City Council - Regular Meeting

Now it's time for the invocation that will be led by Pastor Roger Tirabasi from Viewpoint Church. Following that, we'll have Mayor Pro Tem Blum lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance.

We'll bow our heads for prayer. Dear Heavenly Father, we thank you for this time together tonight, and we pray for this wonderful city that we've been so blessed to be in, one of the best cities in the entire world. We pray for this meeting, God, that you would give wisdom, that you would give discernment to each of those who are serving our city. We pray that your perfect outcome would come from this meeting, that discernment and wisdom would be given, and we ask this in Jesus' name. Amen.

Thank you. And please join us all in saluting the greatest nation on this planet.

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, with liberty and justice for all.

Madam Clerk, please read the notice regarding public comments on agenda and non-agenda items.

The City Council of Newport Beach welcomes and encourages community participation. Public comments are invited on items listed on the agenda and non-agenda items. Speakers must limit comments to three minutes per person to allow everyone to speak. Written comments are encouraged as well. The City Council has a discretion to extend or shorten the time limit on agenda and non-agenda items. At this time, the Zoom connection is active for public participation. Anyone wishing to address the council during public comments via Zoom should use the raise hand feature. Speakers will be recognized in the order received. When called upon, please unmute your microphone, state your name for the record, and proceed with your comments.

We will now proceed with public comments on all agenda and non-agenda items. Please note that members of the public will still have an opportunity to comment on agenda items under consent, public hearing and closed session later in the meeting, provided they do not comment on those items at this time. A speaker who comments on any consent calendar item will not be permitted to comment again on the consent calendar later in the meeting.

Hello, my name is Madeline Enright. I've never done this before, so I apologize if I do anything inappropriate. I am a resident of the city of Newport Beach. I've lived here for 28 years, and I understand that it is the obligation of the city council members to serve the residents of the city of Newport Beach, and not themselves or their own interests. so i am appalled to have learned that it is your intent to move this newport beach police department to the bunny park there is no reason to do this and there are several reasons why you should not do it first it is designated as a green belt it was deeded to the city that way is my understanding as a green belt you'd have to have it rezoned that alone will cost the city residents a lot of money and there is no guarantee that it will actually take place Secondly, it is also a watershed, or it has an underground water river literally running through the site, which would require extensive civil engineering to redesign and to rebuild. Something, frankly, which you will never receive a permit for, if I understand the government bureaucracy that i've lived through all my life since i've been born and raised in this state so there's a good possibility that you will cost us a lot of money as residents and it will never be approved ever thirdly if you move the police department to this location there's going to be a traffic problem we already know that san miguel road and macarthur boulevard are heavily trafficked To try to move a police department to this location could result in even more traffic and a problem for the police to safely get in and out of this location, something that could lead to liability for the city and the residents. So I would urge you not to relocate at this location. I think it will cost us millions of dollars to try to achieve this through various contracts that you obviously want to let to a PR firm to make it look better to us, to an environmental firm to try to figure out how to make it work, as well as just an architect to try to do preliminary plans. That will cost us millions of dollars, and there's a good possibility it will never be approved. So I urge you not to do this. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Next speaker, please.

Good afternoon. Adam Leverins. I'm speaking about an article that appeared in STU News today. And in it, it's indicated that Mayor Kleinman said that part of her focus this year is on communication and that Georgia Rios, the city of Newport Beach public information manager and the mayor have been in contact with a public agency representative at Nextdoor to assist them by reporting misinformation. Council Member Weber said that the repeated posting of information that has been challenged as false or misleading is a concern of hers, and wrote that Nextdoor selected her as a member of the community to serve on the review team. I like facts and information. I mean, I'm a big fan of the First Amendment as well. But if mayor and council members are moderating information in the public realm, I would encourage you to moderate information and do some own housecleaning first. I will speak about on the City of Newport Beach website slash trending slash Newport Harbor. It says in December 2025, the California State Lands Commission issued a report on the City of Newport Beach's public trust management. On that webpage, it says the State Lands Commission report found that current mooring rates are below fair market value. That's untrue. Also from that page, the report also raised concerns about the practice of allowing mooring permits to be sold privately. The report found this practice violates the California Constitution and mandated that the city address it. That is also untrue. The State Lands report actually says the private sale of mooring permits that is allowed by the city's transfer policy could be a violation of the city's grand statute, fiduciary obligations to the state, and the public trust doctrine. could be a violation, not found a violation. The city also says that before the city council considers any new policies or changes to the fee structure, the city is committed to first hosting a series of public meetings beginning in spring 2026. It's beyond spring. A series of public meetings has not occurred. It says that no rate increase or transfer restrictions or other policy changes will take effect without council approval and ample public notice. That is not true. the harbor department on their own has decided to disregard code that allows liveaboard permits and they're withholding those from people who are seeking to house themselves affordably and pay rent to do so the city survey navigating newport harbor's future says a state land commission found that rates for residential peers and mooring permits are below fair market value that again is untrue if you read the report It says that private transfers are deemed prohibited under the state lands report. That again is untrue. There are more instances of misinformation than I can cover in three minutes. And if you're going to correct things, correct yourselves. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Mayor Kleinman and council members and staff. My name is Lynn Swain and I have proudly called Newport Beach my home for over 50 years. I'm here today because this is no longer just about where to build the police station. It's about transparency. It's about public trust and whether residents are free to participate in civic debate without fear of being silenced. Over the past several weeks, many residents have voiced opposition to relocating the police station to the Civic Center Park. Instead of responding to those concerns with open dialogue, there appears to be an effort to suppress them. I have evidence showing that Council Member Sarah Weber, using her maiden name and then going to Sarah W., now serving on the Next Door review team after she just joined Next Door in July, reported residents who oppose the civic center project including resident kathy morgan who she reported three times and she was subsequently suspended from the platform that's not right I have evidence that my own posts opposing the Civic Center proposal have been reported and that Mayor Kleinman participated in reporting one of those posts of mine. Whether you support the police station proposal or oppose it is irrelevant. What matters is this. Should elected officials be using their positions to report or silence residents simply because they disagree with them? I think not. That is not transparency. This is not leadership. And it certainly does not encourage public participation. Residents should never wonder whether speaking out against a city proposal could make them a target of the very officials they elected to represent them. Trust in government is built by listening to criticism. not attempting to suppress it. At this council, ask residents to trust the process surrounding the proposed police orders. I ask you to demonstrate that transparency. None of you should be texting while sitting on the dais as residents are speaking, rolling your eyes when neighbors are sharing their views, or consuming alcoholic beverages. We elected you to listen to us, to represent us, and hear us. So we don't want this behavior, not in Newport. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Council, Mayor, staff, Dennis Press, Balboa Island. Beautiful day out there, summertime. Tough to leave the beach to come in here, but somebody's got to do it, right? So I just wanted to bring up two things. One, not many people know about the work we've been doing at the Newport Beach Aviation Committee in reducing noise. And I just have to say that with your leadership and with the help of Supervisor Foley, we've been reducing noise. And Balboa Island and the departure community thanks you guys for that work. I can say being on the roof and monitoring departures, what is key that people need to understand is we want people to get up to go high, slow, and quiet on the jet departures. And if they do that and coupled with the hard work, and this is the good news in reducing noise, is that a lot of the commercial carriers are now, we went from 3% to, 30% of next-gen aircraft, which are quieter. They're the Boeing Maxes and the Neos. And we're very close to getting Southwest to commit to all 32 of their flights to be all next-gen. And when we get to that point, we're going to be well over 70%, closer to 80%. So from our perspective, when you're on the beach enjoying the day, B-I-Y-C, swimming the water's exceptionally warm i hope everybody's gotten in the water at least once the departures are not a loud roar they're a hum and you don't have to mute your television and you can have conversations so thank you for the work on that and the last one is something i'm pretty excited about and thank you to georgia for doing uh social media on this and for your post mayor kleinman is the balboa peninsula trolley oh my gosh i've done it uh two sundays in a row Just go across on the ferry to Bell Harbor and pick it up. And what I'm noticing is that it's a combination of different people. It's tourists who have just come in. I'm pretty chatty myself, so I try to talk to as many people as possible. And I met about 15 guys from India straight for the World Cup that got on, wanted to know what it was all about. And I said, if you just ride this trolley and do a loop, you're going to really see the city. And they did it. but there's people that are visiting from out of state, and there's also a lot of workers that are using the trolley to commute from where they live on the peninsula up to the main Newport Beach pier area. But I'm really happy for this, and it looks like we might be extending this too with more trolleys to get around into Corona Del Mar, which is going to be great for the community, and then also for Balboa Island on Bayside. So thanks for all the work you guys are doing, and keep it up, and Newport Beach is looking great out there.

Thank you. Next speaker.

Hello, Mayor Kleinman and council members. My name is Chaley Hilkema. I'm a mooring permit holder in a residence with a home a block away from the harbor. This morning I made a public comment at the State Lands Commission meeting. This is what I said to the commission. Newport Beach has mismanaged the tidelands for decades. Its policies unfairly benefit Yacht Club members and those with residential peer permits, while mooring permit holders are overcharged, highly regulated, and strictly monitored compared to those who are favorably positioned. It wants to raise only our fees 3% to 500%. It intends to end only our permit transferability. And it wants to take our moorings without compensating us. The fact is we can't rely on our policymakers to keep their word or on our decisions made by others, and the lack of policy continuity has caused members of our user group to feel a sense of instability about their place in the harbor. The Coastal Act calls for the protection of recreational boating, harbor space, but the city's plan will make moorings unaffordable for those with moderate means. Recreational boating is a protected use under the public trust. Since it's your duty to promote public trust uses and protect public access, please support fair policy for all Newport Harbor recreational tidelands permit holders by requiring Newport Beach to adopt use of the state lands category one benchmark rate for recreational docks, piers, and mooring buoys.

I missed my last page, by the way. I forgot to print it.

Mooring permit holders haven't enjoyed the financial favoritism that the city gives to others with well-connected advocates. We've had too few council members who've championed us, and over the past decade, the city's mooring policy processes have become even less inclusive and less transparent. Decisions have been made without adequate stakeholder input, and policies have been changed erratically. The city has been divisive, and we've been put on the defensive. We had hoped that the State Lands Commission would use its oversight to compel the city to manage the tidelands fairly, but its Staff Report 105 seems to have emboldened the city to misrepresent facts and misinform harbor users about what state lands actually requires for compliance. The missing last page. We don't want this to be the city's scapegoat. So I will say clearly that we don't think residential peer permits rates are too low, but by comparison, mooring fees are too high for all concern. I asked this council to adopt use of the state lands category one benchmark rate for recreational docs, peers and mooring buoys. Thank you.

Thank you.

Next speaker, please.

Good afternoon. My name is Susan Skinner, and I'm here to discuss the report published today in STU News about Councilwoman Weber and Kleiman, who are now moderators on Nextdoor. Tom Johnson very appropriately called out his concerns about having politicians on a review team for Nextdoor, noting that the same council members are often the subject of content and comments on Nextdoor. WHILE IT'S CERTAINLY POSSIBLE THAT NEITHER COUNCILWOMAN WOULD REMOVE CONTENT FROM NEXT DOOR THAT THEY PERSONALLY FOUND OBJECTIONABLE, THEY ARE PUTTING THEMSELVES IN A POSITION TO DO SO. LIN SWAIN TODAY PUBLISHED A LETTER INDICATING THAT MS. WEBER WAS NOW ON NEXT DOOR BUT ON A DIFFERENT NAME, UNDER A DIFFERENT NAME. And I have to ask why, unless that was intended to not have us perceive that you are on the council. She also notes that her comments about city issues were tagged for removal, and she believes that you were the one that tagged it. My own experience with Nextdoor is somewhat similar, although I do not have knowledge about who removed my post and who banned me from Nextdoor. I posted well within the community guidelines regarding details of a No Kings protest, only to be censored by the review team for content that is completely within the stated boundaries of Nextdoor. Both Ms. Kleinman and Ms. Weber should remove themselves from the review team of Nextdoor, if only to restore confidence that they are not putting their thumb on the scale of public discussion. Thank you.

Next speaker, please.

Mayor Kleinman, Mayor Pro Tem Bloom, city council members and staff, my name is Rima Nashashibi and I'm a commissioner on the Orange County Commission on the Status of Women and Girls. I've given a hard copy of our inaugural report to the city clerk and also emailed a digital copy with data highlights. I'd just like to read to you and the public some of the highlights where we compare Orange County women to California women. So as far as economic equity and financial security, Orange County women make $3,492 more than average California women. 4% of Orange County women are unemployed compared to 5.5% of California women. 87% of OC men's wages are earned by OC women. And 88% of California men's wages are earned by California women. So we still make less than what a man makes. 44% of OC women have at least a bachelor's degree. 82% of Orange County girls enroll in college, basically higher than boys at 74.4%. And as far as mental health, 18.6 of OC women reported ever seriously thought of committing suicide, which is less than 20, 23. As far as memory loss, anxiety, and depression, they are the top three reported behavioral health concerns for OC women 55 and older. and OC gals reported higher chronic sadness and suicide ideation compared to boys. In addition, as far as violence and domestic abuse, 4,524 weapon-related domestic abuse cases in Orange County, which has more than doubled since 2015, and 9% of unhoused OC women are victims of domestic abuse, which has increased since 2019. Thank you for your time. So now you have a hard copy of the inaugural report and a digital copy. Thank you.

Thank you. Next speaker, please.

