HomeMy WebLinkAbout00 - League of Women Voters ReportL LEAGUE of WOMEN VOTERS
OF ORANGE COA51
Newport Beach City Council of
August 31, 2025
General Meeting Information
Did the meeting start on time? Yes
Were all members present? Yes
Did the members appear to have done their homework? Yes
Were members courteous to each other and the public? Yes
Brown Act
Was the agenda sent/posted 72 hours before this meeting? Yes
Did items clearly describe what was discussed? No
Adam Leverenz during Public Comment requested more transparency. He
questioned having 2 city managers at one time paying both a full salary. He also
spoke about the Council's building proposals appearing to focus on the
developers' needs rather than the public's needs.
See: https://voutu.be/MWFkBNmT5yl?t=2165
CURRENT BUSINESS
36. Ordinance No. 2025-21: Authorizing an Amendment to the City's Contract
with CalPERS to Eliminate Section 20516(a) Cost Sharing for Citywide
Miscellaneous Tier I Employees
Jim Mosher, during public comment, also commented on need for more
transparency. He points out the staff description of the contract, has 19 items and
only 17 were mentioned. An explanation was not given.
Was there adequate opportunity for public input? Yes
Was there the appearance that some action items were discussed in closed rather than
open session? No
Was background information available to the public? No
37. Agreement for Purchase and Sale and Escrow Instructions with 3848 Campus
L.P. for the Purchase of Real Property at 3848 Campus Drive. Jim Mosher, during
public comment, addressed the purchase of land near the airport, pointing out
that there has not been a study to show the need for this purchase, nor the need
to offer to pay more than the appraised value of the land. No reasons were given.
LWV Action Item
Were any issues on the agenda relevant to any LWVC positions or programs? Yes
MATTERS WHICH COUNCIL MEMBERS HAVE ASKED TO BE PLACED ON A
Vill. FUTURE AGENDA (NON -DISCUSSION ITEM). Passed 7 to 0
1. Consider Adopting a Resolution opposing any attempt to bypass
California's Independent Citizens Redistricting Commission by altering the
State's Congressional Districts through a Ballot Measure and Special
Election (Stapleton and Weigand)
Do you recommend local League action on any of these items? No
Do you have other concerns or comments? Yes
Public Hearing 35. Resolution No. 2025-55: Ford Road Townhomes Appeal
(PA2025-0049).
A for sale 4-storey, 27 unit townhomes on a property near the AT&T facilities on
Ford Road/ Bonita Canyon and Mac Arthur Blvd.
22 people spoke against the Ford Road Townhome project, including speakers for
SOS park (Save Our Sports Park) and Bonita Canyon HOA and a presentation given
by an attorney for the Ford Road Community. Concerns were voiced about: 1) the
increase in traffic at an already busy location, 2) the lack of compatibility with the
Ford Road Community's 1-2 story single family homes and loss of privacy because
the buildings would be 4 stories tall and built on land that is at a higher elevation,
so people can look down onto neighboring homes, and 3) CEQA concerns, about
the wireless mono pole (Cell phone tower) which emits EMF, that can cause health
risks, and the townhomes are being built near a former hazardous waste site. There
are tentative plans to move the Cell Phone tower, possibly to the AT & T building,
which would not be a sufficient distance. Planning committee approved the plans
on July 3, when many people could not attend to contest the project, and it was
unclear that an appeal had to be made within 10 days, as it was stated as 14 days
at the meeting. There will be no moderate or low income units at this site. Mayor
Stapleton addressed the issues. See: https://youtu.be/MWFkBNmT5yl?t=9551
This area was designated as a site to build housing in the 6th Housing Element.
The present plan prevents the builders from building a 67 unit building, which they
would do if the plans included low and moderate income buyers. The council
passed the plans 6-0, Mayor ProTem Kleinman recused herself.
Was there discussion on homelessness or affordable housing? Yes
See concerns/comments.