The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About00 - Non-Agenda Items - Correspondence/HandoutsReceived after Agenda Printed March 10, 2026 Non Agenda Item From: Sam Giahi To: City Clerk"s Office Subject: Newport Beach City Council meeting - PUBLIC COMMENTS Date: March 08, 2026 7:00:16 PM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button above. Dear City Council, I would like to know what is the city's policy in adopting Al to reduce cost and increase efficiency and the speed of operation. Best regards, Sam Giahi From: Ad lever To: City Clerk"s Office Subject: Council Meeting Slides 03-10-2026 Date: March 08, 2026 12:47:20 PM Attachments: Slide - City Council 03-10-2026 - A Leverenz.pdf [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button above. Hello, Please have these available for call up on the BIG screen, at the City Council Meeting of 03/10/2026, public comment on non -agenda items. Also, please link them with the agenda for that meeting. Thank you, •M u Newport Beach is home totries roximatel 4,300 boats, 1, 00 moorings, 1,200 residential i rs and Fl,goo commercial slips anresulting ire 3. miIIion in revenue from rentals, including 1.0 million irerevenue remo -shore, ore, guest, and transfer moorings, 1.4 million from commercial piers, and $282,562 from residential piers. FY - 4 Revenue vs. Tidelands Permit .00C.000 1. 00. 000 LL 500.0OD o 1200 Residential Piers 1900 Commercial Slips 1200 Moorings Tidelands Permit Type TIDE & SUBMERGED LANDS ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT_ June 30th 2024 1 40' Offshore Mooring Permit $1.39prsq. ft. .00 VS. Commercial tidelands user rates: Commercial Use Category* Large Commercial Marinas Medium Commercial Marinas Small Commercial Marinas HOA Marinas/Docks for Non-members' Use > 30,000 SF 13,000 SF to 30,000 SF < 13,000 SF Yacht Club Guest Slips Vessel Rental Facility (Boat Rentals) Sport Fishing Charters Restaurants' Guest Slips Vessel Charters Fuel Docks All Others Annual Rental Rate (Per SF) 3/l/26 - 2/28/27 $1.56 $1.19 $1.03 $0.49 $1.56 2 City let RFP for Dock Appraisal; Received Multiple bids; P.O.; Invoice months agol, City provides a file identified as "Residential Piers Scope of Work -Final 0 10202 -1.p . leading one to believe that this document originated in the early months of 2025_ March 14, 2025: CBRE provides "Proposal and Contract for Services" to City, "RE.- Proposal to provide real estate appraisal services Newport Beach Residential Piers". and identifies that it would be "completed within four to six weeks'. March 24, 2025: Letter to City from "BANTOLUCITO DORE' GROUP IN ", titled "PROPOSAL Residential Piers ompfehensive Analysis & Rent Study-, and noting `Pursuant to your request, we have delivered this proposal b the close of business on March 24,2025", and "Days 46-60 - Deliver the completed appraisal report to theCity'- March 26, 2025: Letter to City from R. P. LAURAIN & ASSOCIATES, "Subject: Rental Value Study Tidelands Areas utilized for Residential Piers Newport Harbor Newport Beach, California". Noting "The appraisal report can be delivered to your offices within 60 to 75 days"_ April 1t 2025: CUSHMAN & WAN EFIELD send the City a "proposal to provide independent appraisal services to determine the Fee Simple interest of City managed tidelands occupied by residential piers and the associated Fair Market Rent to charge as part of the response to your Request for Proposal ("RFP")", and identifies that 'G&W will complete these services in an allotted sic () - eight (8) week timeframe_" May 15, 2025: Indicated as "DATE ORDERED" on a "Purchase Order'. to "Bill To- the GiRy of Newport Beach, for 16,500. noting "Vendor RP LAURAIN & AS SO C IATE ". August 22, 2025: R. P_ LAURAIN & ASSOCIATES "Invoice" to City, for 16,500_ 3 From: Sherman Zieve To: City Clerk"s Office Subject: Dock tax Date: March 06, 2026 10:18:21 AM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button above. Dear City Clerk, I am writing to respectfully urge the Council to reconsider policies that would confiscate existing tidelands permits, increase residential dock fees, or impose new rate hikes on current permit holders. For many residents, these