the pulse. They gotta be the resident so we know what the people want is really what this is about, why we're not even wanting to look at the park because so many people are against it even if we could do it, afford to do it, and we hired these people to be on this committee. These new people, they're not really the residents. We need to know what they they wanna do. And so I think we gotta, and and some of the lack of transparency early was kinda breeze a little bit distrust.

So I think this will help bring the trust back, but I think it's gonna be more trusting when the people who make up aren't kinda picked for the committee and added. I think they should be more, like, scientific. Like, we have a when we do studies in science, I'm a doctor. You have a you have randomized selection. You don't have you know, you have to pick. You take, a lot of people who wanna be on the committee and and voice their opinion and and and choosing where it's and representing all the people in, Newport Beach and their opinions on where they would actually want it to be because we know that they don't really want it to be here. That's a big factor, I think, in where it ends up. That's what I have to say.

Thank you. Any other speakers?

Mayor Kleinman, members of the council, my name is Jim Mowisher. As as I explained in writing, when the council wants advice from the citizens, our city charter actually provides a mechanism for doing that. It instructs you to create an advisory board or commission, and those boards or commissions would consist entirely of citizens, and they would give you an independent opinion, And then all of you could deliberate on that separate independent opinion, which I think would be a better path than this. If we are following this path and this resolution, I I really question why the way it's set up, all of you would be giving the mayor the complete discretion to choose the members and you would simply confirm them. In most other cases, you look at the applications and all of you vote on the applications.

I think that's a better way. And then, like council member Grad, I'm really a little confused about what you're, how you are revising the purpose and responsibilities of this. I look at purpose and responsibility A, it says evaluate and assess feasibility of the Civic Center Campus as a potential new site for a new police department headquarters. And yet we're somehow to interpret that to mean not that, but that and at least two other locations, why is the council not revising the purpose and responsibilities to actually say what you want this committee to do. I I see here a second provision that doesn't specifically say the city, state, or park.

B says assess the cost and design of developing a new police department headquarters. Could I guess be anywhere, but that presupposes somebody has decided where it should go, that we're evaluating actual design for that which would be specific to the location. Is this committee picking the location on their own and then going on to do this and come back to you like we had at the March 10 study session with this this is our choice? I think you should have a two step process here where they make a recommendation. Once you've done that, then you evaluate the design and the cost.

And then finally, if the Civic Center Park is still in here, which clearly it will be in your decision, I kind of like Doctor. Gergen's suggestion of randomized selection of people to be on here so you have a cross section of the public. I know Council Member Weigand was concerned about that, But if you are going to have a construction and a finance expert on this, would suggest you also have somebody with background and knowledge and expertise in environmental protection because that would be a big issue for the park location.

Thank you. Any other speakers on this item? Seeing oh.

At a mayor and council members, my name is Evelyn Kroner, and I live at 140 Via Harbor. My family has been coming to Newport Beach for the beauty and recreation for generations. My husband came as a Cub Scout to the Jamboree. His parents and grandparents had already been coming to Newport Beach. His grandmother, for instance, graduated from Orange High School in 1911, and his grandfather was part of the German community.

This has been a resource for the people of Southern California for more than a century. I am privileged and happy to have four of my grandchildren living here in Newport Beach, and I think we should be looking to the future. When I was born, the population of Newport Beach skyrocketed to 8,000. It's now well over 80,000. We currently have, I think, more than 1,600 housing units approved here in this area, this immediate area.

Where we are now was promised to be a buffer zone and nothing was ever to be built here, promise broken. We have the remnants of this area as a very lovely park. When my granddaughter who was born here in Newport Beach is my age, what will be here? What future are we giving to our children, our community children, and the children who will move here in the future? We need the open space, we need the parkland, this is a particularly beautiful place where you have ocean views.

Many places in Newport Beach there is no ocean view. Although we have many beautiful parks, we still have to go for playing fields to Fairview and other locations. We don't have enough parkland now. So I think I want to just speak on behalf of the park itself and the people that use it and the people who will be here to use it. We we have so many people coming and this is just the beginning of what's going to be approved in this area for housing. Please consider that we need the parkland and look for other sites. Thank you. Thank you.