Climate Council members, my name is Denise, spelled D-E-N-Y-S, Olbermann. I hold a master's in urban planning and an MBA, 45 years as an executive expert consultant to infrastructure engineering firms. But I'm not here at this moment to comment on the police headquarters, even though I concur with many of the comments thus far. I'm here on behalf at the request of a number of the residents, business owners, and other stakeholders in the coastal community, in particular the Babau Peninsula and Lido, because we've been adversely impacted not only by the events leading up to this July 4th, but the events leading up to and including July 4th of 2025 and the prior year. We do appreciate all of the reactive efforts thus far to respond to the civil disturbances and violence. Uh, the city has made it clear that it is undergoing some behind the scenes discussions and mayor climate indeed place marked a proposal for future agenda for six items to enhance the city's ordinances. to be able to manage and regulate disturbances in the future. Council member Stapleton has indicated he's going to report in mid-September on some changes. Well, we're at a loss to understand as to why the City Council is so intent on postponing any action to have adequate and regular patrol in the Balboa Peninsula and Lido. There has been a decision to provide some relief through an outsourced patrol to the Crown Del Mar community, but none evident to the Balboa Peninsula. We ask that the Council On July 28th, rather than having an indefinite deferral of action to protect the community, to direct the police department to implement regular patrol and enforcement along with that patrol, and specifically nightly patrol up and down the peninsula, somewhere in the neighborhood of the beach closure and maybe one more later uh during the weekends and obviously the holidays to provide proactive protection to the community we need it and we deserve it and we do pay for it we are confident that the city particularly with its recent reorganizations already has resources in place to be able to implement these protections and provide this service at no additional expense. So we ask you to direct your, uh, police department and any others involved to implement immediately rather than make the stakeholders wait for an indefinite period of time to have some relief.

Thank you.

Thank you. Next speaker please.

Good afternoon, Mayor Kleinman, city council, city staff, and community members. My name is Julie Means. I am a very long time resident of Corona Del Mar and Newport Beach, and my comments today are concerning the proposal of a new police station. I'm in favor of a new police station. if that is what is necessary. I am in favor of public safety. I'm also in favor of parks, especially parks that already exist and should not be replaced when there are other options. I attended the meeting last week concerning the police station And I had a lot of questions. Something that I've been asking for all along is, and other members of the community as well, could we please have a Q&A session? Could there be an FAQ posted on the city website? Could there be an opportunity for people to get together and actually talk about the options? Instead, what I heard were 99.9% of the people who spoke and attended that were opposed to the proposal of moving the police station to the park. And what was so frustrating was at the end, the committee that was appointed to study the situation made a motion to report back to the city council that they were going to not spend any more time or money on the option of having the police station remodeled where it currently exists. I believe there are a lot of options to the police station. One of my questions was also, what do you plan to spend $1.5 million on? As I looked at the agenda today, it looks like there is an amount for an architect, $12 million at some point, $700,000 to start, an EIR, and a public relations firm at 300,000. It seems like the 300,000 should not be spent on PR, when a PIO from the City of Newport Beach should be able to post facts and let the residents know exactly what is happening. There are a lot of options. I believe that we are in the stages where instead traffic should be studied, especially because of the nightmare that already exists on MacArthur and San Miguel and Avocado. That does not seem like a logical place for a police station. Something I found out last week also was the fire station would also be moved. I did not realize that was an option. I also asked if the patrons of the library, a lot of which are children, local residents, senior citizens, wanted to have a jail located next to them, or if that was the wisest move to have it located next to city council. I encourage you to look at all the other options that exist and not spend the money on things that are on the agenda and instead use it to look at all options. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please.

Good evening, Mayor, Council. Just adjust this real quick. My name is Haggai Feiner and I'm a Newport Beach resident. I'm a parent and a community member. We're here today asking the city to take practical and responsible steps towards safer parks, playgrounds, schools, and athletic fields. I really define it as public spaces. We have some material that we'd like to hand out with some statistics regarding pesticides and herbicides and what's happening with the city today. So we'd like your permission to do that. We understand that this issue may be coming before council in August, although it has not been confirmed. And we appreciate that the city appears to be considering this important topic. But we also hear that the discussion in August may pertain to fields, but not necessarily parks and playgrounds. We'd like to see an overarching solution to this challenge. We're here tonight because we believe Newport Beach has an opportunity to lead with a policy that is thoughtful, transparent, and protective of public health. The issue is near and dear to my heart, first, as a father of three young daughters who are attending school here at Anderson and are also routinely playing at our parks. Secondly, as a double cancer patient myself, I know the pain, the challenge, and the uncertainty that cancer brings to one's household. If we can take steps today to reduce the unnecessary chemical exposure and help prevent even one family from experiencing this journey, I believe those efforts are worthwhile. Our request today is straightforward. One, reduce routine pesticide use. We are asking the city to reduce and phase out routine use of synthetic herbicides and other conventional pesticides in parks, playgrounds, schools, athletic fields, public spaces, whenever safer, effective alternatives are available. All while prioritizing an integrated pest management, or IPM, and non-chemical methods. Two, to infer the first, we would like an explanation publicly displayed for the organics first discrepancy that exists in Newport Beach. The city's own written policy describes organics first approach But yet the city's own application records from July of last year to July of this year show only one organic application of pesticides versus 1,753 applications in total. We are completely baffled by why this is. We're simply asking for clarity. How do those records reflect an organics-first program? 3 eliminate financial conflicts we'd like for you to band the. I'd love to have more time but.

Sorry we're out of time, but the item will come back to us at the end of August and the only meeting that we have in August and there will be plenty of opportunity for public comment at that time. I'll see you in August, thank you next speaker please.

Hi, I'm Carol King, mayor, council staff. Thank you. Um, I'm not sure where this falls in the agenda, so I wanted to have my chance to speak. Um, as you know, at the last two police advisory committee meetings and in several emails that I have sent to all of you, I have asked for a public Q and a session town hall meeting type thing. People have been accused of spreading misinformation on Nextdoor, and I believe that if we had information, we wouldn't have to wonder if it was true or not. I believe even Mr. Wiegand had said that a town hall meeting would be appropriate at one of your previous meetings. Regarding the police station, I do have some questions that don't pertain to the park. When the Dove site was purchased in 2022, In your staff report, it was deemed sufficient and appropriate, and I'm wondering when that changed and why. I'm wondering what the current status of the Dove building is now. How many units are occupied? Is there room there for some police projects? Does the proposed housing at 1300 Dove Street have anything to do with not studying the 1201 Dove as a site? At the time of the purchase, the Dove Street was good because of its proximity to court for officers. Is that no longer a factor? If the need for a new station is urgent, why are we looking for other sites and not looking anymore at the current location and of both, which have no environmental issues, grading or traffic issues? There was no budget on the 2025 CIP to move the fire station until 2029. Does that mean that the council never intended to move the fire station until the police station was moved? Was the current site ruled out years ago so no movement was made to move the fire station? Is it possible that Dove Street and the current location could both be used for the police station? How much of the police work could be done from Dove Street? What specific tasks require the city to be, I'm sorry, the police to be near City Hall? The police station has been not near City Hall for decades. Why is it suddenly important to be close by now? Also, why is the traffic not being addressed at all? I stood on the corner yesterday and on Saturday over here by City Hall with my little sign that said, don't put the police in the park. And people stopped and said, what do you mean? What's that about? I have no idea. I never heard about it. So I think whatever messaging needs to get out needs to include the full information about what you're planning on putting in the park. Also, you spent a lot of time talking about how inconvenient it would be for the police department to have a construction site. And I'm wondering if you have thought about how inconvenient it would be for the employees of the Civic Center, the library, Bristol Farms, and all of the surrounding businesses up Avocado. Okay.

Thank you. Next speaker, please.

Hello. I'm Marilyn Brewer, 40-year resident of Newport Beach. And I'm here this evening to address you on three items on your agenda. And my comments are for those that support the Civic Center site. $12.5 million to design a police station at Civic Center Park We don't need a site plan. We already have one. We know it overpowers the site. You're spending almost $350,000 for an EIR on a site that we already know and we've heard today is not suited to this type of structure. There are underground elements that are not going to permit it to be on that site. Most insulting of all, $315,000 for a PR firm to convince rational, logical voters that they are anything but. That Civic Center, anything but that the Civic Center is the right site. Your voters disagree with you. The abuse of your position permeates all that you do. It was reported today that Kleinman and Weber have again abused their positions by strong-arming issues on Nextdoor. Tom Maloney, the so-called neutral member of the site advisory committee, is working to block opinions on Nextdoor opposing the Civic Center site. Voters of Newport Beach are not stupid. We are not. Your arrogance, disregard, and disrespect will come back to haunt you. Today's register reported that in Fullerton, the voters are recalling the mayor and two city council members for behavior very similar to some of yours. Recall petitions have been filed against these people. You know, I'm old, so I remember that a recall previously happened in Newport Beach. It was to recall Scott Piotr. So we have had experience in that. His actions resemble your unscrupulous behavior. Listen to the majority of your voters, or perhaps there could be consequences. I want you to remember that you serve at the pleasure of the voters, not for your own desires and goals. Thank you.

Hello, council members. This is interesting being on the other side, and I respect how difficult it is to be on that side. For most of my life, I have believed that seeing the best in people was necessary. It wasn't until I served four years on the Newport Beach City Council and became involved in city council elections that I began to understand the difference between politicians and leaders. To me, politicians are in public office to benefit themselves. Leaders are there to accomplish something meaningful and leave their community better than they found it. When I completed my term, I assumed that, as had been the tradition for decades, former council members would make themselves available to help those of you who followed. That had been my experience since I first became involved in Newport Beach Civic Affairs in 1973. Respected former council members and mayors understood the steep learning curve of this job and generously shared their knowledge. I thought I was well prepared when I was elected. I had served on the Parks, Beaches, and Recreation Commission. I had mentors who were former council members and mayors. Before taking office, I even sat down with former Mayor Keith Curry and asked him to teach me about the city finances more than I already understood. It was like majoring in economics. Managing a city of this size is not a small job, as you know. Keith generously shared his time, his expertise, and his commitment to helping future leaders succeed. My concern today is that I don't know whether a majority of this council has taken advantage of the extraordinary knowledge that exists within our own community. If I were sitting in your seats today, I would ask three of my colleagues to join me in requesting a comprehensive accounting of every discussion, study, recommendation, and decision regarding a new police station over the last 20 years. Because as we know, council members change. I believe in term limits, but I also know that the continuity is lost. You weren't on the council when I was on the council that made the decision to buy the Dove Street property. I wasn't on the council when hopefully some council found out why we need to move the police station in the first place. What are the reasons behind that? So before making what could be one of the largest capital expenditures in our city's history, why wouldn't we gather every fact available? Why wouldn't we learn from former council members, city staff, our police department, and the residents whose tax dollars will pay for it, perhaps you'll conclude that a new police station is the right answer. Or perhaps you'll discover that expanding the use of the Dove Street building or creating a substation. I've got one more minute, maybe. A substation could meet many of the needs that the department feels are significant at a lower cost. The point is not to prejudge the outcome. The point is to make the most informed decision possible. Newport Beach is blessed with some of the brightest most accomplished and most experienced people anywhere leadership is not about having all the answers it's about asking the right questions listening carefully and making the best decision with the best information available thank you if i can ever be of assistance i am available for phone calls and i would appreciate talking with you because your success is the success of my community my property values as the property values of all these people. Thank you.

Next speaker, please.

Hi, I'm Hagai's wife, Michelle Feiner. Thank you so much for this opportunity. I thought I would just continue where he left off. I will say we moved here a year ago from Santa Monica, and we love Newport Beach. I'm so happy here. My kids are happy. We're all thriving. I interviewed so many families in the porch streets when we moved. What's the downside? It looks so perfect here. And one of the moms said, I don't know why they're spraying tons of pesticides and herbicides on the parks and playgrounds and sports fields. And so I'm very involved in the neighborhood, and a bunch of parents got together, and they looked at the records. And I just want to reiterate one thing that we found out. Although Newport has an organics first approach, they've only sprayed one organic pesticide for the last year. Meanwhile, there was 1,753 pesticide applications. So this really needs to be looked at. And then also, one thing that I found out, I think it's just a slippery slope the more you learn, is that there are a lot of pesticide manufacturer and vendor sponsored rebates, cashback programs, gift cards, and a lot of other financial incentives that exist in this ecosystem. And so if there can be some oversight into that to look into that to make sure that that's happening, I think that would put the citizens' best interest first. And to create some sort of independent accountability mechanism, I don't know what that looks like, but I think it would make sense, especially given that organic's first approach and that we've only sprayed one organic over the last year. This is not about blame, it's about accountability, consistency, public trust. I imagine your jobs are so hard and very complicated and you have so many people to serve. I give you a lot of credit for that. And the last thing is, I would love to know if you need to spray a pesticide or an herbicide for whatever reason, I would love to know. And I've already signed up for the school district alerts when they do it at the schools, and that was very helpful, because I kept my kids off of the fields that day when they did that in June. But if there was some sort of system where you can go online and just register to know that you're going to be spraying something that I think is toxic that we could know in advance. And there are so many cities that have figured this out. Irvine has done it for 10 years. And I met with the mayor last week, the former mayor of Irvine last week. And she says they implemented their program in 160 cities across the country. And she's happy to help us. She gave me her cell phone number. She's like, text me anytime. So there's that. Again, my worksheet had a lot of information. We just hope that you guys really listen to this and implement this because I think it's so important to all the families and the kids. And, you know, my husband, he's battling two types of cancer right now. And this is like the last thing we want to do. But thank you for listening to us.

Appreciate it.

Thank you.

Next speaker, please.