permits represent long-standing agreements that were entered into in good faith. Property owners have made significant investments in their homes, docks, and waterfront maintenance based on the understanding that these permits would remain stable and predictable. Confiscating permits or substantially increasing fees undermines that trust and creates uncertainty for residents who have relied on the City's commitments for many years. In addition, increasing residential dock fees or implementing rate hikes places an unnecessary financial burden on homeowners who already contribute substantially through property taxes and local spending. Waterfront residents help maintain the character, safety, and economic vitality of our coastal community. Policies that penalize these homeowners risk discouraging continued investment and stewardship of our shoreline. Rather than confiscating permits or raising fees, I encourage the Council to work collaboratively with residents to develop fair, transparent, and sustainable policies for managing tidelands. Open dialogue with permit holders and community stakeholders will lead to better long-term solutions that respect existing agreements while ensuring responsible stewardship of our coastal resources. I respectfully ask the Council to: . Preserve existing tidelands permits and honor established agreements. • Reject any increase in residential dock fees. . Avoid implementing new rate hikes that disproportionately affect waterfront residents. Thank you for your time and for considering the concerns of the community. I hope the Council will work with residents to maintain fairness, stability, and trust in the City's governance. Sincerely, Sherman Zieve 809 N Bay Front Newport Beach, CA 92662 Newport Beach is home totries roximatel 4,300 boats, 1, 00 moorings, 1,200 residential i rs and Fl,goo commercial slips anresulting ire 3. miIIion in revenue from rentals, including 1.0 million irerevenue remo -shore, ore, guest, and transfer moorings, 1.4 million from commercial piers, and $282,562 from residential piers. FY - 4 Revenue vs. Tidelands Permit .00C.000 1. 00. 000 LL 500.0OD o 1200 Residential Piers 1900 Commercial Slips 1200 Moorings Tidelands Permit Type TIDE & SUBMERGED LANDS ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT_ June 30th 2024 1 40' Offshore Mooring Permit $1.39prsq. ft. .00 VS. Commercial tidelands user rates: Commercial Use Category* Large Commercial Marinas Medium Commercial Marinas Small Commercial Marinas HOA Marinas/Docks for Non-members' Use > 30,000 SF 13,000 SF to 30,000 SF < 13,000 SF Yacht Club Guest Slips Vessel Rental Facility (Boat Rentals) Sport Fishing Charters Restaurants' Guest Slips Vessel Charters Fuel Docks All Others Annual Rental Rate (Per SF) 3/l/26 - 2/28/27 $1.56 $1.19 $1.03 $0.49 $1.56 2 City let RFP for Dock Appraisal; Received Multiple bids; P.O.; Invoice months agol, City provides a file identified as "Residential Piers Scope of Work -Final 0 10202 -1.p . leading one to believe that this document originated in the early months of 2025_ March 14, 2025: CBRE provides "Proposal and Contract for Services" to City, "RE.- Proposal to provide real estate appraisal services Newport Beach Residential Piers". and identifies that it would be "completed within four to six weeks'. March 24, 2025: Letter to City from "BANTOLUCITO DORE' GROUP IN ", titled "PROPOSAL Residential Piers ompfehensive Analysis & Rent Study-, and noting `Pursuant to your request, we have delivered this proposal b the close of business on March 24,2025", and "Days 46-60 - Deliver the completed appraisal report to theCity'- March 26, 2025: Letter to City from R. P. LAURAIN & ASSOCIATES, "Subject: Rental Value Study Tidelands Areas utilized for Residential Piers Newport Harbor Newport Beach, California". Noting "The appraisal report can be delivered to your offices within 60 to 75 days"_ April 1t 2025: CUSHMAN & WAN EFIELD send the City a "proposal to provide independent appraisal services to determine the Fee Simple interest of City managed tidelands occupied by residential piers and the associated Fair Market Rent to charge as part of the response to your Request for Proposal ("RFP")", and identifies that 'G&W will complete these services in an allotted sic () - eight (8) week timeframe_" May 15, 2025: Indicated as "DATE ORDERED" on a "Purchase Order'. to "Bill To- the GiRy of Newport Beach, for 16,500. noting "Vendor RP LAURAIN & AS SO C IATE ". August 22, 2025: R. P_ LAURAIN & ASSOCIATES "Invoice" to City, for 16,500_ 3 RESOLUTION 26 —TBD ... (STEP 1: Place on agenda for approval vote from Mother's Day to Christmas 2026, etc) A RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF A NEWPORT BEACH CALIFORNIA DECLARATION OF A SAFE PREBORN PERSONHOOD CITY ... revised 3/3/26 WHEREAS, the Declaration of Independence, the founding document of the United States of America, states, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Life being the first of these declared rights; and WHEREAS, as recently as March 2017, the American College of Pediatricians published an Abstract stating that "The predominance of human biological research confirms that human life begins at conception — fertilization. At fertilization the human being emerges as a whole, genetically distinct, individual zygotic living organism, a member of the species Homo Sapiens, needing only the proper environment to grow and develop. The difference between the individual in its adult state and in its zygotic state is one of form, not nature; and WHEREAS, the US Supreme Court has ruled in favor of the June 2022 DOBBS DECISION; and WHEREAS, each and every innocent human life is unique and precious to God in the American Covenant; and WHEREAS, California's Motto is "Eureka" and "The Golden State" and citizens prefer the "Golden Rule; and WHEREAS, human life begins at the moment of conception and continues, uninterrupted, until the moment of natural death; and the preborn baby in the womb is still a developing person even before medical defined viability; WHEREAS, the innocent preborn human life, must always be protected and preserved; and has the Constitutional right to birth and cannot be deprived of the future Constitutional right to vote by current voting citizens; and WHEREAS, the protection of all human life, even life peacefully developing in the womb, is important to the people of the peaceful and safe City of Newport Beach; and WHEREAS, the Newport Beach City Council and Citizens have consistently amplified and embraced the Sanctity of Life. The new Personhood City is now Constitutionally protected with the US Supreme Court's transition with the June 2022 DOBBS DECISION. The Newport Beach citizens desire the best protection and option for preborn life which is adoption and orphanages and equally celebrate and preserve life by affirming and declaring the 'Preborn Personhood' of human life in each pregnant Mother's womb in the City of Newport Beach; and WHEREAS, the City of Newport Beach is a recognized safe city and annually hosts many annual community events that emulate family values for Fatherhood, Motherhood, Childhood and Personhood. The Newport Beach Citizens have the Constitutional right to declare Preborn Personhood to preserve the safe character and peaceful ambiance of the City of Newport Beach, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL, AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA, that declare the innocent human, life, including fetal life, must always be protected and Society must protect those who cannot protect themselves, including the preborn. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Newport Beach City Council that declare its support to any amplification by the California Legislature of the peaceful preservation of preborn human life developing in the womb. This life has its own unique DNA separate from the mother's hosting body. This life is under the legal protection of Public Safety. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Newport Beach City Council and citizens collectively 1) honor the rights of healthcare providers that live or vote or work in the City of Newport Beach and throughout the state of California to object on moral grounds to performing 'Life Ending Medical Procedures (LEMP)' on the unbreathing to -be -born inhabitant and neighbor baby person peacefully developing in the respective mother's womb and 2) Constitutionally opposes any regulation of law seeking to violate the Constitutional right to birth and eventual right to vote of the unbreathing developing baby person. Fetal Preborn Personhood is proclaimed and now inclusive in Public Safety in the future city charter of the City of Newport Beach. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Newport Beach City Council and citizens support orphanages and adoptions as the only solution to un-Godly'Life Ending Medical Procedures (LEMP)' and encourages the State and Federal governments to support orphanages and adoptions at higher levels and enact legislation to ease the burden of orphanages and adoption of innocent life. The developing preborn baby is a person in the Mother's Womb and is now protected and preserved under Public Safety! 6 � � `. ZO A. v ZL�' 0 '�' The Ce(e6pa6 Gt of T epv'(Vt New Yeah kA. . IVOWPUZ Newport Beach Thursday, March 26th 3pm - 5pm Newport Beach City Hall 100 Civic Center Dr, Newport Beach, CA 92660 Free events Come and enjoy Nowruz with your friends and family Persian music and dance performance • � .:.-sue : _ - - From: Clerk's Office Sent: 10, 2026 2:48 PM To: uIvey, Jennifer Subject: Regal Edwards Big Newport Cinema Developement From: Scott Duncan <scot0spagregories.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2026 2:47:41 PM (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov> Cc: City Clerk's Office <CityClerk@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: Regal Edwards Big Newport Cinema Developement [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button above. Dear Mayor Lauren Kleinman, City Manager Seimone Jurjis and Members of the Newport Beach City Council My name is Scott Duncan, and I am the owner of Spa GregorieMs, a Day Spa located at 200 Newport Center Drive. We have proudly served the Newport Beach community for 27 + years, and our business is situated in close proximity to the approved Related California residential tower development at the Regal Edwards Big Newport Cinema site on Newport Center Drive. I am writing to formally request that the City of Newport Beach, as a condition of the developmentOs construction permits, require the implementation of comprehensive acoustic barriers and noise mitigation measures throughout the demolition and construction phases of this project. As a Day Spa, our business depends entirely on a quiet, calm, and restorative environment for our clients. Excessive construction noise including demolition, pile driving, heavy equipment operation, and structural work poses a direct and serious threat to our ability to operate. Our clientele seeks therapeutic and wellness services, and any sustained disruption to that environment could result in significant and lasting harm to our business. Specifically, I respectfully request the City Council require the following as conditions of approval for construction permits: 0 Installation of temporary acoustic barrier walls around the perimeter of the construction site, particularly on the side adjacent to Spa Gregorie's. 0 Restrictions on the loudest construction activities (pile driving, demolition, jackhammering) to specific hours that minimize disruption during our peak business hours. (We are open from 11 am to 9pm Mondays and 10am-9pm Tue-Sun) M Ongoing noise level monitoring at the property line, with enforceable decibel limits. 0 A designated point of contact for noise -related complaints and rapid response. 0 A noise mitigation plan submitted to the City prior to any demolition commencing. We have been apart of this community for 27 years and have weathered many changes in Newport Beach. We are not opposed to growth or development; we simply ask that our ability to continue serving our clients and employing our staff be protected throughout this process. (Our building also includes other businesses that may have similar concern such as Psychotherapy, Acupuncture, Ear rehabilitation and others) I would welcome the opportunity to meet with you or your staff to discuss this matter further. Thankyou for your time and your continued commitment to the businesses and residents