Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout00 - Written CommentsReceived After Agenda Printed November 4, 2025 Written Comments November 4, 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 2. Presentation on the Results of the Corona del Mar Commercial Corridor Study I do not live in, or even near, Corona de Mar, but I have these somewhat random comments: • The stated objective is to create a "successful, vibrant, walkable and connected "main street" destination." o Newport Beach has been described (rightly or wrongly) as a collection of "villages." o Do any of the other villages have more successful or vibrant "main streets"? o If so, what can be learned from them? o If not, do they need equal help? • Of the case studies we might emulate from other cities: o Coast Highway, through the CdM Commercial Corridor, is believed to have Average Daily Traffic of 48,500. How does that compare to the other "main streets" reviewed? o What is evidence that the ""Historic and Interesting Places" (HIP,) District of Laguna Beach (a stretch of Coast Highway between Thalia Street and Bluebird Canyon Drive, south of the main city center) is more successful or vibrant than the CdM Corridor? Doesn't Laguna Beach have other more vibrant and walkable districts? o The Main Street district in the Ocean Park neighborhood of Santa Monica seems quiet different, being on a secondary street parallel to a wider one, and with the sidewalks amply buffered from the two remaining lanes of traffic. It also seems to have many more shade trees. Could PCH through CdM be similarly reconfigured? • Getting responses to outreach is difficult. The staff report says that "a total of 42 business owners, managers, and property owners" were "engaged," and, apparently included in that number, "19 businesses were interviewed." What fraction of all the business owners, managers, and property owners along the corridor does this represent? Much emphasis is placed on outdoor, and especially sidewalk, dining. Apparently it attracts business, but I have never understood the charm of eating on a sidewalk adjacent to lanes of either congested or high-speed traffic. It is not clear to me how improving bicycle infrastructure on Fifth Avenue (Goal 3, Action 12) will help to revitalize the Commercial Corridor. It seems quite distant, especially from the eastern end. Item 4. Water Well Permit and Encroachment Agreement with the City of Fountain Valley; and Resolution No. 2025-76: Declaration of Intent to Issue Tax -Exempt Obligations (Bonds) Attachment C, the proposed resolution of intention to issue tax-exempt bonds is a bit difficult to read. Section 6 on page 4-22 seems to say the City has no reasonable expectation of paying any of the project costs with anything other than the bonds. Doesn't this contradict the staff report which suggests the resolution is being proposed only to leave open the door to issuing bonds? November 4, 2025, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 2 of 4 Regarding Attachment D, the CEQA analysis, a great deal of this is devoted to a Noise Impact Analysis starting on page 4-55. It is not obvious how it reaches its conclusion at the bottom of page 4-78 that the pumping operation, when complete, will not impact neighboring residences. The numbers that say they are quoted from Figure 14 (which is on page 4-88), "between 36 and 49 d8A Leq at first floor levels of nearby residential properties and between 46 and 56 d8A Leq at second story levels," do not quite match Figure 14, which appears to show 36-45 dB on first floors and 47-55 dB on second floors. The numbers in excess of 50 dB would seem to exceed the nighttime external residential noise standard cited on page 4-72. While it is true that the short-term measurements in Table 1 on page 4-69 show the daytime levels from traffic noise at these locations exceed the daytime standard, the long-term measurements of Table 2 on page 4-70 show the existing noise is below 50 dB during all but two of the nighttime hours. Is the pump station noise constant? If so, how could 55 dB late at night not be in excess of the 50 dB standard and limit? rltem 5. Resolution No. 2025-77: Initiating an Amendment to Newport Place Planned Community Development Plan Related to the Minimum Percentage of Inclusionary For -Sale Housing within the Residential Overlay (PA2025-0196) The City's continuing abandonment of the affordable housing promises made in our certified Housing Element is disturbing. The staff report, on page 5-2, says "Representatives of Intracorp Homes are requesting that the City consider lowering the required inclusionary percentage applicable to for -sale housing, as the approved project is no longer financially viable to implement (Attachment 8)." However, I am unable to find in Attachment B the statement highlighted in bold. Intracorp's president does indeed request a reduction in the affordability requirement from 15% to 8% (in his subject line) or 7.5% (in the body of his letter), and he says it would "facilitate" the project. But he does not say building the project as approved is infeasible. Item 6. Approval of Amendment No. Two to Maintenance & Repair Services Agreement with Merchants Landscape Services, Inc. (Contract No. 8772-1) for Athletic Field Re -Sodding at Buffalo Hills Park The proposal to replace the sod rather than using chemical weed treatment is an interesting one, but why are staff and the Council bypassing the City's Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission, which the people of Newport Beach, through City Charter Section 709, require to "Act in an advisory