Councilmember Grant.

Thank you. First, I want to thank staff for bringing this forward and providing an opportunity for us to rethink the committee and sunsetting the existing committee and adding residents to the new committee, offering, you know, an important opportunity to broaden the public input at the committee level. I think it's really a wonderful opportunity for us and it's probably a lot due to the amount of public interest in this particular item. It's going to be one of the largest expenditures in the history of this city. It's important to, I'm sure, many if not all the residents in our community.

So I do compliment staff for making this adjustment, And I think that we can get to the right spot with this, but I think that we're not there yet. I don't know if we need to take it back and reconsider this exact resolution. I appreciate that mayor Kliment has made some refinements. I think that additional refinements are necessary, and I don't know that those can be done here on the dais. I would like to see us consider making this process even more transparent and accountable to our residents as as a as a milestone.

For example, the committee's first order of business is should be to appoint a chair and a vice chair. I do not believe that anybody on this dais, including the mayor, should be appointing the chair and vice chair to this committee. I think it needs to have a lot more arm's length so that we do repair some of the transparency and accountability that seems to be at issue here with our community. Generally, think that the order of business for this committee should not be to continue with business as usual in the way we've been working on the committee, but to, you know, roll back and restart. When this facility was built, this Civic Center, I was around and I was part of the process from a resident standpoint.

We looked at hundreds of sites for the Civic Center. We did not look at three or four or a dozen. I was not on the ad hoc, so I don't know exactly how many sites were looked at, but I do know that for this Civic Center, which was probably the last time that we made this kind of investment in our community, we looked at hundreds of sites. I think that the committee should be reformed. I like the idea of having some experts.

Maybe we need to massage that a little bit about what kind of experts. I like the idea of an environmental expert, but absolutely starting with where we left off of the Civic Center having an influx of money, and if that doesn't work out, maybe we'll, you know, revert back to two or three one or two other sites. I think we fall short there. I this committee should be formed with the purpose of restarting the process, going back to Square 1, looking at as many sites as possible in the city, and then bringing it back to the council for a complete review. So I would make those two changes to the staff proposal that the arm's length process of the committee at least extend to forming the chair and vice chair positions, and that the scope of the committee roll completely back to to square one, and we start over with looking at all potential sites in the city.

Council member Stapleton.

Thank you, madam mayor. I just want to begin by thanking the public for being here. We hear you. We see you. We appreciate you being here. Thank you to staff for all your hard work on this, and thank you for the committee that's put in the effort for the up to this point. I'm inclined to support this resolution. It's not meaningful meaningfully different what I proposed back in September. I think it's incredible to have the members of the public involved in what could become the most expensive site or project in the history of the city. I'm confident that the existing committee has done a good job reviewing other sites.

My question to staff, maybe Simone, what would happen in the event the ad hoc committee through the members of the public and council came up with an alternative site? How would that work? Would they have to come back to council and have that discussion? Yes. So it wouldn't preclude them from saying, hey, by the way, this just came online. This is something we can look at, and the and that committee could come to council and say, found an additional site where there's a fourth or fifth site that we'd like to review.

That's correct.

Okay. Alright. That's good. Yeah. I think this is a good way to hit reset, put some fresh eyes on this, and continue to go through this project.

Council member Wigand.

Yeah. I appreciate that. Council member Stapleton, I was gonna make that recommendation as well, I think, as I stated and maybe everyone probably didn't like, but I made statements at the meeting. But some of those statements did reflect that if another site came about, I wouldn't be opposed to it. So I think that the ad hoc has a great opportunity to have somebody say, look, I'm doing extra legs work and I found another site that might be added to the mix, and we have a committee.

It's there. And then on item h or or h, under selection of appointed members, the council still has the say of who gets to this application process. So if we, as council members who aren't part of the selection committee of said applicants, we as council members have a right to speak up and say, no, we're gonna pass on that person and override that and select somebody else. So there's a process here that this council gets to say beyond just the selection of of those initial, tranche of those who apply. So I think we as council members have a bit more power than it stated. So I I would support this as well.

