Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout00 - Written CommentsJanuary 27, 2026, City Council Agenda Comments The following comments on items on the Newport Beach City Council agenda are submitted by: Jim Mosher ( jimmosher yahoo.com ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach 92660 (949-548-6229) Item 2. Minutes for the January 13, 2026, City Council Meeting The passages shown in italics below are from the draft minutes with suggested corrections shown in stfikeou underline format. The page numbers refer to Volume 66. Page 473, Item II. first paragraph after bullet: "Councilmember Weigand recused himself from participating in this item due to a conflict of interest." [comment: The Political Reform Act requires disclosure not just of the existence of a conflict, but of the nature of the conflict. While that disclosure presumably happened at the meeting, one might think the minutes would give some hint of what the reason for the recusal was, as is done on page 479 of the present draft minutes. In this case, the video shows Councilmember Weigand said he was recusing himself because of "significant investments in the telecom industry."] Page 474, paragraph 2: "Real Property Administrator Whitlinger explained that the carriers are still required to provide notices to residents within a 300-foot radius of the site and the City would consider objections in writing." [comment: The draft minutes may be a little misleading in that I do not believe this was part of the staff proposal nor a statement regarding obligations of telecommunications carriers in general. Rather, I believe it was a reference to provision 4.3 in the "master license agreement" (contract C-8539-1) that was approved by the Council as Item 12 at its February 13, 2018. That contract pre -authorized Verizon Wireless, in consultation with the Police Department, to install transmitters on new or replacement streetlight poles at up to 32 indeterminate locations with poor 9-1-1 coverage. That one existing contract, and to the best of knowledge, only that one contract, includes the noticing provision described at the meeting, with the Community Development Director adjudicating any objections received. Aside from that one contract, there is no general noticing requirement outside the coastal zone, and none was proposed, although Ms. Whitlinger said one "could" be included if Council so directed.] Page 474, Council Announcements, Barto, first bullet: "Spoke on the Baybifte Bay Bridge Project scheduled for completion in early spring" [note: the reference was to the Sanitation District's construction around the abutments to the Upper Newport Bay Bridge (aka Marian Bergeson Memorial Bridge) associated with their replacement of the Bay Bridge Pump Station.] Page 475, Public Comments on Consent Calendar, paragraph 2: "Jim Mosher expressed concern about regardfn changes to agenda items and questioned whether the resolution was to be modified relating to Agenda Item 4 (Resolution No. 2026-1: Updating the List of Designated Employees for 2026 Under the City's Conflict of Interest Code)." January 27, 2026, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 2 of 6 Page 478, first Motion: "Motion by Mayor Pro Tern Blom, seconded by Councilmember Weber, to approve the Consent Calendar, including amendments to Agenda Item No. 1, the Minutes; and removal of Agenda Item 9 for further discussion at the request of Councilmember Stapleton." [According to the video, Councilmember Stapleton objected to the draft minutes erroneously indicating that he had voted in favor of the "A-1 item" at the December 9, 2025, meeting, and said he had a draft of "adjustments" to the minutes correcting that misstatement, and wanted to be sure they would be included in the motion. I am doubtful the document suggesting the changes was available for public inspection at the time of the meeting, but something called "02 - Draft Minutes for December 9. 2025 - Amended" can be found with the January 13 materials archived in Laserfiche, showing the vote corrected to "4-3." Despite this being incorporated in the January 13 motion, page 2 of what claims to be the official minutes of the December 9 meeting, signed by the Mayor and City Clerk, continues to show the December 9 "A-1" request having been approved by a "7-0" straw vote.] Page 478, paragraph following first Motion: "City Clerk Lena Shumway read the title of the adopted ordinance." [note: City Charter Section 412 allows any Council member to demand the reading in full of any ordinance at the time of its adoption, but that did not happen with this ordinance at this meeting.] Page 479, Public Comments, paragraph 2: "Jim Mosher commented on public outreach in the area and recommended postponing the contract until the pending feller -a California court case is resolved." [note: The case I was referring to is New Commune DTLA LLC v. City of Redondo Beach, 115 Cal. App. 5th 111 (2025), which