Hi. My name is Richard Cabin. I'm a resident of Corona Del Mar, have been for a few years. I came to talk about one thing, but before I do, I want to, one, thank this lady who let me use her seat while I waited to talk to you. Two, I didn't even know you guys were talking about no insecticide while you do that spraying. That shouldn't even be discussed. You should be saying no, no, no immediately. And if you want reasons why, I'll give you like 100 of them, but definitely. If you are in a position to stop spraying with insecticide that is harmful to humans, animals, birds, or anything, you should do that. I came to talk about the police station very fast. I've been here a long time. I was against this city hall being built on the land that was donated by the city of Irvine. This was public land. This was for free use. This was to be used. It wasn't to be touched. It was going to cost a billion dollars. I came. I spoke against it. It was decided by the city to put it out to vote. We lost. now we have the city hall fine now we are discussing the police station i went to the conference with one of your city council members and mr curry not because i wanted to hear them talk i wanted to hear what the issues were regarding why you guys wanted to tear down a perfectly well functioning city police station Um, okay. It's overcrowded. This, this place was overcrowded and there were reasons given. And then we started talking about everything else. I left that meeting thinking to myself. There is no way on the planet that this city council is going to approve a new frigging police station on public land that was donated to us that was made specifically to be free space and that they were going to build something when one wasn't needed. You can either increase that one. Oh, gee, we can't because the land's not big enough. We already bought a frigging building on Dove Street. I used to work on Dove Street. I know you can make that into a police station. You don't need to be in the center of town. And the problems that are going to occur on MacArthur Boulevard when cars are driving down towards PCH to assist that police station to exist are phenomenal. And why you would want to do that is beyond me. I don't understand it. I don't understand why you are even considering this. I don't understand the cost, the cost, the frigging cost to build a brand new police station, have an empty frigging building over there. Oh no, we're going to build a new 48 story apartment building and let people live there. Well, no. And, and, and lastly, I got 13 seconds. Seriously, please do not build a police station. Don't spend my money and everybody else's money that's in this room on a new police station when you don't need it. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Madam Clerk, is there anyone online or calling in?

Nobody on Zoom.

Okay. Oh, Mr. Mosier, excuse me. Please proceed.

Thank you, Mayor Kleinman, members of the council. My name is Jim Mosier. As one of the previous speakers alluded to at the recent Police Advisory Committee meeting, Mayor Pro Tem Blum made a motion which was to spend no more resources, time, money, or staffing considering the possibility of rebuilding the police station at its current site. Before the vote was taken on that, there was a little discussion, then it was repeated, and I tried reviewing the audio of the meeting. There was some comment about the committee being advisory only, and it was a little garbled, so I couldn't follow that. And so I think the public and probably the four council members who are not on that committee because the committee will not meet again until september 2nd we heard more than a month from now what was the result of that motion which was unanimously adopted by the committee, that the committee itself, in formulating its recommendation over the next few months, will not be considering rebuilding at the current site? Or was the intent of the motion that the committee is asking soon, perhaps at the next council meeting, for direction from the council as to whether the committee should be pursuing that or not? And I think that would help to clarify what is going on. The garbled thing sounded to me like the committee is seeking advice from the council, but I'm not sure that they are. Thank you. Thank you.

I am elderly, of course. as you all know. Nancy Skinner is my name. Good afternoon, Mayor Kleinman. Did I get that right? I'm sorry. I'm actually here because I wanted information and I thought maybe this is as good a place as anything. I did go to the meeting, the ad hoc meeting last week because I was in Alaska, but I'm home now and I'm looking at what we can do. learn and one of the things I would like to ask you is that I certainly hope you have not given up on the Santa Barbara site. They already have the underground tank that will have the gasoline. And I'm thinking to myself, that's one thing that you don't have to pay for again. It seems like there are ways that we could get that site to work really well if you'd only let us talk about it and hear from it. And I'm wondering if you've done any kind of research similar to what you're doing for the park site on information of what it would actually cost to keep the facility there, whether you'd have to add something more underground or whatever. Has there been any kind of costly consultant to let us know that? I mean, I don't think you should give up on it right away. I also have heard rumors, and I don't like rumors, and that's why I'm here to ask you. Has there been any sale, promise, handshakes, or even... discussion on selling the Santa Barbara site before we ever give up on it. We should not have anything going on and I'm hearing rumors about all these things that are going to be built or sold to the Irvine Company. Could you answer that even publicly now or do you know that answer? I would love to hear that. I would appreciate that.

Thank you for your comments.

Well, I'm not quite through. But I just thought maybe you would give us a clarity on that.

Sorry, this is the time for public comments.

I know, but sometimes the city council does answer, so I thought maybe I could be one of the lucky ones. So I also appreciate what you do, but I think it's really important that we keep the Santa Barbara site on the table. And what I just heard now is that maybe they're not thinking to do it that way. and see if there's a way to make it work. New things are coming along, maybe a difference, I don't know. But let's at least let the public feel like you've given it a shot. Thank you very much.

Thank you. ONLINE. WE WILL NOW PROCEED WITH COUNCIL WE WILL NOW PROCEED WITH COUNCIL ANNOUNCEMENTS AND ORAL REPORTS ON ANNOUNCEMENTS AND ORAL REPORTS ON COMMITTEE ACTIVITIES. COMMITTEE ACTIVITIES. ARE THERE ANY COUNCIL MEMBERS ARE THERE ANY COUNCIL MEMBERS THAT HAVE ANYTHING? THAT HAVE ANYTHING? DO YOU HAVE ANY ANNOUNCEMENTS OR DO YOU HAVE ANY ANNOUNCEMENTS OR REPORTS?

Yes, I just wanted to speak to something not police related, but lifeguard related. Last Thursday was the Junior Lifeguards Monster Mile program, and it was a really big affair. There were 1,200 of the 1,500 junior lifeguards that participated in the event. These are kids that are 9 to 15 years old. There were 75 of our lifeguards on staff. I think we had three boats out there making sure it was a safely run event. There were 15 CERT members, so I remember previously seeing in the audience Nancy Scarborough. I didn't see her this year, but I saw a bunch of CERT members out there helping and assisting, and I wound up talking to a couple of them, and they were so impressed by not only the lifeguards, but the kids that were out there and the amount of respect they were showing. And there was not one piece of trash. One of their duties was collecting trash that was left behind. And every kid that walked up threw away their piece of trash. So what they're teaching at Junior Lifeguards is a lot of respect. So I heard from multiple CERT members how respectful the kids were out there. But really, shout out to FIRE. I see Chief O'Rourke out there. Gary Conwell, Captain Conwell, did an amazing job with his staff. And The program was, there were three to five foot waves out there that day. It was a pretty big swell. And these kids were pretty scared. I saw a lot of tears and eyes, but every time a set came through, these lifeguards would run right out into danger, grab up the kids they could scoop up, or help push out kids beyond the break. So I thought it was cool. There were no incidents, no injuries. These kids completed the race. I think the fastest was like under 20 minutes or so from one of the A's, which are 14 to 15 year olds. the nine-year-olds some of them did it in under 40 just under 40 minutes so that's pretty cool you run a mile down and then swim a mile back so pretty pretty neat to be ocean safe a lot of these kids eventually become lifeguards so i just thought it was important to share and and give a shout out to fire and the lifeguards for their hard work on that event thank you council member bartow

Nothing in the previous, but I'm just excited that this Saturday I'll get to participate in the very first lifeguard ops training where we get to go a little bit behind the scenes and see the work that our lifeguards do on the beach. So I'm looking forward to that.

Councilmember grant. Thank you. Just a few items. I first of all want to recognize Animal control supervisor Nick Ott and our police department for their exceptional work over the 4th of July weekend in rescuing dozens of dogs from a highly compromised situation in our city and The conditions the animals endured remains deeply, deeply concerning. Fortunately, they are now safely homed at our beautiful Newport Beach Animal Shelter under the care of Supervisor Valerie Schomburg and supported by dedicated staff and volunteers. Our city has zero tolerance for animal cruelty and the compassion and teamwork demonstrated by everyone involved, despite the extraordinary demands of the holiday weekend, reflects some of the best of our community. So thank you to all of those that were involved. I also want to mention that we have the inaugural Newport Beach Art Week that will run from August 9th to August 15th of this year, culminating on Saturday, August 15th with the 59th annual Newport Beach Art Exhibition. And that's all here at the Civic Center. So I encourage all of you to go online and find out what you want to do during the art week. It's going to be a spectacular occasion in our city. And finally, I wanted to mention I met with a resident group on Balboa Island last night, and they were highly complimentary of our staff, especially Mike Sinecori and his team in pushing forward on the completion of the undergrounding on Balboa Island. And I was impressed at how impressed they were. So thank you all for that work.

Councilmember Weber, none. Councilmember Stapleton.

Yeah, I would just say we finally have a date. So thank you to our assistant city manager Tara Finnegan for her help on this. But on September 14th to Monday evening at 6 o'clock at Marina Park, I'm going to host a district one roundtable town hall. So it's going to be all about the things that happen on the 4th of July. So my hope is I know for sure that Lieutenant Area 1 Director Lieutenant Deplig is going to be there, and then maybe our police chief as well, Minor. But either way, we're going to have the Area 1 Lieutenant Director there, and we're going to talk about all things that happened on the 4th of July. I'll have some other stakeholders there, but it's an opportunity for the residents of District 1 and anywhere in the community to come out and hear about all the things. that we did that we're going to do and make sure it doesn't happen again. So thank you to our team for helping put that together and we'll continue to get the information out. But September 14th, Monday, Marina Park, six o'clock. Thank you.

Mayor Potemba. I'll just add I want to commend our Police Department and city leadership. We did have a social media post for another teen event over the weekend that we were tracking and actively working to prevent another incident. And our police department did yet again another amazing job with presence and deterrence, crowd management, and we again are making sure that we're monitoring social. Thank you to Georgia for the social media post that she got out that got quite a bit of traction. Hopefully the word is out. So thank you again. MOVING ON, WE HAVE SEVERAL MATTERS BROUGHT BY ME AND ONE BY COUNCILMEMBER WIGAND PER CITY COUNCIL POLICY A1. COUNCILMEMBERS MAY BRING FORWARD A MATTER FOR CONSIDERATION AND IF APPROVED BY A STRAW VOTE, THE COUNCIL STAFF WILL RETURN WITH A REPORT ON THE MATTER AT A LATER MEETING. BECAUSE THERE ARE A HANDFUL OF THEM, I PROPOSE THAT WE CONSIDER ALL OF THE MATTERS TOGETHER UNLESS THERE'S A COUNCILMEMBER WHO WOULD LIKE A SPECIFIC ITEM VOTED ON SEPARATELY. Okay, seeing no objection, we'll go ahead and take them collectively by a straw vote, show of hands. Those in favor of the A1 items.

It is passed by straw vote.

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 1 through 23. Public comments are also invited on consent calendar items. Speakers must 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 under consent calendar are considered to be routine and will be all enacted in 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 on 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

Councilmember Wiegand, do you have any items to pull from the consent calendar or conflicts to announce relating to items 1 through 23?

No, I do not.

Councilmember Bartow? I do not. Councilmember Grant?

Yes, I'd like to pull 8, 18, 19, and 20. Councilmember Weber?

I have a conflict on item number 6 based on my personal residence.

Councilmember Stapleton you have a conflict on item number 2 and 14 based on real property interest in 4100 and 4110 MacArthur.

Mayor put emblem.

I'm not a man.

And I have a conflict on agenda item number 2 because of my husband's company receiving income from Intercorp related to projects outside of the city limits. OK. Would there be anyone from the public that wants to speak on this consent calendar which excludes items 8, 18, 19, and 20? And just a reminder, if you spoke on any of these items before, then you are unable to speak on them again. Any comments on the consent calendar?

This is on a different topic. Item number two under ordinances for adoption, I notice that you are changing the wording to read Um, approving amendment to Newport place planned community development plan related to the minimum percentage of inclusionary for sale housing within the residential overlay. My comment to you is that we should be. maximizing our number of inclusion our high percentage of inclusionary which is affordable housing the more affordable housing needs we meet at the state's requirement the fewer other dense housing we have to approve in the future planning of Newport Beach. And until we have resolved our traffic and all our other issues that need to be resolved in town, we can't have many more residential units than we have already planned. And you've already changed the zoning on half the price properties in Newport beach. So you really need to be looking at using a maximum inclusionary rate.

Adam leverance. I also wanted to touch on agenda item two and ordinance approving an amendment to the Newport beach place plan community development related to the minimum percentage of inclusionary for sale housing within the residential overlay. Uh, as you know, initially the minimum inclusionary percent was 30. It then went to 15 and this is the second reading on this, I think. So if you pass this night, it now goes down to 6% of for sale housing. Um, As there are mandates from the state for percentages of affordable and low income housing. And I asked you to think about the council members and mayor and citizens that follow you that you're building almost none of the requirement. And the staff materials for this said that if you don't grant this, it would likely render most for sale residential projects financially infeasible. It hasn't even made a determination. Would most likely? And again, perhaps look for developers that can build more affordably rather than continuing to grant exceptions and exceptions and exceptions to certain developers that claim they can't do it. And then item 21, the Orange County grand jury response to their report, California housing mandates, the unintended reshaping of Orange County neighborhoods. That also ties into the housing mandates. And my remarks on misinformation earlier, I don't know how many times in this room I have heard council members blame Sacramento. And I will again point out that the housing mandate from Sacramento was $3,000. Or 4845 units of housing and Marin Council at the time approved 8174. That's more than 3300 more than the mandate and yet. The continuing blaming Sacramento. Again, misinformation or just like some higher level of integrity and truthfulness and transparency. And I keep hoping and I'm seeing less and less. Thank you.

Quick question. On the consent calendar, does that mean that if nothing is done, you guys can just consent to that and then it becomes history? Is that correct? Eighteen says you're going to give 12 million bucks to LPA.

So number 18 is going to be considered separate. Thank you.

Bye.

Mayor Kleinman and members of the council, my name again is Jim Mosher. Number four is a resolution that was prepared using public resources. in which the council expresses its support for three of the propositions that will be on the ballot on November 3rd and opposition to one of them. It is a historic practice for city councils to do that and it is permissible but this resolution which was prepared at taxpayer expense goes beyond that and urges the voters of California to vote yes on three measures and no on one and that express advocacy at public expense is prohibited in california so i do not think the money should have been spent producing this resolution and i don't think that you should be adopting this resolution which was mistakenly prepared for you at public expense Assuming you do adopt it, which I assume you are going to do, I have no idea what you're going to do with it because clearly promoting, publicizing, or doing anything with this resolution urging the voters to vote one way or another is illegal in California and actually in the rest of the United States. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other speakers? I'm going to have anyone online. Bring it back up here to have a motion.

