HomeMy WebLinkAbout00 - Written CommentsReceived After Agenda Printed
April 29, 2025
Written Comments
April 29, 2025, City Council Agenda Comments
The following comments on items on the Newport Beach City Council agenda are submitted by:
Jim Mosher ( jimmoshera-yahoo.com ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach 92660 (949-548-6229)
Item 1. Minutes for the April 15, 2025 City Council Meeting
The passages shown in italics below are from the draft minutes with suggested corrections
shown in , b4keeu underline format. The page number refers to Volume 66.
Page 291, Item V, paragraph 2: "Katie Smith spoke about the Environmental Nature Center
(ENC) and requested the removal of 1501 East 16th Street from the Housing Element of
the City's General Plan."
[Note: The video confirms Ms. Smith spoke about the "Housing Element" and never used
the words "General Plan." Asking to "remove 1501 East 16th Street from the General
Plan" would make little sense since every parcel in the City has a designation in the
General Plan. The requests from Ms. Smith and the many other speakers were not to
remove it from the entire General Plan, but only to remove its designation as a housing
opportunity site in the Housing Element.]
Page 291, Item V, paragraph 5: "Parker Reposa expressed support for removing 1501 East
16th Street from the City's General Plan Housing Element."
[Comment: Again, the video confirms the speaker said "Housing Element" and not
"General Plan." And, again, the parcel can be removed from the Housing Element, but not
from the General Plan.]
Page 292, paragraph 1: "Don Abrams urged Council to remove 1501 East 16th Street from
the City's GeneFa' FYan Housing Element." [see video]
Page 292, paragraph 3: "Shana Buxser asked Council to consider removing the ENC from
the heusing elemen Housing Element."
Page 292, paragraph 3: "In response to Mayor Stapleton's request, Assistant City Manager
Jurjis clarified that the property is in the housing element and allows for residential use. He
also indicated that staff met once with a housing developer who discussed potential for a
single-family, detached, for -sale product type, not high density or an apartment complex."
[Comment: 1501 East 16th Street is a 1.51 acre parcel having an Office General (OG)
zoning designation with an HO-3 housing overlay. According to NBMC Section 20.28.050,
if housing were to be built on the site, the HO-3 overlay requires the density to be between
20 and 50 dwelling units per acre (not counting the bonus units that could be added if an
affordable housing component were included). As such, nothing less than 30 units would
be consistent with the current allowance for residential use in the General Plan. Director
Jurjis was evidently referring to a plan submitted for 30 small (or tall?) detached units,
each for a single family, not occupying the entire parcel with a single unit, which would
violate the minimum density requirement. See video.]
Page 292, paragraph 14: "Desiree Romero urged Council to remove 1501 East 16th Street
from the City's General Plan agenda for future housing." [see video]
April 29, 2025, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 2 of 5
Page 299, paragraph 3, sentence 1: "Councilmember Weber discussed her connection to the
area, noted that some revitalization could be -expand engagement."
Page 299, Item XIII, paragraph 2: "Assistant City Attorney Summerhill announced that Mayor
Stapleton would recuse himself from Closed Session Item A2. due to receipt of campaign
contributions."
[Comment: Was this disclosure adequate? The video confirms this is all that was said.
However, FPPC regulation 2 CCR § 18438.8 requires "The officer, or an employee of the
agency on behalf of the officer, shall disclose that the officer has received contributions
from a party, participant, or agent of a party or participant, greater than $500 within the
preceding 12 months and the name(s) of the contributors)." The names of the
contributors do not seem to have been disclosed.]
A final note: There were many public speakers at this meeting. I have not attempted to verify
the spelling of their names, some of which might be found in the voluminous correspondence
received.
Item 3. Ordinance No. 2025-6: Amending Chapter 11.04 (Parks, Park
Facilities, and Beaches) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code
Related to the Use of Bicycles, Electric Bicycles, and Other Such
Devices on the Beach
1. 1 agree with the intent of this proposed ordinance, but I do not agree with the idea of
introducing ordinances on the consent calendar. It gives them very limited public exposure.