largely invalidates the use of "overlays" to meet state housing requirements. I think I made it clear an appeal is pending before the California Supreme Court, not the U.S. Supreme Court. I have since learned our City Attorney may believe that regardless of the outcome, the City may be protected by the statute of limitations. As a non -lawyer I do not know if that is correct.] Page 479, Public Comments, paragraph 3: "Adriana Forsha Fourcher expressed support for the specific plan and requested that outreach include all property owners in the area." Item 3. Ordinance No. 2026-01 Modifying Provisions Related to Temporary Street Closures and City Franchised Solid Waste Management The introduction of this ordinance is one of four recommendations from the City Council's Ad Hoc Refuse Committee on the present agenda, the other three being Items 6, 10 and 11. Although the "Discussion" in the staff report says the Committee is "comprised of Councilmember Grant, Councilmember Barto and staff," I believe that for it to meet and make January 27, 2026, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 3 of 6 decisions out of the public eye, the Brown Act requires it to be composed solely of Councilmembers Grant and Barto, and the recommendations should be regarded as theirs alone (if it included members who were not members of the City Council, all its meetings would have to be publicly noticed). Resolution 2025-12, which formally created the committee on March 25, 2025, is an improvement over the former Council "Working Group" on solid waste which oversaw the City's transition to its present "three -stream" residential collection system, and other matters, without the public being quite sure if it existed, and if it was, who was on it and how they got appointed. Still, the present committee, which is scheduled to run through the end of 2026 unless it finishes making its recommendations earlier, is a bit shadowy, with the public not knowing when it will meet, what it will be discussing, and, apparently, not seeking general public comment on the matters within its very broad mandate to deliberate. The staff report says NBMC "Chapter 12.62 was adopted in 1968 with the most recent amendments in 1985." As best I can tell, both Chapter 12.62 and Chapter 12.63 were, in fact, both modified in 2023. A redline of the changes can be found starting on page 820 of the Item 24 staff report from the November 14, 2023, Council agenda. Since they were buried in a 1,340-page report revising the entire Municipal Code, and more, in a single vote, it is unclear those changes, which appear largely technical, were carefully reviewed by most of the Council or the public. As to the ordinance presently being proposed for introduction: 1. 1 do not think it is wise to introduce ordinances on the consent calendar, where they receive extremely limited review. 2. Attachment A, on page 27 of this meeting's 401-page electronic agenda packet indicates changes are being proposed to NBMC Sections 12.62.030 and 12.62.040. Yet, Attachment B on page 31 shows a redline only to what it says is Section 12.62.010. 3. This is confusing enough to attempt to untangle in electronic documents. It is even less likely to be reviewed when the public is required to pay to obtain paper copies of the materials being considered by their City Council. The absence of sequential page numbers on the agenda materials, unless downloaded as a full agenda packet, further impedes communicating observations about them. 4. As best I can tell, the Committee would like to recommend the changes to Sections 12.62.030 and 12.62.040 found in the ordinance on page 27 plus the changes to Section 12.62.010 shown in redline on page 31. However, the ordinance, as presented, accomplishes only the former, and what changes it is proposing to Sections 12.62.030 and 12.62.040 is not obvious since no redline of them is provided. 5. On page 28 of the electronic agenda packet, the ordinance proposes amending three definitions in, and adding five new definitions to, NBMC Section 12.63.020. It is not clear the proposal, as presented, is consistent with City Charter Section 418 ("Ordinances. Amendment") which allows the Council to amend only "section(s) or subsection(s)" of prior ordinances. This is a relaxation of the original Charter, which only allowed "sections" to be re-enacted in full. However, the definitions do not appear to be January 27, 2026, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 4 of 6 numbered "subsections" within Section 12.63.020. In particular, without subsection numbering, the ordinance as proposed does not make clear where within the already long list of definitions the new definitions would be added. I would think the ordinance needs to show the entire Section 12.63.020 as the Council wants it to appear (much as it is shown in redline in Attachment C on agenda packet pages 32 through 35. 