Thank you madam and let to move a motion. Councilmember grant point items 1819 20 and 8 with recusals from Councilmember Webber on item 6 recusals from Councilmember Stapleton on 2 and 14 and recusal from yourself on item to like to pass has written.

To have a second. Seconded by Council Member Weber. Let's go ahead and vote. One second.

I have a question for the city attorney. Can you address the comments by Mr. Mosier about the legality of the letters that we're voting on?

Yeah, so there's a lot of case law out there that basically says that city councils have the right to express their opinions, and cities do, on ballot measures, and that's what you're doing. You're basically expressing your opinion on it. I do agree with Mr. Mosher that, you know, we're using city resources to actually go out and campaign. That'd be one thing, but this is really just expressing your opinion.

MOTION CARRIED ANONYMOUSLY, 7-0.

OKAY. WELL, NOW...

I WILL READ THE TITLE OF THE ORDINANCE.

OH, PLEASE DO. THANK YOU.

ORDINANCE NUMBER 2026-10, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE NEWPORT PLACE PLAN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN, PC-11, to revise the minimum inclusionary for sale housing percentage required within the residential overlay pa 2026-0196

Thank you, Madam Clerk. Moving to consideration of items that have been removed from the consent calendar, we have items number eight, 18, 19, and 20 requested to be removed by Councilmember Grant, and we will take them in numerical order, starting with item number eight. Councilmember Grant, did you want a staff report?

Yes, I think it would be valuable to have a short staff report Thank you Thank You madam mayor city council members.

So this item is a term sheet that was negotiated with the Orange County Transportation Agency It's a non-binding term sheet. It's really supposed to guide future negotiations but in a sense the term sheet just discusses that the OCTA will commit to moving the transit facility by the end of 2031. They will evaluate other sites outside of Newport Beach, and that's what they're actually currently working on. In return, the city's committing to pay for that relocation of the transit center There are other caveats and exceptions to the term sheet with termination of rights dealing with if the environments where you identify substantial unavoidable impacts or the project costs are materially exceed agreed upon estimates or the funding sources can't be secured. Again, the term sheet is non-binding and it's intended solely to guide the negotiations for future agreements.

Did you have anything further? Sure. Are there any public comments on this item?

Uh, mayor, uh, council Dennis breast, Balboa Island. So, um, I'm in favor of this, uh, because this falls in line with, um, what I'm advocating for is that we, um, build a new police station at the current location. And in order to do that, we have to move the fire station, uh, fire station three. So, This makes sense to move this process down the road in order to figure out where we put the transportation center that's currently in its location. And I believe we need to put that up where we're developing Newport Beach Airport Village, which is another email that I got in regards to an event that's coming up to give input about that community that is going to be reshaped. what we're doing up there so my plan based on what i'm advocating is the only way that you can ever build a replacement uh police station at the current location is that you got to free up space to be able to do that and i know you've already done extensive plans based on this overview of number three is my preferred basically you move the fire station to the current location of the transportation center And then once you've done that, you build a temporary parking space there. Then you build a parking structure, all while hopefully you're not impeding on the work of the police department and what they're doing in the current location. And then once you have the new parking structure built, then you start to build the new 75,000 square foot police department there. Then once you're done with that, then you tear the old one down and then you build an ancillary building and or other items that the police need at that particular point. So we need to move forward on this in order to figure out where we put the transportation center. Thank you.

Thank you. Next speaker, please.

Good afternoon, Mayor Kleinman, council members. My name is Walter Starr. Could I have the slide displayed? so four years ago the city paid for and obtained an excellent outside evaluation of the fire department the consultants recommended that the city add two fire stations one near bonita canyon to provide better coverage for the port streets and one near laguna beach to provide better coverage for the southern edge of the city The consultants did not recommend moving fire station number three to the OCTA site. Let me say that again. They didn't recommend moving fire station number three ANYWHERE. THIS IS BECAUSE MOVING FIRE STATION NUMBER THREE TO WHERE THE OCTA IS TODAY SLIGHTLY IMPROVES MATTERS IN THE PORT STREETS BUT IT WORSENS MATTERS IN EAST BLUFF AND THIS SLIDE SHOWS YOU THAT. THIS WAS PREPARED BY CITY STAFF, NOT MY SLIDE, THIS IS THE CITY'S SLIDE, ABOUT A YEAR AGO. And the light green off to the right shows you the coverage area gained in the port streets, representing about 250 annual calls to the fire department. The pink over there to the left in East Bluff That's the coverage area lost in East Bluff by this proposed move of Fire Station 3 to the OCTA site, about 221 annual calls. So on a citywide basis, this move of Fire Station 3 from where it sits today over to the OCTA site is robbing Peter to pay Paul. You have no appreciable citywide reduction in response times. Why, if it doesn't improve citywide response times, why is the current council majority dead set on tearing down the OCTA station, buying land and building an expensive new OCTA station, and putting fire station number three where it is? Because they want to clear off the Santa Barbara site to provide for tall residential development there. This is not some paranoid fantasy of Walter and others. No, we have notes through a records request of a November meeting attended by three city council members. The plan, according to these notes, was to, quote, sell Santa Barbara to TIC and lease back for three to four years, TIC would have to place 15% affordability. I urge the council, vote no on this issue. The city deserves a much fuller discussion of Fire Station 3, and the residents of East Bluff in particular deserve a chance to say no to moving it from where it is today. Thank you. Thank you.

Next speaker, please.

Mayor climbing council members. Um, may I please have slide number two. So I'm going to speak about this item. Because part of what the residents are expressing is their frustration that important matters like this are presented with really superficial staff reports. And that as a council and the agenda being put forward doesn't provide a comprehensive report or a discussion of the implications of these proposals. And that's really what the residents are telling you. You had a lot of residents come up and talk to you about the park, which they researched on their own. because they weren't sure if they could speak during the consent calendar. And they should be able to hear what's happening in those proposals from you, rather than having them in the consent calendar be voted, unless we thank Robin Grant for pulling them, and so that residents can educate the public. Additional questions that come up with this item. The city and the OCTA in this case are essentially agreeing to move the transportation center to 3848 Campus Drive, which is near the airport. The staff report has no discussion of the potential impact on bus riders or businesses. Now I personally have taken the bus from that station to the airport many times when that route existed. I've also taken the bus from San Clemente to Cal State Long Beach, which passes up the library, goes to the transit station, and goes all the way to Cal State Long Beach. And I had many students at Cal State Long Beach who took that bus route. There's no discussion of the impact on those riders. What about people who use that bus to get to work? There are so many things that are not being presented to the public about this proposal. And I know you all know how to evaluate these situations, and you should be asking staff to present a comprehensive report on each of these situations. So this goes back to Mr. Starr pointed out, what are the plans for the site? Because if you're clearing the site, then is your plan to move the fire station? It's not really clear why you would agree to this. additionally OCTA asked the same question they're asking the public and I got this today in their directions 2050 survey to tell them what do you want in transportation we're not asking that question apparently as we move forward and if this has been presented in a past council meeting then just attach those documents to the staff report so we can be informed but the for residents and for the Council directions 2050 is looking at the wrong long range transportation plan to help Orange County move forward. I'd actually like Mayor Kleinman in her role in the toll road authority to also advocate for the tariff or the toll road payment to be removed over at Bonita Canyon. That would help the flow of traffic in Newport. And could we have more bus service in that area, for example? So again, These are the questions that the public would like to have answered, and it's really your responsibility when you see the agenda to ask the staff to provide those reports to the public. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other speakers, please?

Good evening, Ron Urbino representing the East Bluff Homeowners Association. We don't feel there's 4,000 homeowners in East Bluff. We don't feel there's been adequate discussion with us on the impact of if this transaction with OCTA took place and that became the fire station, And the exit from Avocado was not changed. What the time constraint would be to get rescue and 911 healthcare, heart attack, illness, and fire equipment into East Bluff. for both the Bluffs and the Holmes. The current location off of Jamboree is a direct access from Jamboree into East Bluff Drive and their timing is under four minutes. We have a high school, junior high, elementary school, major church, and many apartments in the lower end of East Bluff and then the Holmes and the tennis club. There's a direct indication that the port streets would be improved but the avocado exit of the buses as i see the buses leaving they don't have access to macarthur they go through the newport center and so you see the buses exiting and then going through the newport center to somehow get to so there's no discussion in the report of what the plan would be to get the fire equipment out of avocado so there would have to be some major street I think, repair exiting to, and it just isn't part of the discussion. So I just think the report should say something about if this was a fire station location, getting the fire equipment over to East Bluff to maintain the same level of service should be part of the consideration. So on behalf of the Homeowners Association, I don't think we've had any discussion of that matter. And I don't think we should be reduced in service so that the port streets or that Newport Center could be improved. And if you needed a second fire station, then I'd be in favor of the port streets being their service being improved. And that's one of the options in the report. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other speakers?

Mayor Kleinman, Jim Mosier again. I agree with the previous two speakers that I don't think the impact of moving the transportation center both on homeowners wanting emergency services and on residents using the bus services have been adequately explored before entering into this agreement with OCTA. I also especially agree with the observation that the staff report that you are receiving and that the public can see sort of, although we don't have any paper copies of it to look at, is very skimpy, especially compared to the staff report that was prepared for the OCTA at their meeting on the same subject yesterday. And one thing that struck me in that very skimpy report, it does say that there's no fiscal impact to this and that the cost of studying additional sites will be covered by OCTA, which is a comment that the city manager repeated. And I find it very puzzling. because I have found the electronic copy. Unlike paper ones, it's kind of hard to see the context of what you're reading. But what I'm seeing here, there is one section about the funding of the agreement. And it says, subject to future funding agreements approved by the governing bodies, the city shall fund 100% of the project costs. And then a little further, it says OCTA shall have no further funding obligations except as mutually agreed in writing. So where is this coming from that OCTA will be paying the cost of studying additional sites? I mean, my understanding is that they're doing this as a courtesy to us under the understanding that we will be paying the full expense of it. They have no particular interest in moving the site. It's entirely at our direction and our expense. So where is this coming from in the skimpy staff report and from the city manager? Thank you.

Thank you. Next speaker, please.

I Carol King again from Irvine Terrace. I'm just wondering if the city manager can say again. I'm sorry that better that term sheet is you said what these are just time for public comments. I'm sorry there's no Q and a so OK well I was just confused because he stated that it was up going to be up to a certain date. And I didn't know what that date was and then I'm thinking maybe that's why If that has to move for the fire station to move for the police station to move, maybe that's why it's being pushed to the park because all those other things have to happen in order to get the fire police station done faster. Thanks.

Thank you. Seeing no other comments, Madam Clerk, is there anyone online? Okay, we'll bring it back up here. Any questions or comments? Council member Stapleton.

YEAH, I JUST WANT TO CONTINUE THE CONVERSATION BRIEFLY. THIS IS A CONTINUATION OF SOMETHING THAT COUNCIL HAS ALREADY DISCUSSED LAST YEAR. NOTHING HAS CHANGED. THIS IS ALREADY IN THE BUDGET. THIS HAS ALREADY BEEN DISCUSSED. THIS IS NOT A COMMITMENT. IT'S NONBINDING. IT'S A CONTINUATION OF A STUDY TO SEE IF THERE'S AN ALTERNATIVE SITE FOR OCT TO MOVE THIS. Given that's the nature, I'm willing to continue to support this and continue to move forward. What I am hesitant on is the actual ultimate cost. So I will reserve that until we get a study back from OCTA. But until then, I think it's, you know, continued as we've been doing.

Council Member Grant. Thank you. And thank you to members of the public. You've raised a lot of interesting points. First I want to thank staff and our partners at OCTA for the hard work on this project. This is a long standing project and it's taken a lot of time and I appreciate all that work. I do support continuing a study with OCTA to relocate the transit center in fact you know we had we did as councilmember Stapleton mentioned we did consider this in 2025 and we have entered into an agreement with the octa for a joint study and it's ongoing it will be complete in november that's 12 weeks away the term sheet that we're looking at today does not meaningfully advance the project at all we meant to study something we anticipated studying it till november and i'm just not seeing that anything essential is being gained at this juncture with a term sheet it's just really an agreement to agree It's non-binding. I understand that. I am an attorney and I understand those terms. But I feel that we're putting a lot of effort into something that really has no effect. And given that we are only 12 weeks away from the final answer on this study, I think that patience is required at this point. It's premature to, and unnecessary to give the, you know, given the work that's already in progress. and, quite frankly, work that we might need to continue with. We've talked about response times. This study doesn't even anticipate at all moving a fire station. That is not what this study that we are completing in November is about. It's merely about whether the property that the OCTA is occupying could be used for a different purpose. So we have a lot of work to do to understand response times. If we do have other studies that are showing that fire stations need to be in other places, we haven't even engaged in that at the council, and I don't believe at the staff level. I would just say also in alignment with what Councilmember Stapleton said, the agreement contemplates that Newport Beach will pay the cost of the relocation. That's the intent. But prudence really dictates that we know the total cost and establish a funding plan before we move forward, even with something non-binding. It's just not necessary at this juncture to push ahead with concepts that aren't necessarily going to fit in the role of what we're looking to do here. The better course is to complete the studies and then enter into a binding agreement with the benefit of all terms. I would say also that City Council represents the city as a whole. We do not represent districts. I'm very sensitive to everybody in this city and the fire response times, whether it be East Bluff, which happens to be in my district, the Port Streets, which is in the district of Council Member Blum, people on the peninsula. You know, we have to make sure that we as a whole, as a body, are protecting our entire city. I think that these comments that different members of the public are making about response times are very, very important in the context of this conversation and something that will be part of the conversation after we complete this initial study in November. Notwithstanding my reservations about this, I will support this item because I remain committed to finishing the study and knowing in November exactly what just this little OCTA piece means in the bigger picture. Thank you.