of Newport Beach. Respectfully, With Purpose and Passion - Scott Duncan I President/Owner Direct 949-929-4063 Spa Gre 9 ories Live Well. Be Well. Spa Well 949.644.6672 1 Newport Beach 949.858.9455 1 Rancho Santa Margarita www.spa�zreszories.com I Best Day Spa, American Spa Magazine = 00 0 Subscribe to our newsletter From: Garrett, Errica Sent: March 16, 2026 3:34 PM To: Dept - City Clerk Subject: FW: Residents to Save Newport Beach Golf Course Attachments: Save Newport Beach Golf Course —Residents Letter_3-16-2026.pdf Errica Garrett Administrative Assistant to the Mayor and City Council City Manager's Office Office: 949-644-3004 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 From: Benny Hallock <bennvhallock@gmail.com> Sent: March 16, 2026 3:33 PM To: Dept - City Council<CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: Residents to Save Newport Beach Golf Course [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button above. Please "See attached" Regards, Benny Hallock Chairman Save Newport Beach Golf Course @ZRM� RESIDENTS TO SAVE NEWPORT BEACH GOLF COURSE March 16, 2026 Mayor Lauren Kleiman & Newport Beach City Council 100 Civic Center Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 citycouncil@newportbeachca.gov Dear Mayor Kleiman & City Council Members, As you are aware, Santa Ana Heights (SAH) was annexed into the city in two phases, in 2002 the area east of Irvine Ave and 2008 the area west of Irvine Ave. The annexation agreement was memorialized on September 10, 2002 and remains in full force. SAH was content as a county island and did not seek annexation —the City approached us. We were concerned city government would add another layer of regulation and bureaucracy to our lives while disregarding the unique character of SAH. Our fears have been confirmed. Residents worked with the City and County for over fifteen years to develop an annexation agreement to maintain the unique characteristics of the area. The Heights includes a winery, equestrian property, traditional residential tracts, estate lots, mansions, 18-hole Newport Beach Golf Course and driving range. These were hard-fought negotiations that encompassed many complex issues across multiple governmental jurisdictions including the City, County, a redevelopment agency, city, Coastal Commission, Mesa Water District, JWA Settlement Agreement, property tax transfers, and a utility undergrounding district. As previously noted, the 2002 City/County Santa Ana Heights Annexation Agreement remains a legally controlling document. It specifically requires the City to seek the County's consent for General Plan Amendments — including the City's housing zoning overlay on the golf course. ALUC found the housing overlay INCONSISTENT with the Airport Environs Land Use Element (AELUP) on a 5-1 vote. This is the only attempt the City made to seek County approval, and it failed. As such, the City ignored other considerations of the Santa Ana Heights Annexation Agreement as it relates to the proposed development site south of Mesa Drive. The unique characteristics of the Santa Ana Heights are codified in the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan (NB Municipal Code Chapter 21.90, specifically Section 21.90.020 SP-7(OSR) stating "Land Use and development standards for Santa Ana Heights shall be in accordance with Exhibit 21.90-1, "Land Use Map — Specific Plan District No. 7" and the provisions of this section." LAND USE MAP PACC SPECIFIC PLAN #7: SANTA ANA HEIGHTS ..? F. :@r EF�� RMF R78 F REQ RMF 7745) !it.11.1 R-A OSR t _.,L L,. RMF N FiSF�PA s000(N) ' P_ REQ JE OSR "� V s 's RMF Hre Stn - v.�i -_— opw OSR �17 BP(FF' ; w OSR s REQ -2- ... _ w Wes„`. �o �, a�,,ffc.�""�•i �j i �•" 49 +� '{ Landll5es � ' •.� ..,� P-yA . P ocen sere re.o�m, • ard�imr a?n��.mrrre ova rs..r.nw Ea.r•�� , • P.re..�o.rsae.:..o-rne .a 131E' fR' Iff= .r c..om.no. PaWendr.e..N c oen.r L >• fib M 03 r..i ", ne.d.rw5.