2. 1 believe this ordinance, in particular, should have been reviewed by the City's Parks,
Beaches and Recreation Commission before coming to the City Council. Subsection 709(a)
of our City Charter requires PB&R to "Act in an advisory capacity to the City Council in all
matters pertaining to parks, beaches, recreation, parkways and street trees."
Here, staff is asking the Council to permanently amend a NBMC chapter called "Parks, Park
Facilities, and Beaches" within a title called "Recreational Activities," in ways affecting both
beaches and recreation, without advice from PB&R.
I would be surprised if the PB&R Commissioners would not endorse the proposed changes,
or something similar to them, but acting without their advice seems improper and inconsistent
with the limitations on the powers of the City Council imposed by our Charter.
Item 10. Approval of Amendment No. Two to Professional Services
Agreement with Bumper to Bumper, Inc. for Vehicle Washing and
Detailing Services (Contract No. 8877-1)
The original award of Contract No. 887701, as Item 12 on May 10, 2022, does not seem to have
anticipated an extension. In addition, with the addition of services to the Police Department by
Item 10 on October 24, 2023, the scope has expanded beyond what was originally
contemplated.
Should the contract be re -bid?
April 29, 2025, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 3 of 5
Item 13. Tentative Agreement with the Newport Beach Fire
Association
I appreciate the public being given additional time to review the agreement prior to the formal
consideration of its adoption on May 13 (which I suspect will also be on the consent calendar).
Whether I will actually bother to read it between now and then is, of course, another matter. But
I appreciate the opportunity.
Item 14. Tentative Agreement with the Association of Newport Beach
Ocean Lifeguards (ANBOL)
Same comment as for Item 13.
Item 15. Amendment No. One to the Professional Services Agreement
with Infosend, Inc. for Printing, Mailing and Online Presentment and
Authorization to Execute Documents for Credit -Card Pass -Through
Fees
The staff report does not direct readers to a place where they can read the previous Council
action authorizing the change from bimonthly to monthly utility billing and verify whether the
current cost increase (which I would assume is only a portion of the total cost) is consistent with
projections made at that time. Indeed, it is not even clear if the requested $182,000 increase in
not -to -exceed cost represents the full amount even for Infosend's portion, or just the amount of
the increase that could not be accommodated within their existing contract. Nor is it clear what
other continuing costs will be incurred.
At the time the change was made, I questioned it, and continue to do so. I doubt that most
people appreciate receiving and having to pay bills, and I would guess they will even less
appreciate being burdened with them twice as often, especially when it means more of what
they pay is going toward overhead and not needed to fund the service they are paying for.
Staff anticipates monthly billing will result in residents being more alert to water leaks (in which
case wouldn't weekly or daily billing be even better?), but I suspect the City's new capability of
proactively informing residents of anomalous usage patterns is a more efficient and
cost-effective way of reducing waste.
Item 19. Approve the 2025 Sewer System Management Plan
The first full paragraph at the top of page 2 of the staff report gives the confusing impression
that the requirement for cities to have a Sewer System Management Plan arises from a 2022
state regulatory requirement (Order 2022-0103-DWQ), and this would be the City's first.
Newport Beach has, in fact, in response to an earlier order, had a Council -approved Sewer
System Management Plan since at least 2009, when one was adopted as Item 15 at the July
28, 2009, meeting, and presumably has one now. I have had some difficulty locating it on the
City's website, but it would seem to be the one adopted as Item 20 on November 19, 2019, the
latest in what had been a 5-year update cycle, now a 6-year one.
As indicated in the report, the chief purpose of the plan is to reduce "sanitary system overflows,"
or "SSO's" as they are known. Yet it does not inform us of how many SSO's Newport Beach
April 29, 2025, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher
Page 4 of 5
experiences per mile of pipe maintained, or how we compare to our peers. Does the plan
include better communication to the public?