Mayor Bertrand Blum.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. And I think my other colleagues up here remembering that actually all of us signed this agreement moving forward. Because we all remember what the transportation center used to look like. Do you remember? It was a blight on this city. It was a very difficult place, and we've worked to create a partnership with OCTA to benefit, to figure out better ways to move people around, to look for ideas in new villages and new places that connect the city. In the same way we've talked about the trolley programs that we've brought forth, the same way we're looking at alternate sites, the idea of moving people around changes year after year. When that was originally built, it had a different purpose. You need to bring every worker to Newport Center. That is no longer the case, as is true from talking to the Irvine Company, the hoteliers, and everyone around. And I don't think a lot of us could be more proud of the difference that has happened there in the last years. It is very real and very amazing. Yes, we're always going to put public safety first. Why? Because when you're in need, that is the most important thing. When you pick up that phone and you call 911, because you need something, you want to know that they're there for you. That's the reality. It's the cornerstone. So I love the fact that we get to actively debate all the nuances of these deals. I do. But they're nuances. The reality is, is if you can't hang on that pillar, that we are safe, we're sturdy, and we're sound in this city, then these other debates wouldn't even matter. So I'm proud of this council. I'm proud of previous councils because, yes, I have been on them when we've made active decisions for other things. This has been something that's required a lot of heart and soul to just get to this piece. The mayor has worked tirelessly on these boards, gotten herself appointed to them, and worked continuously for the benefit of this city. That's it. That's what she's working for. the benefit of this city. And so when we discuss some of these contracts and some of these pieces, it's because we truly want to benefit the city for the families we all have here, for the children we're all raising here. That's why we want to make it better. So my full support to keep moving forward with an idea that just keeps making Newport better. Thank you.

Was that a motion?

It's a motion to move staff recommendation.

I'll go ahead and second. Let's go ahead and vote.

Motion carried by unanimous vote.

Council Member Grant, did you want to take these remaining items separately, or are you okay since they're related to take them collectively, items number 18, 19, and 20?

I'm fine with them collectively.

Okay, great. Did you want a staff report?

Yes, I think it's important for the public to know what we're discussing, especially since we're combining all three. Mr. Churches?

thank you madam mayor council member grant council members so if you recall back in march 10th we did a study session with the city council and discussed the different sites our 870 santa barbara property a 1201 dove property and the civic center site you formed an ad hoc committee to review all the sites the challenge for staff is there are a lot of questions for the civic center site that we cannot answer It is a complex site with habitat, with species. There are a lot of topography issues. And we did state to the city council that if you want us to consider the Civic Center site, we're going to need some help. We're going to need some consultants. So on your agenda today is a contract with LPA, which is an architectural firm. Our public works staff has bid out a full design package to them just to do it once instead of piecemealing the design firm, but they're not to exceed on their contract is just for conceptual design. Again, it's a complicated site. We don't know if a police station could fit. We need somebody who's an expert in this, and that's what LPA is coming on board to do that, to do some conceptual designs of the site plan. Their not to exceed is $713,000, and that's all that we're going to spend money on just for the concept of the Civic Center. The other agenda item, agenda item 19 with regards to the environmental review, in that staff report there are two contracts. One is an amendment to the LSA agreement. LSA is already on call. They're already doing biosurveys of the Civic Center site. They're looking at the species, at the habitat to see if there's any environmental issues. They're collecting the data. And we need to do that now because it is springtime, summertime. This is the window of opportunity to do that. The staff report addresses more money being put to LSA so they can finish that biosurvey, take that data. And EPD Solutions is the EI consultant. They will take that data and actually do the environmental review. based on the conceptual design that LPA does, based on an ad hoc committee review, and based on city council's input. And then for the last item, outreach, we're using westbound. We are getting more and more into the outreach business with our general plan update, our housing element, our CDM corridor study, and our moorings, plus our specific plan up in the airport area. We do have a public information manager, Ms. Rios. She is . We need professional outreach consultants so we can communicate the studies, communicate what we're working on, communicate what the ad hoc committee is doing, and do that FAQ, do those town halls that people are asking about. We just need more support, and that's what this outreach consultant is going to do. Combine these three staff reports for a total less than $1.5 million. That money was approved by the council as a set aside during your budget process, so that order has been set aside by the council, and these are the consultant agreements that we talked about at the March 10th study session. So I'm happy to answer your questions. Mr. Houlihan is here, and so is Mr. Zadiba. Ms. Rios is in the audience, too, if you have any further questions.

Did you have any further comes.

Okay, we'll go ahead and do that any comments on this item from anyone who hasn't already spoken on this.

Oh so yeah, well I guess my question Dennis press Balboa Island so I just have a question regards to the 12 million 459,000. It looks like we're going to spend 1.5 million to move forward which I'm in agreement with but I I'm wondering what the $12 million number is. And that's my question.

Thank you. Any other questions or comments?

Hello again, Susan scanner, not knowing that Lynn Swain was going to be here today. I actually came to read a letter that was published by her today. I'll modify it somewhat because some of these pieces I've already addressed.

Are these things that have already been commented on? They are not.

They are not. So Lynn writes, concerns by residents. Do we have a voice, or are things predetermined? The Newport Beach City Council appears to be moving rapidly towards placing a new police headquarters in the Civic Center Park with little regard for the overwhelming concerns expressed by many residents. public was not fooled at the police headquarters ad hoc committee meeting on july 22nd following councilman noah blum's motion to stop spending additional taxpayer money evaluating santa barbara drive site and return to the issue to the full city council it became difficult to view the committee as an objective body to many who attended the outcome appeared predetermined the concerns do not end there And I'll just paraphrase this. This is very different. I specifically did not mention the Civic Center. Just a moment.

Yes.

Please turn the time off while he's speaking.

But there's three agreements here. If you have comments on those three agreements, that's fine. Talking about the ad hoc committee or whatever else, that's where you have a chance to do that during general comments. I have not spoken to any of this. I have not spoken to this. Your time here is to speak to these specific contracts.

OK. ALL RIGHT. I HAD A FEELING THAT YOU WOULD CUT ME OFF. ANYHOW, ALLOW ME TO SAY THAT THESE CONTRACTS I THINK ARE VERY INAPPROPRIATE. I THINK THAT THE CITY IS ACTING IN A VERY NONTRANSPARENT WAY. I WAS PARTICULARLY DISAPPOINTED BY YOU AND YOUR COMMENTS A FEW CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS AGO THAT YOU DID NOT WISH TO HEAR WHAT WAS GOING ON FROM THIS. THAT'S HOW I INTERPRETED IT. So the issue is really simply not simply where to build a police headquarters. It's whether the Newport Beach residents can have confidence that these agreements are appropriate, that they are made openly, fairly, and with genuine respect for the public participation. Lynn writes, Newport Beach deserves better, and I agree with her. Thank you.

Mayor Kleinman, members of the council, my name again is Jim Mosier, and I did not speak about this previously. Contracts 18 and 19, as was explained by the city manager, are spending, I believe, a little over a million dollars to study the feasibility of putting a police station in the Civic Center Park. And I would just, although I did not myself speak about it, echo some of the comments that you've heard from the other speakers. An initial question one could ask without knowing whether it's feasible or not is whether that's a place where we want to put a police headquarters. And if the council answers no, that that is not a place where we want to put a police headquarters, then it does not matter whether it's feasible or not, and we could be saving a million dollars of taxpayer money. And the second comment is about the third contract, which we keep hearing is for outreach. I hope that outreach will include in-reach, because the public's concern is not so much that they're being told what's going on, but they want to be listened to. Thank you. Thank you.

OK. Are there any comments online, Madam Clerk?

Oh. Good afternoon. Slide number three, please.

Ms. Curran, did you already speak on these items?

No. So I'm going to speak on 18, 19, and 20. It's not complicated. Some of the council for reasons which are very unclear, wants to build a police station that is a massive police station at Civic Center Park. And they've asked our staff to look at it. The staff report, I'm going to provide just a few snippets here so that the public sees what is being proposed. This is a drawing that LPA provided in its proposal. And what you'll see in the blue and green items is some of the building areas. The road elements are not included. Any elements for lighting or impacts to the bridge are not included. And while this shows that there might still be a remnant of the park, it really would destroy the park. Secondly, number 18 says that we're considering multiple sites. We're considering some sites. We're considering Civic Center site. It's really not clear what guidance has been given to LPA. Finally, when did the council approve an item for $12 million not to exceed budget? That really just boggles the mind. Finally, for this project, so And the other thing that's not in here is, are there any conflicts of interest that would come forward if we were to build at any of the sites that are being considered, including this site or the current police station site? Slide floor, please. The International Association of Chiefs of Police calls out a policy process for facilities planning with four phases. We are skipping phases one and two by putting this EIR and construction document together and moving directly phases to phases three and four, as was presented by one of our committee members, Tom Maloney, who's from Public Safety. That is normally an eight-year process. The fact that we bought a building doesn't mean that we started the process. So we are short-circuiting ourselves and cutting ourselves off from having the right police services and considering our police services for the public. Number five, please. So think about before and after. If the police station were built at Civic Center Park, on the left, you see the beautiful park we enjoy today. On the right, you see what it might look like. Let's move to slide 20, or slide six. Slide six is a $300,000 contract which ignores public input. We've already spent all the money, all the public time, and the public has told you what they want. At the same time, you are considering a PR firm to educate the public. I encourage the public to go online, read their case studies. They talk about educating the public, informing the public, telling the public there are no resumes provided and the staff members only to have any outreach experience. Thank you. So thank you.

Adam Leverins, continuing kind of what the previous speaker said, number 20. Mr. Jurgis mentioned a need for professional outreach consultants and named a number of aspects of city goals that are being used in that way right now, or consultants are being sought. A speaker earlier in the evening talked about rational, logical voters and the increasing trend to hire public relations firms to convince rational, logical voters that they're not rational and logical. I think it would be easier to just listen to your constituents. I mean, I've met with a number of you individually. You tell me you read the staff reports and then you vote. Who is pulling the strings here? The staff reports aren't all inclusive. There's so much information that is missing. I don't like long meetings. I imagine none of you do either. I don't like being here every two weeks. I don't like talking as much as I do. But you're kind of obligated to study and find out the facts. We were talking about information and misinformation. I mean, yes, you want to do an environmental study up here, building in a wetlands. I've been in nature's stuff for years. Do you even know what that involves? It's like, just think. Thank you.

good evening mayor madam members of city council i want to talk to you a little bit about the costs and i want to put them in the context of the other things you're doing because i think you can head off a financial problem if you think about them the contracts together i know they're phased but they total 13 million dollars in terms of consultant costs and public relations. You're an escrow for $11.5 million to buy a transit center site at the airport. The decision tonight will put you on the hook for $15 to $20 million to build a new transit center, $18 to $21 million to build a new fire station, and then $15 million to lease back the Santa Barbara site during the construction period. So when you total that together, you've spent $72 to $79 million. BEFORE YOU'VE TURNED A SINGLE SPADE OF DIRT ON THE PARK SITE OR BEFORE YOU'VE SOLVED A SINGLE ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE OR DONE ANY KIND OF SITE PREPARATION OR ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION. YOU KNOW, ALTERNATIVELY, YOU COULD TAKE THAT $72 MILLION AND BUY THE LAND ROVER DEALERSHIP OR BUY 12 CORPORATE PLAZA AND BUILD IT FASTER WITHOUT ANY PROBLEM.

MR. CLERY, COULD YOU KEEP IT ON TOPIC TO THE ITEMS THAT WE'RE DISCUSSING?

THE TOPIC IS THAT THIS CONTRACT IS GOING TO BE ONE OF THE THINGS THAT BREAKS THE CITY FINANCIALLY. Because coming up right after it is $60 million for sea walls in Balboa Island that you can't afford if you put yourself on this path.

Mr. Curry, we're considering three items that have been pulled from consent.

I'm suggesting that you should vote no on those items because they are going to break the city financially. And I'm explaining to you why, which you're currently apparently not interested in. But, you know, This project is not going to be built at the park. We should stop spending money on it now. It's too expensive, there are too many environmental problems, and there's too much community opposition, and too many elections are going to take place before you're able to get it done. So it's going to go down. And I learn things every day about this project. What I learned today is that this is an Indian burial ground. So have fun with that while you're trying to build a police station on it. You know, this parcel exists as a park because in 1972, citizens around this community and up and down the coast stopped the Pacific Coast Freeway. I'm old enough to remember and have been part of that fight. The same community energy is available today to stop you from putting this police station in the park. The sooner you all realize that, the more millions of dollars of tax dollars you're going to save.

Next speaker, please. Madam, did Kleiman? I'm sorry. I just have a hard time with the ease in the eyes. Anyway, Nancy Skinner again. I just want to say, regarding this professional services agreement, it's just one. We need one for the Santa Barbara. Thank you. Thank you. It needs to have something to match it to. Thank you. Next speaker.

Walter Starr again.

The people have spoken loudly and clearly. They do not want the police station there. You should stop spending money on it. So I would oppose all of these with the exception of the amendment to spend the extra 75 grand to finish the environmental work that's already underway so that we know if there are rare species there. I would note on the environmental front, I started life as an environmental lawyer. $300,000 is not going to get you the full environmental report on this site. It's an incredibly complex project. When you read the description of what they're doing, you're really looking at more like $750,000 or a million dollars. The fact that the first contract is coming back to you for an amendment should tell you that really the $300,000 number is unrealistic. There are three agreements here, the architectural, the environmental, and the PR. I object to all of them, but the PR is the most objectionable of all. The people of Newport Beach know what they think about this. And the staff is perfectly capable of running town hall meetings to hear that in more detail, of amending the website. The staff can deal with all that. No, what you need a PR forum for is the miracle, the magic of Madison Avenue to persuade the people that what they believe is not really what they believe. It is a waste of the people's money to try to persuade them that they really actually want to destroy a beloved park. As the other speaker said, it's not going to happen. Stop spending the money. Vote no on all of these agreements with the exception of the 75 grand amendment. Thank you.