Any other comments up here? Okay. So staff, I know we've kind of changed on the fly here. Any chance you have some language that you could put up that we could look at? I think to to use the language that I previously stated, I think discuss, assess, and get public input rather than apparently troubling word feasibility.

I think there's also some concern about the process. Maybe you could just offer some clarification about that process. We use it for other committees and it works pretty well where we have an committee of council members that receives these applications, goes through them Yeah. Interviews.

Yeah. So mayor, the it follows the general process that's in the council policy a two with the city council, mayor forming an ad hoc committee, interviewing people. And then in this situation, it's not unlike other committees that we've had with mayor makes the appointments as confirmed by the rest of the other city council. So I think it's in keeping with, you know, the way we've handled other committees in the city.

So confirmed would assume that there's consensus, but, of course, if there are other opinions on the rest of the council that are not sitting on that ad hoc committee.

Yeah. So we'll come back to the full city council for confirmation. So if, you know, so this ultimately, the city council is gonna decide whether or not somebody makes it on the committee or not.

Right. Okay. So again, that would be my proposed language for those three sites, and I would also like to see us open up the application period. I think the staff report or the resolution says one week. I think we need a little more time to give the public an opportunity to apply and get the word out that we're looking. We wanna really be thoughtful and intentional about the process, make sure that we get qualified, interested applicants as we've heard that are a balance of different voices throughout the community. Council member Grant.

I do understand and agree with you, Erin, that this is a gen this process of the mayor creating an ad hoc committee, and then the committee reviewing applications is proper. And and that's exactly what we do, and I I don't find fault with that. I'm just wondering, is it usual for the mayor to appoint the chair and vice chair? I've been I've had five board committee and commission appointments, and I've never been on a board committee or commission where, the chair was not chair and vice chair were not appointed by the actual committee itself. I feel like that adds a layer of, of, independence of the committee from the larger, you know, issues that are sort of circulating about transparency. And so that's my concern.

It is done in other instances, especially with committees, especially when you're mixing council members with citizens. Typically, from most committees I've seen that are a combination of of citizens and council members, typically, council members, you know, feel the role of, you know, chair and vice chair, at least two of them. So I don't think it's unusual at all to have the mayor appoint the chair or vice chair, and I've seen it in other instances.

K. Thank you. Okay.

So I think my proposal is a form of a of a motion. So, is there a second, Carla?

Make the second, madam mayor.

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

Motion carried by unanimous vote.

Madam clerk, please read statement on motions for consideration.

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 consideration? Hearing none, we will now adjourn this meeting in memory of Deborah Allen. Council member Grant will take us into that.

Thank you. Today, we adjourn in memory of Deborah Allen Moore, a remarkable woman whose life of service integrity and dedication helped shaped the very fabric of our city. Deborah came to Newport Beach from Detroit as a teenager with her parents who owned a local florist shop. Her public service began in 1978 when she joined the Citizens Environmental Quality Advisory Committee, followed shortly thereafter by an appointment to the Planning Commission. It was in that service she made the decision to get a college degree.

Deborah attended UCI, earning a degree in social social ecology with an emphasis in land use planning. She went on to Pepperdine Law School, graduating and passing the California bar in 1985. Her leadership touched nearly every corner of Newport Beach's civic life. She served as the founding chair of the Corona del Mar Residence Association during its formative years and remained involved for decades afterward. She served on the Parks, Beaches, and Recreation Commission, Newport Beach Civil Service Board, the California State Bar Judicial Nominee Evaluation Commission, and for a long time on the Speak Up Newport board.

Deborah approached every responsibility with fairness, wisdom, and humility. Beyond her many civic accomplishments, Deborah was a devoted wife to her husband, Barry Allen, for more than thirty seven years and her husband, Bill Moore, in recent years. She was also a loyal friend and a trusted mentor. Newport Beach is stronger because of Deborah Allen. She served our community with grace, intelligence, and integrity. And while she will be deeply missed, her contributions will endure. I would like to let the public know that her funeral mass will be at Saint John Vienni on Wednesday, June 3 at 10AM. Thank you.

And we are adjourned.