6. It might be noted that the proposed ordinance is inconsistent in this respect in that on agenda packet pages 29 and 30 it proposes to amend the whole of NBMC Sections 12.63.080 and 12.63.150, yet from the redline on pages 35 and 36, the intent is to amend only Subsections 12.63.080.B, 12.63.150.0 and 12.63.150.D — although one would have to read very carefully the wording of the other subsections as printed in the ordinance to make sure no changes have inadvertently been made to them. 7. The "Whereas" clauses at the beginning of the ordinance suggest a major reason for the changes is to improve landfill diversion. How is the City doing on that? The Refuse Committee presumably knows, but the citizens do not. Item 5. Resolution No. 2026-04: Authorizing the Filing of an Application for Grant Funding from the California Coastal Commission Whale Tail Grants Program to Support the Fostering Interest in Nature Program It would have been helpful to have provided the MOU with the Coastal Commission that this item relates to, and which has apparently been archived as contract C-8230-1 ("MOU to Provide Lower -Cost Overnight Accommodation Opportunities"). Since the program got off to a delayed start, what is the currently -projected end time for the 10-year obligation? Has the Lido House fully provided its financial promises? Or does it still have payments to make? What is the plan for the program after the MOU and Lido House funding end? Item 8. Approval of Amendment No. Seven Contract Time Extension with Robert Coffee Architects and Associates The staff report is confusing in that under "Fiscal Impact" on the second page it says "There is no fiscal impact related to this item since it only relates to Council approving the contract time extension." Yet, Recommendation (b) on the first page asks the Council to approve "adding $92,440 to the not -to -exceed amount." Which is correct? If the intent is only to extend the expiration date, then it appears the wrong contract has been submitted for Council consideration, since it clearly says the purpose of the amendment is to both extend the term and increase compensation? January 27, 2026, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 5 of 6 Also, why is the project so far behind schedule? And why shouldn't the City expect the work under this contract to be completed at the originally agreed to price? Why doesn't the staff report describe what the additional compensation (if it is indeed being requested) is for, leaving readers to puzzle over Exhibit A ("Scope of Services") on page 115 of the agenda packet? And as to that Scope of Services, since Robert R. Coffee Architect + Associates is apparently headquartered at 1200 Quail Street in Newport Beach, what justifies a "travel" charge of $1,600 per trip to the construction site by the Central Library, a distance, according to Good , of at most 5.2 miles? Finally, will this extra cost, if it is being requested, be borne solely by the City? Or shared with the Newport Beach Library Foundation? Item 6. Amendment to Commercial Refuse Removal Services Contract with CR&R Inc. (Contract No. 8569-1) See comment on Item 11, below. Although not recommended for change in the present amendment, Section 24.2 of the current contract calls for notices to be sent to a Deputy Director of the Public Works Department. Shouldn't that be amended to refer to the Director of the Municipal Operations Department? Item 10. Amendment to Trash and Recycling Container Removal Services Contract with CR&R Inc. (Contract No. 8549-1) See comment on Item 11, below. Although not recommended for change in the present amendment, Section 24.2 of the current contract calls for notices to be sent to a Deputy Director of the Public Works Department. Shouldn't that be amended to refer to the Director of the Municipal Operations Department? Item 11. Amendment No. Four to Beach Container Refuse Collection Service Contract with Rainbow Disposal Co., Inc. (Contract No. 4709) Isn't refuse collection one of the functions to be taken over by the Municipal Operations Department under Section 14 of Ordinance No. 2025-37, adopted at the Council's January 13, 2026, meeting? If so, on page 162 of the electronic agenda packet, shouldn't the notices be going to the "Director of Municipal Operations" and not to the "Director of Public Works"? Item 12. Professional Services Agreement with Infosend, Inc. For Document Printing, Mailing Services, and Online Presentment The staff report says the vendor selection piggybacks on a procurement conducted by the City of That seems like a fairly obscure precedent to rely on. January 27, 2026, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 6 of 6 Also, I notice the staff report comes from the "Adminstrative Services Director/Treasurer." With or without the spelling of "Administrative," isn't that a title whose existence awaits the effective date of Ordinance No. 2025-37, which, having just been adopted on January 13, has not come quite yet?