Thank you.

Denise over men. I also object to items 1819 and 20 on the agenda that have been pulled for a couple of reasons individually and collectively I object to them one is any of these considerations is out of sequence of what a logical planning process is Our city manager approximately a year and a half ago made a very insightful comment that a new police headquarters is a very important very complex and inherently long term project and I believe that time. The it was approximation of a 10 year projects and we've been hearing from different advisors experts 8 to 10 years so there is nothing with the proper start to the proper finish implementation and rollout that's going to turn this into a three-year project. It is a long-term project. Also, it's a complex project, and it's complex for a variety of reasons, not only the whole menu of environmental considerations, but there are other metrics that are important to consider. and we ask the question what is it and the public has asked the question what are we really doing here are we evaluating several sites and comparing those for feasibility and suitability or attractiveness or acceptability of those sites or are we really just trying to slam one site through And if in fact there is going to be such an important project, it inherently should look at multiple sites. That's all part of the proper due diligence in the early planning stages. So along with that, there should be metrics or criteria for evaluation of each one of these sites. not only financial criteria and various types of environmental criteria, but also corridor access. And there are many other metrics that are essential to consider in developing a police force. So where are those metrics? They weren't and haven't been presented in toto in through the advisory committee. I've sat in on those who has provided the ultimate governance to make sure we've got the right metrics in place. And then also are we applying those metrics and evaluation of these different site options with a thoughtful and even hand? I don't see it yet. I hear from my colleagues, friends, neighbors, other members of the public that it isn't here. So it's inappropriate and definitely premature to consider approval of any of these items. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other speakers?

Good evening, Madam Mayor and gentle council members. I'm Mary Ann Soden. I live in Newport Beach. I, too, am not keen on the site of the park. And I was here in March, and from that meeting came the advisory committee. And I did go online and look at what they've been able to do. They've only met twice in July, and they've really only gotten information Uh, from that March meeting about the city council site. So it feels to me like the card is in front of the horse that we need to get. Good information to that advisory body primarily about the environmental challenges, because it seems. unwise to be getting a design for a parcel of property that you don't even know if it could hold a police station if the underlying rivers would be sufficient so i would say winnow your focus to what the environmental issues are and whether the site is really appropriate and then i would really like to see that advisory body looking at all three sites equally thank you thank you

Nancy Gardner. I got a phone call the other day. Can you explain to me? And I went, no, I can't explain it because I don't understand and I'm hoping that through the process perhaps I will understand at some point why we would want even a conceptual design when we are saying we haven't really selected a site. I know it says the preferred site, but we're saying, no, it's not, we're looking at all sites. Then if we really are looking at other sites, why wouldn't we do conceptual designs for those sites as well? It just, it seems like things aren't in order, and it's, as I say, particularly for a non-planner, it seems just so very confusing to have It's something like a design when supposedly you don't have a site selected.

Any other speakers? Seeing none, Madam Clerk, any online? Okay, we'll bring it back up here. Oh, Council Member Grant, her computer's not working.

Okay, you're up. thank you i appreciate the opportunity to weigh in on this as well and i hope you'll bear with me because i gathered my thoughts around doing this in three separate sections so i might be a little repetitive um you know as an elected representative i do have the obligation to speak up when i think that we are departing from a sound Method of governance and I think as one of the speakers, I do believe or many that we have the car before the horse and this isn't the first time I'm saying it. I'm obviously in the minority here. This council has. Voted to move forward in a certain manner, and so I'm just reiterating what I've already said before. I respect the opinion of my fellow colleagues and. I'm looking forward to an opportunity that we can all come together, as well as with the general public, and find a path forward that is meaningful and works well for our community. I don't think that we're there yet. Regarding the architecture, I'm going to try and take this, you know, put this all together. I want to be clear that my concern is not with LPA. Given the RFP process, I do support them as a firm very qualified to design this significant civic project. And I would be pleased to support retaining them at the appropriate time. I just don't think now is the right time. My concern is that what we're doing now is premature. We established an ad hoc committee. We purposefully reformed the existing ad hoc committee so that we added residents. We've had very few meetings with the full committee. The first meeting, I think one resident was missing. And at the second meeting, I think two residents were missing. So we haven't even really gotten the full benefit that input from our community. We did intentionally direct them to evaluate multiple locations. I'm not exactly sure where we landed on a preferred location or not a preferred. I don't really think that that's relevant. We know that the committee is tasked with looking at multiple locations. Ones that maybe haven't even been identified yet is my hope and my understanding. When we did that, it was to inform the council. It was to have this committee come together and make some recommendations to the full council based on thorough and transparent analysis. And I have full faith in the committee that that can happen. I just think that we're pushing forward a little too quickly. Nothing has changed to justify narrowing that focus right now. We're at the very, very beginning of the stage that that committee is meeting. We haven't selected a final site or established a funding strategy or secured the necessary approvals to even start concepting this project. So I do think that it's premature for an architect to be hired. construction in any scenario construct construction is years away so architectural plans will almost certainly be outdated investing in them now is just premature I think more important, authorizing a full architectural agreement now from soup to nuts, conceptual plan to actual construction, it risks prejudging the outcome of the very process that we're trying, the transparent process that we're trying to create. I have a lot of faith that our council here has created an ad hoc committee with residents for a transparent and accountable process. The idea that we are hiring an architect for the full project when we don't even have a site, I'll say it again, risks prejudging the outcome of the very process that we're creating. The same kind of conversation can be had about the EIR. Initiating an EIR for only one site sends an inappropriate message. It sends the opposite message of transparency. It says we're doing this, not that. I'm a land use attorney. I haven't practiced for a very long time, so I'm not the most expert at the intricacies of land use that have come up in the last number of years, but I do have a background in this, and I worked on a lot of EIRs and environmental studies when I was practicing, and I know that it's not an insignificant undertaking. It's a very large and expensive and long undertaking. It requires a lot of staff time, consultant time and monetary resources and public engagement. I just think it's premature right now for us to be pushing into that when the ad hoc committee is still in the very preliminary stages of looking at the existing sites we've located and they are also tasked with looking at other sites that might become available. If the ad hoc committee ultimately does recommend another site, you know, let's look at that alternative. Maybe something absolutely perfect does come up or something better than what we already have in mind comes up. Much of the work that we're going to do here under these contracts will need to be repeated. And that is just unnecessary expense at the taxpayer cost. I just, I don't feel comfortable with that. Again, we're undermining public confidence by creating a perception. Maybe it's not really happening, but I'm feeling this perception that the outcome has already been decided, and I'd like to write the course on that. I don't want anybody out there or on this dais to be right. I just want us to be on the right course, and I think we can do that. created this ad hoc, we've added the residents, let's give them the time so that they can actually do the job that they were there to do. Sequencing does matter. I'll just briefly talk about the PR. I think that that's premature as well. I have full faith in the staff. I appreciate all the work the staff has done on this. This has been a huge lift for staff for many, many, many months, more than a year. and I appreciate all that work but work that the council's done there's been different committees that work has been important we've had a lot of information that's come forward we've had a lot of public comment but it's premature at this point to retain a PR firm We don't have a site. We don't have a funding plan. We don't have a defined scope to even communicate. So, my faith is in the time and the talent of my staff. We have a PIO, a brand new PIO who's highly energized and doing great work for us. We have a great staff. I think that They are working hard and there's a lot of time that goes into this project, but I think that we can weave this into the work of our existing staff and hiring outside communications consultant is going to be necessary. There's no doubt about it. We are going to need to make decisions and have town halls and do all of the necessary work once we have a actual project that we need to communicate. But I think at this juncture, I feel confident in our existing staff to accomplish what we do accomplish with public outreach. I, again, thank staff, thank my colleagues, thank the Ad Hoc Committee for the work. And I'd just like to see us take a beat, let the Ad Hoc Committee finish their work, make a recommendation, and then move forward into this next stage. Thank you.

Council Member Bartow.

Yes, I have a bunch of questions, and some of them I know from being on the ad hoc, so it's for the benefit of the public, and other ones I have honest questions. So in one of our ad hoc committee meetings, we did talk about the programming, and to make that clear, because that was a term that was new to me too, that's kind of the shooting range, the fleet, the mechanics. The scope of this project in this first stage is from the funding that we've already allocated for this project. police station project but this includes kind of scoping out what that programming would look like at the site is that correct that's right okay and so then if we do end up not on the site in a different site of course it's going to have to have some work redone but i think establishing kind of what our needs are and what that could look like is very important at least as this at this part of the program ONE QUESTION I DIDN'T ASK IN ADVANCE. I APOLOGIZE. I DON'T LIKE TO GIVE SURPRISES. I WAS REMEMBERING WHEN WE DID SOME WORK OVER AT STANCIA THEATER WHEN I WAS ON THE SCHOOL BOARD, THERE WERE SOME GEO-TECHNICAL BORINGS. I DIDN'T SEE ANY MENTION OF THAT AS PART OF THIS. IS THAT GOING TO BE HAPPENING HERE AS WELL?

ULTIMATELY, THERE WOULD BE. NOT IN THIS INITIAL PHASE BECAUSE THIS IS A SUBSEQUENT Subsequent environmental impact report. It's not a it's not a new environmental report. It's a subsequent to this facility There were a lot of geotechnical done so the initial Study would use the initial boring information for construction if we were to do it here We would do additional borings and that's in the in the proposal that was provided by LPA. I

So regardless of where we are, we're going to do some geotechnical borings at some point. In the future. In the future. Okay, thank you. And then for the environmental, I talked a little bit with the city manager, so maybe you can help with the need for the EIRs at other potential sites and how we're evaluating this site. But there are some very obvious specific environmental concerns that I think we need to be able to address and answer to the public before we proceed, but also some of the other sites don't have those. For example, even though we're not revisiting the Santa Barbara site, we already know that that one doesn't need a new EIR. Can you talk a little bit about Dove Street or other potential sites?

Thank you council of our to a deputy manager been city ball take that question. So as you alluded to the other sites are heavily developed they do have existing uses as you mentioned 870 Santa Barbara currently a police station so it's likely that the environment review would be much less on that site because you're replacing an existing use and structure. At the 12-1 Dove Street location, it's also a large 80,000 approximately square foot office building. So that is a very heavy and intense development that would be coming down to accommodate a police station. So similarly there, the environmental review would not be as extensive as it would be here at the Civic Center campus. So given what we know about ornamental plantings as well as potential you know special status plant species special bird and bees at the site it is prudent to study it in a more robust fashion through environmental impact report and as was mentioned the focused surveys are already underway from lsa through our on call which is also part of item 19.

And then can we get a price site work and mitigation cost when we get the EIR at the same time? Because as much as the work maybe could be done, it comes to a matter of how much that cost is going to be, and that will factor into the total cost of the project.

Yes, we will include that. Okay.

And then going into just some admin the outreach and consultant and I hear a lot of the same questions over and over and I agree that we definitely could do better in getting out some of that information and particularly some of that information that goes back to previous councils as I heard recommended a lot of us have spent time individually going through that and I know as a ad hoc previously we had talked about that and and one slide that we had early on which might benefit from bringing back again was the side-by-side on the costs but maybe part of that outreach could include a side-by-side on kind of the other factors history I were doing a traffic study we should put that in there as well to kind of show the side-by-side of so that the information that we're seeing in kind of a you know routine manner is more available to the public they don't have to dig so deep for those questions um that's why i'm okay with employing an outreach consultant because i don't want to it's my goal is not to feel like i'm giving the public an education or a foregone conclusion or sell anything i really want to make sure that um no one ever has to come to a council meeting and say i have no idea where this information is it just i want it to be very transparent um and then also when we have our cash flow kind of projections on any surplus lands i'm hoping that that information can be on our our faq and website with our pr and with our town halls as well thank you council member stapleton

Yeah, I just want to start by thanking all of you for being here tonight. Obviously, it's not lost on me that Newport Beach is one of the greatest cities in the world, and it's because of individuals like you. It's the passion. It's the residents of Newport Beach. It's your contribution to our community that make us what we are. And thank you to our incredible staff for your hard work on this and to my council colleagues. No decision we make up here is ever easy, but we do what we think is in the best interest of the residents in the community. So Mr. Georges, we just really quickly talk about I keep hearing this $12 million figure flying around. Can you explain what we're actually approving tonight?

So our public works staff went out to RFP for a full design. So if we were to do a full design, it's $12 million plus. And the contract reflects that. But the only thing you're approving right now is the conceptual site design work, the conceptual design for $713,000. You're not approving spending any more than that for the conceptual. We just wanted to do one RFP, one contract, and not try to piecemeal all the RFPs and all the contracts for different phases. So you're approving phase one.

Okay. So item number 18 is $713,000, 19 is $350,000, and 20 is $315,000, or give or take? That's correct. Okay. All right. OK, so we voted as a council back in March to move forward with continuing to study the site. I think this is a unique site. It does pose different challenges from Santa Barbara for Dove Street. We need to determine feasibility. We got to talk about our due diligence. In my opinion, this is not a foregone conclusion by any means. This is a process that we're continuing to study. After that staff, after the vote back in March, the staff went through this process for RFPs. So tonight we're just executing on that direction that was done back in March. So it doesn't expand it. This is already budgeted with these numbers. So for 18 and 19, I'd be willing to continue the conversation, continue forward and approve the study from an environmental and from a design standpoint here to see if this is a feasible location and add it to the communication and the conversation that's happening. in the community. What I am having a hard time with is item number 20. We have an incredible team. We have an incredible public information manager. I have six incredible colleagues sitting around me. We have a unique system here in Newport Beach where we're surrounded by seven different districts. I myself would be more than happy to go into my district and have a town hall and have a conversation with the residents in my district about where they want to see a police headquarters, what they think is the best. But I want to do that once we have all the information in front of us. This site might not be doable at all, after we go through that process. So I want to complete the feasibility, understand the site analysis. I always follow decisions based on data, not before it. So I'm certainly not opposed to the site. It's not a foregone conclusion that I love this site. It's a site that we're studying and I want to follow the process so for me and we want to prove and move forward with what we've already decided on 1819. But I would not approve taxpayer dollars on communication, I believe the public would trust us as individuals as your elected officials to be out in the community with you with their staff who they know like and trust to deliver this message and have these conversations so that's where it's done.