The state's California Integrated Water Quality System Project indicates 6 self -reported spills
since 2000:
Spill
Spill
Spill Vol
Spill Vol
Event
Region
Responsible
Sewer Spill
WDID
Start
Val
Recovered
Reached
I❑
Agency
System Category
Date
(gal)
(gal)
Surface
Water (gal)
Newport
Newport
2020-
866814 8
Beachity
Beach aSS010590 Category
05-15
36
36
4
city CS
11:01
Newport
Newport
2022
879030 8
Beach CiR+
Beach 8SS0105% Category3
01-26
504
sw
0
City CS
09:45
Newport
Newport
2023-
886052 8
Bea
Beach 85SO10590 Category 1
02-03
250
100
160
City CS
03:02
Newport
Newport Category 1
2023-
5139711L a
BB9912 8
890097 8
System Spill Appearance
Failure Paint
Location
G rav ity
Mainline Gravity Mainline
G rav ity
Mainline
G rav ity
Mainline
Beach aSSO105% 07-29 526 0 526 Force Main
BeachCrly
CiryCS Spill
18:00
Newport
Newport Monthly
2023-
Beach C ity
Beach B SO10590 Category
03-16 304 250
City CS Spill
" 40
Newport
Category
2023-
Bea hC�Y
Beach aSS0105%
l
08-29 1,749 1 1.749
C iry CS
06:05
Gravity
Mainline
G rav ity
Mainline; Manhole
Lateral Clean out
( Public;); Lo wer
Lateral (Public)
Farce Main,Pump
Statiun
Manhole
G rav ity G rav ity
Mainline Mainline,Manhole
By contrast, the Costa Mesa Sanitary District and the Irvine Ranch Water District both show 11.
I don't know how accurate that comparison is.
Item 20. Planning Commission Cancellation Notice for the April 17,
2025 Meeting
The proliferation of meeting cancellation notices emphasizes what, to me, is the remarkable lack
of business the Planning Commission in Newport Beach has to conduct.
This may be contrasted to 20 or more years ago, when the Commission met regularly, every two
weeks, and it took 20-30 pages, or more, to record the minutes, as from April 21, 2005. The
change seems to have resulted from an increased off-loading of its function to a self-regulating
staff, as through the Zoning Administrator function.
Item 21. Resolution No. 2025-17: Revising Certain Fees Within the
Schedule of Rents, Fines and Fees
With regard to the fees and fines charged by the library, Subsection 708(a) of our City Charter
places the responsibility for administering the library with the Board of Library Trustees, not with
the City Council. As such, I believe they should be accompanied by a note saying they are
being included in the Council -approved SRFF for informational purposes only, are not subject to
Council approval, and that in the case of discrepancies, the rates set by the BLT prevail (if the
Council is not happy with the fees and fines set by the BLT, primarily in Section 9.0 of their
NBPL 12, the Council's recourse is to replace the Trustees, who serve at their pleasure, in
hopes of getting a result they like better).
April 29, 2025, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 5 of 5
I am also not sure of the source of the statement on page 21-7 of the staff report that the Library
receives a subsidy of $14.95 million from the General Fund. The current City Budget Detail
indicates the entire FY2025 adopted budget for the Library Department is $10,818,892.
Additionally, when did the large meeting facility at the Central Library become the "Central
Library Community Room"? I thought it was, and always has been, the "Friends Room,"
recognizing the contributions of the Friends of the Library support group. And in that same vein,
is the "Stahr Courtyard" (page 21-5) the same as what was previously known as the Bamboo
Courtyard. If so, when did it change from being a Library amenity to something controlled by our
Recreation and Senior Services Department?
Item 23. Ordinance Nos. 2025-7 and 2025-8, and Resolution No.
2025-19 Approving an Amendment to the North Newport Center
Planned Community (PC-56)
It is good to see ample time is being provided between the introduction of these ordinances and
their possible adoption on June 10.
In that regard, I cannot find the amendments to the development agreement that would be
approved by Ordinance No. 2025-8, but only a "[TO BE INSERTED]" note on staff report page
23-123. 1 do not believe that without the full and exact text of what is to be inserted, the
ordinance can even be introduced.