*F..Fy cimroa�sued. .K ReEX1.ntiY MWplc F.mFy w evan iC � �� '^ Geer �� Fre FecIlRy OxYlry �w IbtiuYN�r lA.ey W" B.Yieu P.1 Mnmium birbgSfc lAoeal Mnmum aq. Pp Un•1 The Dlain language of the codified saecific plan and enabling maD DOES NOT allow an non -golf course uses like wave pools, Costco, apartments, commercial buildings or anything else - no matter how giddy the property owner, politicians and staff are to kill the golf course. The city council's October 29, 2025, Snug Harbor project approval- effectively killing the Newport Beach Golf Course and replacing it with a 15-acre, 10-million-gallon heated wave pool- sought to destroy the unique characteristic of SAH; ignored the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan, zoning, and Annexation Agreement. In addition, you failed to acknowledge the long history of the underlying restrictive leases with the County and property owner for the long-term use as a golf course and related uses. We were forced to circulate a successful citywide referendum petition triggering an election for the council's unanimous Snug Harbor wave pool approval. Over 9600 signatures were collected in just 21 days. We are reminded of the perils of local government. 2 To your credit, facing the wrath of the community at the ballot box, the Council rescinded the General Plan Amendment approval of 40,000 square feet of commercial buildings on a site zoned for open space and recreation, whose sole purpose and intent is explicitly "to insure the long-term use and viability of the Newport Beach Golf Course"— not concrete. In 1973 the Irvine Company leased the site to the Lane Family who graded the community golf course that remains today. It is a very challenging parcel for development due to its topography, proximity to JWA, water table, Delhi Channel, and restrictions of the FEMA Zone A flood hazard area. The Irvine Company understood these development barriers in 1973. Nothing has changed in 53 years — except additional binding restrictions of the SAH Annexation Agreement, SAH Specific Plan, zoning code, and Charter Section 423. The front nine is owned in fee by Newport Golf Club LLC, comprised of long-time Newport residents. They want the highest and best use on a degraded parcel that is restricted for development. As you know, the back nine is owned by the County of Orange (JWA) and serves as the FAA Runway Protection Zone requiring open space and prohibiting permanent structures —in perpetuity. We respect the private property rights of the respective families and their heirs. We also respect the decades of their investment in our community, both financial and philanthropic. They are an important part of the fabric that makes Newport Beach a vibrant community. As elected officials you are often asked to balance the needs of the residents and development community. This is one of those moments. We encourage you to keep an open mind and create a vehicle that preserves the unique character of Santa Ana Heights, while complying with the requisite Santa Ana Heights Annexation Agreement and Specific Plan, zoning code, Charter Section 423 and if necessary calling for a citywide vote for large commercial projects, and respect private property rights and honor the City's commitment to Santa Ana Heights and the residents of Newport Beach. Sincerely, RESIDENTS TO SAVE NEWPORT BEACH GOLF COURSE 3 RESIDENTS TO SAVE NEWPORT BEACH GOLF COURSE �Psp� RESIDENTS TO SAVE NEWPORT BEACH GOLF COURSE RESIDENTS TO SAVE NEWPORT BEACH GOLF COURSE 2 r S�ey✓►�1Gtn i ti/ Vl�rt�'�j M(AdldrS� �"I�✓NA✓w�12 ose %Y7 n ( k(As Y 40(0.- ►" FIV �rctyr� Sln�e„ RESIDENTS TO SAVE NEWPORT BEACH GOLF COURSE an� i a?hlnuse la& 7C�, U Y$/ SOph;dt 30ky%son 4 rwf.;-a ka c? 34k06 Srnlft, Gp,>vc Artlel+ "niDM�K �Al.�i << k5 V, ,�-yuP�iWe dnu ma r o1A.f o a Oro Cn"-h-- AA" -5 �-eo3� RESIDENTS TO SAVE NEWPORT BEACH GOLF COURSE __1 C� C RFSlOFNTS TO SAVE NEWPORT BEACH GOLF COURSE r C�IYCI�or� (A,bcc,k �1/ Cyc�IyeZ S�evc.h ��tf Moh�cOl 1 Ova as CIVOI ,Jvvf o� � ors wni� RESIDENTS TO SAVE NEWPORT BEACH GOLF COURSE RESIDENTS TO SAVE NEWPORT BEACH GOLF COURSE NEW PORT BEACH GOLF COURSE �c�h z RESIDENTS TO SAVE NEW PORT BEACH GOLF COURSE fM�r l� RESIDENTS TO SAVE NEWPORT BEACH GOLF COURSE Ord -"y/ er /\/6le, RESIDENTS TO SAVE NEWPORT BEACH GOLF COURSE r mam RESIDENTS TO SAVE NEWPORT BEACH GOLF COURSE �u I ra,, P/4cl VA c gAo i ar,.) f%rztr S RESIDENTS TO SAVE NEWPORT BEACH GOLF COURSE M-; C �r ti l