Mayor pretend long.

Thank you, Madam Mayor, and thank you everyone that came out. I think you look out here and this is truly public engagement and I remember this. Actually, I remember my dad talking to me about it when this facility was being built because it was a very similar debate back then. On a very similar site, you know, where we're talking about the environmental concerns, the water table underneath, We're a couple hundred feet from that exact place, and yet somehow we're sitting here today. We built this. So clearly we made it through something to get here. We made it because, you know, not to a vote.

We did.

I believe it was a 55 to 45 vote on this massive complex. that there are office buildings and bathrooms for about $228 million. What we're asking right now is we're trying to look at the future of the city of Newport Beach, trying to find a place that has a fiscal responsibility that understands what we need as a community. And we're not doing it out of a place of malice, distrust, or destroying public space. We're just not. I think sometimes it's really hard to understand because when you want something that might be different than someone else, that view is hard to see. From our side, we have to balance a lot of things. And I think What I look to balance up here is I don't like debt. I've seen this state, this county, and this city go up and down. I've seen debt almost ruin the county of Orange. It's currently ruining the state of California, and I refuse to let it ruin Newport Beach. And so when we look at these ideas, My council members are right. There are no foregone conclusions, but there are ideas we have, and those ideas aren't built out of malice. They're not built out of some idea that we want to destroy the city we were born and raised in, that we raised our family in. They're born out of an idea that we want to preserve it. We want to make it better. We have maintained an amazing lifestyle in Newport Beach that I cannot say exists in most of California. And we've maintained it because we have brought up people on this dais continuously. I've been privileged to serve with, actually I do the math, eight of them. Joy is one of them, and I was privileged to serve with her. Because, you know what? We all care. Every one of us. And I get it. Sometimes our opinions don't mesh. That's okay. It's a little thing we call democracy for a long, long time that we're not supposed to always agree. But we are supposed to figure it out. And as we're looking through these amendments, that's what they are. We've got to figure it out. And we have to know what is possible, probable, and pragmatic if we want to move forward. And the difficult piece is we have run through those scenarios at two of our current locations, and so we must run through it again at a third. That's the simple reality. We're not asking anyone out here to make a decision.

We're not asking anyone up here to make a decision.

We're asking for a little bit of pragmatism to decide what is probable and possible. At the end of the day, the same way that we all looked at this initial ravine, it was part of an Irvine Company drainage ditch that became the city hall and the library. I remember the original one. It's where I got all my Dr. Seuss books back in the day. I might have even kept a couple beyond the time I should have returned them. But we have built something that is beautiful in this city that we're all proud of. No one sits here today, we're not lamenting this building, even though, go back in history and this would have been a very different council meeting. The same meeting we had for the library lecture hall that is now finished and built, a very different council meeting. And the library that's part of the continuing complex We're here to remember what we stand for in this city and that is constantly improving the city of Newport Beach and at no point is destruction the mandate we're looking at. We don't want to get rid of anything we want to embrace it. We love our city. No one sits up here because they don't. So the ask here isn't how can we railroad the city. I actually looked at the PR piece as the answer to a lot of questions. How do we get a Q&A? And how do we get enough of them across the city on a continuous basis that you guys get answers to your questions? Apparently it goes both ways though, doesn't it? Some people just want to talk at us and they want to remember their own projects as being the most important. We want to look at these and say that we're looking towards the future of the city because we want to see the future of it. So I support looking at every feasible opportunity for how we get to move forward with intelligence and strength. There's always going to be a diatribe, there's always going to be a reason, and there's always going to be threats. But in this one, I just want to see. I want to see what the possibility is. And this entire council has already approved the dollars that we're spending. Whether they approve what we're approving today, they've already approved the dollars. So these are what the dollars were originally earmarked for. They don't like them now. That's fine. But this is what this was built for, so that we could see a full picture, so that we could all debate the right way.

Any other speakers up here or a motion.

Thank you madam air and like to move staff recommendation on all 3 items, 1819 and 20.

We have a second.

Seconded by Council member Webber not a mayor, I think there was some possible descent so maybe just bifurcating we get to 3 items, one at a time to sell. I'm guessing sorry Councilmember stapled.

sure um happy to amend the motion if i can move sacramentation on item 18 as a single item and we have a second and seconded by council member weber we'll vote on item number 18. motion carried by vote six to one and uh council member robin grant opposed Thank you, Madam Mayor. I'd like to move staff recommendation on item 19.

Do we have a second? Seconded again by Council Member Weber. Let's vote on item number 19.

Motion carried by 6-1 vote and Council Member Robin Grant opposed.

Back to item number 20.

Well, let's keep going. I'd like to move staff recommendation on item 20.

AND SECONDED ONCE AGAIN FROM COUNCIL MEMBER WEBER. LET'S VOTE. ITEM NUMBER 20.

MOTION CARRIED BY VOTE 5-2, COUNCIL MEMBER GRANT AND COUNCIL MEMBER STAPLE, NONE OPPOSED.

THANK YOU, EVERYONE, FOR THE ROBUST DISCUSSION. Move on to item number 24, ordinance number 2026-11, amending Newport Beach Municipal Code section 3.36.030 related to cost recovery percentages and resolution number 2026-56, adopting certain fees within the schedule of rents, fines, and fees. Mr. Churgis, do we have a staff report?

We do. I'll turn it over to Administrative Services Director Jason Alamon and Abigail Marin.

Good evening, Madam Mayor, members of the City Council. My name is Abigail Marin. I'm a budget analyst with Administrative Services Department. And I'm here to present on the inclusion of certain fees to the fee schedule as well as an ordinance update to the code. To provide a bit of context for you, we did come on May 12th of this year and we brought forth for you the regular fee study update. The council reviewed the proposed fee updates and approved the fiscal year 26-27 fee schedule presented at that time with an expressed interest in staff reviewing the administrative citation hearing fees and bringing those findings back to council as soon as practicable. While also doing that review process, we also had two ordinance changes that established requirements for obtaining a permit which prompted staff to assess establishing a tobacco retailer permit fee, a wireless facility permit, and eligible facilities request permit. Additionally, it was identified by staff that this would be the appropriate time to streamline the Newport Beach Municipal Code by moving references to the levels of a city in the code directly into the city's fee resolution, which is a predominant practice. And then before you is a summary of the proposed fee updates. I'd just like to highlight that one thing about the administrative citation hearing fee. It is currently set at 0% cost recovery for successful or unsuccessful hearings. Staff is proposing that the successful hearings continue to maintain a 0% cost recovery as aligned with the practice for other successful appeal hearing processes. And if unsuccessful, it is proposed that that fee be set to $185. So today we ask of you the City Council to conduct a public hearing review and approve the proposed fee updates and related Recommendations reflected in the staff report and that concludes the presentation Thank you are they are there any questions up here first up Seeing none will go out to the public.

Are there any comments on this item? I

Mayor Kleinman, members of the council, my name again is Jim Mosher and I understand the need for the updated fees and I have no objection to that. I do not understand the reason for wanting to get rid of our cost recovery table that we have in a clearly documented municipal code where the public knows when changes happen to that. And there is a clear and transparent process, words we're hearing a lot of lately, when any changes are made to that. You have to have an ordinance presented. You have to have it published in the paper that you're making changes to it. It has to be adopted at the following meeting. Then the public knows how much we're subsidizing some things and not others. When that gets relegated to this, a resolution establishing the schedule of rents, fees, and fines, that transparency is lost. And what is being recovered at what rate is going to be in multiple pages. People will not understand it and not know what the council is directing. And as many things that you approve, there are so many pages, we won't know whether every item in there was intentional or not. So I think leaving it in an ordinance where any changes to it are clearly documented and when they were changed, which happens in the municipal code, not with resolutions, it's important to leave it where it is. Thank you.

Thank you. In continuing the public hearing online, are there any speakers? I will go ahead and close the public hearing. Are there any comments, questions, or motion up here?

Thank you, Madam Mayor. I'd like to move staff recommendations for this motion.

Seconded by Councilmember Stapleton. Let's go ahead and vote.

Motion carried by unanimous vote.

Moving on to item number 25 ordinance numbers 2026 dash 12 and 13 resolution numbers 2026 dash 57. And 58 approving the 1300 death Street townhome project. Before we consider this item to any Council members have any conflicts related to this item.

Yes, I do. I'm 25 based on real property interest into a 4100 and 4110 McArthur.

Okay, Mr. Jurgis, do we have a staff report?

Thank you, Madam Mayor. This item before you is a public hearing. It's for a zoning code amendment for 132-unit residential for sale project. The project does have a development agreement. I'm going to go ahead and hand it over to Jaime Murillo, community development director, and Oscar Orzocco.

Sorry, Orzocco.

Thank you, City Manager Jurgis, and thank you, Mayor Kleinman. This is Oscar Orozco with the City of, or excuse me, with the Planning Division, presenting the 1300 Dove Town Homes project. The project site is located at 1300 Dove, adjacent to MacArthur Boulevard, Newport Place Drive, and Dove Street, as depicted in this aerial image here. It is located within the city's airport area. it is also within the newport place pc 11 zoning district as well as the mixed use horizontal general plan land use designation as depicted here the existing site is developed with two separate office buildings approximately 175 000 square feet a parking structure a surface parking lot landscaping and some amenity areas The proposed project is for the demolition of the existing improvements to the site and the construction of a 132 for sale residential townhome development. The project also includes seven affordable units within that overall unit count and would be developed with 36 detached three and four story buildings ranging from 37 to 47 feet in height. This would be inclusive of two, three, and four bedroom units, each unit with a two-car garage, and a total of 40 guest parking spaces. As depicted in this slide here, you'll see two project renderings of the differing types of buildings. The applicants described the architecture of the project as a contemporary coastal design. Here you'll see a site plan depicting the proposed development. Along the Newport Place Drive and Dove Street, there will be duplex units. Along the MacArthur Boulevard frontage, there will be eight plex units with some interior units as well for both duplex and eight unit buildings. The project site would take or have two separate entryways as well as exitways. They're depicted there in red along Newport Place Drive and along Dove Street. The project site also proposes a publicly accessible open space landscaped area. It's a landscaped meandering walkway along the MacArthur Boulevard frontage with enhanced landscaping, seating, and lighting. project site also includes or excuse me the project itself also includes a zoning code amendment this is for the inclusion of the site into the city's housing opportunity overlay zone the site itself right now is not included this map you see here is depicting all the different properties that are currently within the housing opportunity site of or the overlay of the current housing element so the project request is to add it to this map this would enable the development of the project under that specific overlay the site notably is already within the planned community text residential overlay so the site's already been analyzed as compatibility for residential land uses therefore the project has been designed per the ho1 or the housing opportunity overlay zoning district here you'll just see a table of all the development standards i'll highlight a few the project meets the minimum density requirements it is provided more than the minimum required setbacks. It's well under the height limit, provides more than the minimum parking requirements for the individual units, and provides the minimum guest parking spaces. As mentioned before, the project includes seven very low-income units. And as part of the project, with the inclusion of these seven very low-income units, which equates to 5% of the overall unit count, the project is eligible for a state density bonus law, which allows for development projects to request incentives, concessions, as well as development standard waivers. So in this particular case, the project includes a request to reduce the park fee for the overall development, which I'll speak to a little bit in the next slide. and it also includes a list of three separate development standard waivers under the density bonus law. As mentioned before, the Housing Opportunity Overlay Zoning District has development standards for which the project complies on all of those standards. In addition to that, there are multi-unit development objective design standards. The project meets 49 of the 52, and these three are the three that are being requested to be waived under that specific density bonus law. The project has also required a development agreement. This is because it is more than 50 units and also includes a zoning code amendment. The development agreement itself is for the vesting of development rights and for a public benefit. In this particular case, the initial term of the development agreement is for 10 years. And the identified public benefits are the addition of that 5% total units of affordable housing units at the very low income household level. In addition to that, there is a general public benefit fee of approximately $3 million, which would be at a 24,000 per market rate unit, which is subject to CPI. Notably, the general public benefit fee is a unrestricted fund and can be used for other items outside of just the parking fee. addition the inclusion of the affordable housing units would help the city meet its rena allocation for the very low affordability levels the project through the development agreement and regardless would have been required to pay for development impact fees which are approximately 2.6 million dollars And then lastly, and as I previously mentioned, there is a park fee requirement, which here is depicted with respect to the code requirement versus the reduced fee that the applicant's requesting. So the code required park fee is $48,987 per unit. And through the development agreement, as well as the density bonus law, the applicant's requested to get that fee reduced down to $7,600 per unit. This would equate to a total of a little over $1 million that specific fee, which would be due at permit issuance. Excuse me, I would also like to mention that the project was presented to the Planning Commission at the June 4th Planning Commission meeting, for which they approved the project unanimously and moved on to the Council. The project also went to the Airport Land Use Commission at their July 16th meeting, and it was deemed to be consistent with the ALOOP. This concludes my presentation I'm available for questions that looking is also here and available for questions, thank you.

Thank you are there any questions for staff before we bring the applicant.

The 2 office buildings and parking structure featured and figure one how many total parking spaces are in that is in that structure and then surface parking. Sorry, I'm calling you on the fly. I should have asked you in advance.

I don't have the exact number. That's OK.

I mean, it's a pretty significant parking structure. Is that two stories, three stories?

Correct. It's two stories.

And then there's a lot of surface parking. How many units are in those two buildings? Do you know? Tenants or how many different businesses are in there or how much? I'm just curious the amount of.