capacity to the City Council in all matters pertaining to parks, beaches, recreation, parkways and street trees." Where is their advice on this? Regarding the Council's three -member Integrated Pest Management Ad Hoc Review Committee, it is good to hear they met with members of the public and not just staff. However, according to Section 2 of Resolution No. 2025-16 creating it, "The sole purpose and responsibility of the Committee shall be to review the City's Integrated Pest Management program and make recommendations to the entire City Council regarding revisions thereto." November 4, 2025, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 3 of 4 Rather than a recommended revision to the IPM program (which seems to be a 23-page op licy document), this seems to be a proposal for a park project and a kind of experiment in weed management (likely duplicating similar experiments conducted elsewhere). As to the ad hoc committee's "sole" responsibility, to recommend revisions to the IPM program to the full Council by December 31, 2026, how does this inform the policy revisions? It would seem the results of this proposed three-year experiment will not be known before that deadline. Item 8. Approval of Amended and Restated Property Maintenance Agreement with Newport Coast Community Association The staff report presents this as a document that is part of the settlement of a lawsuit regarding which, although not mentioned in the staff report, the Council appears to have met in closed session at least once (October 28, 2025, Item XIV.B). It is rare for the settlement documents to be presented for approval at an open, public meeting. While the transparency of the approval in this case is commendable, the staff report does not explain what effect any change to the presented language would have on the lawsuit. Adding to that uncertainty, under "Fiscal Impact" on page 8-3, the staff report mentions "the separate Settlement Agreement." Is that referring to Attachment A, or to something different? If there is a separate Settlement Agreement, why would it not be provided for public inspection? Item 10. Ordinance No. 2025-35 and Resolution No. 2025-78: Adding Provisions Related to Bicycle and Electric Bicycle Activity in the Public Right -of -Way As someone who prefers using a bicycle for most daily local transportation needs, this is an item of considerable interest to me. Unlike Item 7, above, which involves a recommendation from a formally -constituted three -member Council committee (albeit arguably outside the scope of what they were appointed for), it is a bit disturbing here, to see extensive revisions to our Municipal Code being presented fully -baked by a three -member "working group" that was not, as best I can tell, publicly appointed. The the longstanding concerns about e-bikes, it seems a subject that would have merited more extensive public discussion before specific revisions to the Municipal Code were proposed. From the staff report, it is unclear if the "informal working group" even met with the Police Department, which will be tasked with enforcing the new rules. Regarding sidewalk cycling, the proposed replacement of existing Resolution No. 82-148, which lists the segments and sides of streets on which riding is allowed, with Resolution No. 2025-078, which is proposed to provide only a map, does not seem adequate to me. At least as posted, it is not evident from the proposed map if riding is allowed on both sides, or only one. And since no context of other streets is provided, it is impossible to tell where many of the segments start or end. For example, near the bottom, there is a floating segment of "Coast Hwy East." I do not know where it starts or ends. And from a policy perspective, the choices are not always explicable. For example, above "Bison Ave," the short street "La Felicidad" is shown as another floating segment. Why would sidewalk cycling be allowed there and on Bison and Jamboree, but not on Camelback Street (which connects all three)? November 4, 2025, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 4 of 4 To many residents, I suspect there will be more concern about the absence of any distinction between conventional bicycles and a -bikes on sidewalks, and the absence of clearer rules for operating in the presence of pedestrians on the same sidewalks. And I would think allowing a -bikes (or even bikes in general) on all sidewalks fronting residential dwellings, as is being proposed in the new Subsection 12.56.030.B.4, would not be met with universal acclaim, not to mention the visual clutter and the burden it will place on the City Traffic Engineer to post each and every residential sidewalk. Overall, I think this a matter of enough public interest and complexity that it would benefit from a much better advertised public workshop or Council study session before any set of new regulations is proposed for adoption. If the Council proceeds without that, on what I would hope would be a non -controversial matter, in the definition of "Motorized wheeled conveyance" on page 10-7, 1 think "combustible" is definitely not the intended word. Possibly a "combustion -powered" vehicle, but not a "combustible" (_ "flammable") one. Similarly, I am pretty sure that the start of line 2 of proposed Subsection 12.56.080 on page 10-10 was intended to read "assessed to a minor..." Item 11. Confirmation of Appointments to the Newport Beach Police Headquarters Assessment Committee I have no objection to the appointments, but I continue to think this should be committee whose meetings and deliberations take place in public.