I myself can't confirm, but the applicant can speak to that.

okay just curious because it's a pretty significant uh... office space and it seems like there's going to be a decrease you know and an activity there when you have that much office space and then building a for sale component these aren't you know podium style apartments these are you know individual properties for sale i think it's a a pretty good wind for it for the city here were decreasing the use and and uh... This is a benefit for sale property. I encourage that. And I think this is a great project. But I just was curious on that. So my apologies. I should ask you in advance instead of on the fly.

OK. I'm going to go ahead and open the public hearing. Actually, we'll invite the applicant to speak first.

Thank you, Mayor and council members. My name is Allie Meister and I'm here on behalf of Lincoln. I'm also joined with Park Miller. We're here for questions. We've been working on this project for a little over a year, and I think that it's been we appreciate all of staff's time and effort going into this. We spent a lot of time on the site plan. spent a lot of time looking through the city's new objective design standards and so we believe that what we landed on together is really a great planned townhome community and it's going to be quality designed to meet the expectation of the city I also want to say that we're excited about the sub market as well. I think there's some recent residential approvals that are creating momentum. And so we think when this gets delivered, it's going to be a really attractive residential market specifically for for sale product. So we're here for questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Go ahead.

Good evening, Mayor Kleinman. Did I get it right that time? You got it. I've been working on it. Practice makes perfect. That's what I was hoping. My name is Nancy Skinner, and I think it looks like a good project, but I have a question. Every time we talk about building affordable housing, And it seems like it's important to know how, if anyway, you've already worked in how it will remain affordable. I know that UCI does it one way for people who actually purchase. And I saw what happened at Dana Point when they built all the affordable housing down that area, probably before your time, but it was a long time ago. And then I know for a fact that they were not supposed to be sold, except to staying as affordable, and they were not supposed to be purchased for rental. But I have a cousin who lives in Colorado and comes out every winter, easily rented a number of those so there was no oversight for keeping it affordable and the person who was leasing it to her had a big high price on it so i'm wondering what this project and any project that you'll be considering has for keeping it affordable i understand at uci they have on the deed i believe i'm not sure i'm correct about this hopefully you know that there's only a certain percent increase over what you paid. And I don't know how that works, but I hope you'll find out and let me know someday. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker.

Mayor, Council, Dennis Bress, Balboa Island, great meeting tonight. Thank you. Last agenda item. We made it. So I would just add what a beautiful project. This whole area up there, Newport Beach Airport Village. I don't know, Georgia, if that's what we're going to end up branding it. But a couple of things with this project and with what is on the horizon for a village up there to be able to have that OCTA Transportation Center. and have a bus that maybe is not a trolley, but an OCTA bus that would get people down to Fashion Island would be phenomenal. And then also, I know John Wayne Airport is working hard to build out concessions, restaurants, and there's a pass that you can get to be able to go into the airport via TSA to have access to all the great eateries that they're working on for not only travelers, But that could be a benefit to this 132 townhomes up there for residents. It could be a fun time up there once we get this to the point that we want it to be. It's completely, as you know, the airport area and that has been what Eric had alluded to. It's basically just a business park right up there. But to start to have a bunch of homes up there is going to be fun. Thank you.

Thank you.

Mayor Kleinman, members of the council, Jim Mosier. Whatever one thinks of the value of the Civic Center Park, I think most people would agree that the airport area north of Bristol is park poor. Yet this applicant is asking you to waive or forego the city's collection of about five and a half million dollars of park funds that are required by our municipal code. The applicant is claiming that that is their right under the state density bonus law and you have to give them that concession. I would urge you to pause consideration of approval of this application until you have the staff investigate whether that claim and staff's interpretation of it is correct because I believe our city has not kept up with changes to the state density bonus law. We have a municipal code which has not been updated since 2022. It says we are not wanting to expand or be more generous than the bonus law requires. But the bonus law has been fundamentally changed two times in 2022 and in 2023. And the interpretation that this is a 5% affordable housing project that qualifies for the state density bonus law, I believe is incorrect. If you don't believe me, look at the density bonus law guidelines from the city of Beverly Hills, which did update their code to reflect the 2024 changes. and even more importantly look at the Housing and Community Development State Density Bonus Law seven page brochure, which is dated April 2026, very current, and it says with no ambiguity that the percent calculated, the five percent, is based not on the project, it's based on the highest density possible under the local zoning which is called the base density or the base units and our Resolution you're being asked to approve is saying that the base units are the 132 proposed by the applicant. Under the current interpretation of the state bonus law, the base units are the six and a half acres times 50 50 dwelling units per acre, which is 325 units, and to reach the 5% threshold, they would have to be providing 17 affordable units to very low income. This is not a 5% project under the current understanding of state bonus law. It's under 2%. You should not be giving away that money. And I would point out if you gave everybody who provided an affordable housing unit an $800,000 grace period to meet our 3,000 units, you would be indebting the city like $2 billion. We don't have that money. It's not deserved or required here. You should not be giving it away. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Mosher.

adam leverance i'll preface my remarks if if mr mosher is accurate on the current status of the state density density allowances some of what i say need to be considered and i think those things need to be looked into what my concern is you know earlier in the meeting under agenda item two a developer got a concession to six percent in affordable housing I think should this project be approved, some consistency would be nice. You know, they talk about 132 units at 5% affordable to very low income, seven units. You bump it up to six, that's about eight units. It's a very modest increase. Staff noted, you know, the difficulty and the state mandates for affordable housing. And the slide showed what the park fees would be, a little over $1 million. And again, it indicates that the fee for each unit would be $48,987. and the ask reduction is down to seven thousand six hundred and sixty one that's reduction of like forty one thousand dollars for all 132 units for building seven units of affordable housing and if you total that all up as mr mosier said it's about five and a half million dollars in fees the city is not collecting as a gift to the developer and i would think for such a gift it would be an easy ask to go to 6% and at least get one more unit. And again, if Mr. Mosier is correct that those standards are different now, something else needs to happen. Thank you.

Seeing no other speakers, Madam Clerk, are there any online? With that, I will close the public hearing.

Sorry. That's weird.

Thank you. This is a very complicated development, and I took a lot of time with the city manager and with our director of community development, because I really struggled to make sure that I understood exactly what was happening. And I mean, generally, I want to comment that it's very important that we acknowledge that we are, as our resident Dennis Press said, creating a whole new village. And we have to be very cognizant and mindful of the needs whether it be commercial, recreation, other things, schools. This is the wild west of Newport Beach is going to be the airport area because we are delving into a whole new area of town. And it's very important. So I wanted to make sure after talking to our city manager and and to Simone and Jaime that I understood because this project has gone through several evolutions and I You know applaud the developer for being nimble and working with our staff to come together on something reasonable and one of the things I was very interested in was the park information and Jaime you were able to help me walk through exactly what the trade-offs are and how actually we are in a very stable position with that in that we are creating a nice sort of treasury of money that we can use ultimately from all these different projects that we're going to have in play that will be able to accommodate some park lands. Can you explain just a little bit of how you got me over the hump?

Yes. So within the airport area, we have a number of projects that we've previously approved. So we have the uptown Newport project, which does include the construction of two parks. So one park's already constructed, and we have a future park proposed and planned. We have another approved project, the Newport Crossings project. It's entitled. We're still waiting for it to get constructed, but that actually includes the construction of a separate park. In addition to those actual parks, we've approved other projects within the airport area. And if you total up the in lieu park fees that have been committed to the city, they exceed over $17 million within the projects within the airport area itself. And so as we move forward with the specific plan for the airport area, you know, we'll continue to work towards locating additional opportunities for parks to serve the future residents of the airport area. In terms of this project, if it was already included within the housing opportunity, they would be committed to paying the full park fees, including development impact fees, but they would not be required to provide affordable housing units. And so through this project and working with the applicant, and negotiating the development agreement, they've committed to voluntarily providing the seven very low for sale affordable units, which is a big commitment and requires a lot of subsidy. And so through density bonus law, they are entitled to asking the city council for a reduction in in lieu park fees. And so that's part of their request today. So given the fact that, you know, we have been working towards parks in the airport area, we are creating a treasure chest of park fees to be used. We thought that this was a fair trade off in order to get the affordable housing units.

And then we also have the unrestricted general fees that can be used for park or other needs as well that are in addition.

Correct. So in addition, through the development agreement, we're able to negotiate $3 million of public benefit fees, which are unrestricted and can be used for a wide variety of reasons.

OK. Just in conclusion, I just want to take an opportunity to acknowledge that it's not so easy to get very low income units in the city of Newport Beach. And I appreciate that we do have stakeholders in our community that are looking to provide that kind of amenity for the community, given the mandates that we have to comply with. So I'll leave it there and let someone else have a chance at conversation here.

Mayor Potemblo.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. And thank you, Mr. Merger, for your comments there. I had to pull up Beverly Hills really quickly to just kind of look at what we're talking about there because we want to be correct on this. But apparently five units of moderate is actually their threshold. So we're well within that framework according to their current website. I don't know if they're totally up to date right now. um based on their calculated risk so and that's moderate and i think there's something really to be said that this developer is coming in with with very affordable i mean that is a very different game to walk into i think moderate can make its way through a lot of pieces so I commend city staff on getting something like this done. It's a load to bear and the applicant as well. You're selling a for sale project for something well below what it costs you to build. That is the reality. We're still in Newport Beach and land values. Unfortunately, we don't get to control as a city, although I think sometimes people think we do. But those are driven by a market and we are doing our best to maintain that and work within the confines of the state. So. I am very thankful that we are building a new village, and I thank all my colleagues for supporting that piece. I think when you look at the airport district, and as we've talked about it in past years and looked at it to kind of just throw things up there, maybe like a police station, it was because we didn't actually value it in the same way that we do now. And right now we value it as a brand-new village, something that can truly be created to be an amazing place for people to get a foothold within Newport Beach. And to me, that is insurmountable. It's something we absolutely need. So thank you, staff. Thank you for the applicant. I think the foresail projects going up in our new Georgetown is going to be amazing, and I would love to move staff recommendation.

I WILL SIT. SECONDED BY ME. LET'S VOTE.

MOTION CARRIED BY 6-0 AND COUNCIL MEMBER STAPLE RECUSED.

MADAM CLERK, PLEASE READ THE STATEMENT ON MOTIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION.

A MOTION TO RECONSIDER THE VOTE ON ANY ACTION TAKEN BY THE CITY COUNCIL AT EITHER THIS MEETING OR THE PREVIOUS MEETING MAY BE MADE ONLY BY ONE OF THE COUNCIL MEMBERS WHO VOTED WITH THE PREVALENT SIDE.

JUST WAITING FOR COUNCIL MEMBER STAPLES. OKAY. ARE THERE ANY MOTIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION? SEEING NONE, WE'LL MOVE ON. BEFORE WE PROCEED TO CLOSED SESSION, WE WILL ADJOURN THIS In memory of Jan, I don't want to mispronounce her name.

Jan DeBay.

Jan DeBay, former council member. Council member Weigand will do the honors.

Yes, tonight we adjourn in memory of former Newport Beach mayor and dedicated public servant Jan DeBay. Jan passed away on March 22nd, 2026 at the age of 88. She devoted more than three decades of her life to serving the Newport Beach community. Before entering public service, Jan worked as a registered nurse and later in real estate. After moving to Newport Beach in 1979, she became deeply involved in the community, serving as the president of the West Newport Beach Homeowners Association, chair of the Citizens Environmental Quality Affairs Committee, and later the Planning Commission. Jan was elected to the Newport Beach City Council in 1992 and served two terms. She was mayor in 1996 and 1997, where she earned a reputation for thoughtful, collaborative leadership. Throughout her career, she represented Newport Beach on numerous regional boards and committees, including the Orange County Sanitation District, the Southern California Association of Governments Housing Committee, the Orange County League of Cities, and the Orange County Water District, where she later served on the Board of Directors from 2021 to 2010, including as Board President. Jan took great pride in helping bring lasting community assets to Newport Beach, including the Central Library, Castaways Park, and the Balboa Island Fire Station. During her time as mayor, she also dedicated Bob Henry Park in honor of a Newport Beach police officer who lost his life in the line of duty. Those who knew Jan remembered her as a gracious, compassionate leader who always put public service above politics and believed in working together for the good of the community. On behalf of the Newport Beach City Council, we extend our heartfelt condolences to our daughters Lisa, Lori, and Lynn, her eight grandchildren, and all her friends and family. We are grateful for Jan's many years of service and the lasting legacy she leaves for the City of Newport Beach.

Thank you, Council Member Weygand. Before we consider the closed session items, do any members have any conflicts related to these items?

YEAH, I PROBABLY SHOULD HAVE JUST STAYED OUT OF TOWN. CLOSED SESSION ITEM A AND B, I HAVE PREVIOUSLY RECUSED MYSELF BASED ON PERCEPTION OF BIAS AND ALSO ON CLOSED SESSION ITEM C BASED ON REAL PROPERTY INTEREST IN 4141-10 MCARTHUR.

ARE THERE ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR?

Yeah, I don't know if City Attorney Harp is going to read all these titles, but with seven, I just comment there's a lot of suing going on. And I also would make a prediction that when you ask if there's any online comments, I'm predicting there will be none. And since there have been none during the whole meeting, I would just ask you to ask yourselves, are we adequately telling the public that they have an opportunity to tune in and to comment online because the number of people who showed up in person would indicate if people knew they could comment online they probably would be doing it not necessarily on this item but probably on the others thank you any other speakers okay mr hart please announce our closed session items

Thank you. The City Council adjourned a closed session to meet with legal counsel regarding the litigation titled Robert Wellborn and Yee versus the City of Newport Beach, Adam Holliday versus the City of Newport Beach, and five cases involving litigation between the City of Newport Beach and the Newport Beach Stewardship Association. And that's all on the agenda under item number 26A through G. We are recessed.

Closed session.

for the final four items on the agenda. He was absent. Thank you.

We are adjourned.