Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout00 - Written CommentsFebruary 10, 2026 Written Comments From: Jim Mosher To: City Clerk"s Office Cc: Dent - City Council Subject: Comments on Council agenda items (Feb. 10, 2026 meeting) Date: February 09, 2026 4:54:20 PM Attachments: 2026-02-10 CC Aaenda Comments JimMosher.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. Madam Clerk, Please find attached some written comments regarding selected items on tomorrow's Newport Beach City Council agenda. Yours sincerely, Jim Mosher February 10, 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) PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON -AGENDA ITEMS The Planning Commission met between this Council meeting and the last, yet, for what I believe is the first time in decades, the Council agenda includes no report as to what happened at the Planning Commission meeting. I believe the reason for those reports, which were originally discussion items, and the reason the Commission meets on the Thursday before Council meetings, is so the Council members can be timely informed of Commission actions and potentially "call up" those it feels merit additional review. More recently they have provided the Council and public an opportunity to see the Community Development Department's Tentative Agenda of items to be heard at future public meetings. For whatever it may be worth, at its February 5th meeting, the Commission approved a controversial proposal to build 33 townhomes in seven 38-foot tall buildings on the property at the corner of Dover and Cliff Drives, even though two of the five Commissioners present thought its design what one might hope for at that prominent location. I thought it remarkable that many, including me, praised the developer for showing restraint in not proposing to build the 81 units in 65-foot tall buildings that they, "by right" could have done. But that "right" was a very recently acquired one, through the "housing overlays" by which this property, without any meaningful public notice or review, was given "one -size -fits -all" building standards intended for the Westcliff/17th Street commercial zone, and not at all appropriate to this isolated site. It also seemed remarkable that in responding to the main concerns about traffic, no one mentioned the site is adjacent to existing County bus stops, an alternative mode of transportation we have never been able to make attractive to our own residents. Although not traditionally reported at Council meetings, a matter the Council might be interested in was an item on the February 3rd PB&R agenda. At that meeting, the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission received what staff claimed was a request from the Ad Hoc Council Policy Review Committee to comment on proposed revisions to Council Policy G-1. What was strange about this is that committee no longer existed, its term having expired on December 31 st without making any recommendations to the full Council. Yet staff represented the language it presented as what "the Council" wanted, making the Commissioners assume their prerogative to suggest anything different was, at best, very limited. It seemed to me that if the committee, while it existed, had made a recommendation to the full Council, it would have been appropriate, and even necessary under our Charter, for the full Council, if they agreed with recommendations, to seek advice from the Commission before adopting them. But it did not seem appropriate to me that staff should represent three Council members (who they didn't even identify) as speaking for the whole Council. That seemed especially inappropriate when one of the recommendations was to make the discretionary decisions of the Commission final and unappealable. I find it hard to believe a majority of the Council would share that desire to divest themselves from oversight of their unelected appointees. February 10, 2026, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 2 of 7 Item 1. Reading of Ordinances As I pointed out at the last meeting, this boilerplate item directs "the City Clerk to read by title only' "all ordinances under consideration," even though City Charter Section 412 requires a reading only at the time of their adoption. Ordinances are "under consideration" at both their introduction and at their proposed adoption. If the Council's direction is to request ordinance titles to be read only at the time of adoption, it is a mystery why they do not revise the language in the agenda to say so. Item 2. Minutes for the January 27, 2026, City Council Meeting & January 31, 2026, Special City Council Meeting The passages shown in italics below are from the draft minutes with suggested corrections shown in sWkeeu-t underline format. The page numbers refer to Volume 66. Page 481, Item SS1. paragraph 1, sentence 3: "Since then, the City Council has maintained a policy of super -funding the pension plan by contributing both the normal eestplus cost plus surplus money to pay down the liability." Page 481, Item SS1. paragraph 2, sentence 2: "He reported that the City's funded status has improved and highlighted concerns about private equity and environmental, social, and governance (ESG)-focused investments within Ca/PERS portfolio." Page 482, PUBLIC COMMENTS, paragraph 3: "Jim Mosher questioned the purpose of the trust." [Comment: I more specifically asked how funds in a trust reserved for one purpose could be moved to a trust created for a different purpose, and I believe there was a staff response to that question which is not recorded in the minutes.] Page 483, PUBLIC COMMENTS ON CONSENT CALENDAR, paragraph 1: "Jim Mosher thought ordinances should be read upon introduction and adoption, ..." [Comment: If I said this, it was only in the sense that agenda Item 1, as presently written, directs the City Clerk to do so (see comment on Item 1, above, suggesting the language should be changed if the Council wants something different).] Page 487, Motion: "to a) Adopt Resolution No. 2026-06, A Resolution of the City of Newport Beach, California, Correcting Certain Sct4vner Scrivener's Errors Related to Building and Plan Check Fees and Clarifying Notations Within the Schedule of Rents, Fines, and Fees." [Comments: Ironically, the term "Scrivner" (a fairly rare family surname) in the resolution title is a scrivener's error for Scrivener (a professional copyist) which the City Clerk may wish to correct in the archived copy. Much more importantly, it is surprising to see the minutes record this motion, as well as all subsequent motions, as not including part "a)" of the staff recommendation (namely, a finding the action is exempt from CEQA), but start with part "b)", which is renumbered "a)". February 10, 2026, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 3 of 7 The omission is particularly puzzling since the video shows this motion was to "approve the staff recommendation," which includes all the parts.) Page 493, paragraph 3: "In response to Mayor Kleiman's question, City Manager Jurjis noted that the public can complete had completed a City website survey and staff will return with an update." [See video. The phrasing of the comment may have been slightly ambiguous, but the survey had closed the weekend before the meeting.] Page 494, PUBLIC COMMENTS, paragraph 3: "Bernie Svalstad asked Council to consider a permanent location for a museum the Balboa Island Museum." [See video. The comment was general. It began with a request for the Council to find a permanent home for the Newport Beach Historical Society, and while it mentioned the uncertain future of the Balboa Island Museum (which is not a Historical Society facitlity), the request was for a more generic "museum spot."] Page 494, PUBLIC COMMENTS, last paragraph: "Council unanimously supported funding police and fire station projects. Approved by a straw vote of 7-0-0" [Comment: The agenda provided no hint any action would be taken or direction given regarding the "Updates on Public Works and Capital Improvement Program." The significance of this vote recorded in the minutes is very unclear. Did the Council take an action here? Or did it only direct staff to bring the question of funding, and for what possible projects, back for direction on the agenda at a regular meeting? This is particularly confusing (and disturbing) because Slide 60 of the presentation contained a bullet point saying, "If Ad Hoc' s preferred Civic Center Park site is recommended" for a new Police Headquarters, to "Include $1.5 million in the current FY 2025- 26 CIP budget to hire consultant team for further design development, preparation of final concept and EIR for further Council review and approval." Did the Council approve doing this?] Page 494, PUBLIC COMMENTS ON AGENDA AND NON -AGENDA ITEMS, paragraph 1: "Dennis Bress announced a successful decrease in the noise originating from John Wayne Airport into Newport Beach, emphasizing the concept of high -and, slow, and quiet." [See video. Mr. Bress' advocacy has long been for what he calls "high, slow and quiet' departures, although he did, this one time, interpolate "therefore" between "and" and "quiet." It might be noted that the idea that "high" and "slow" equals "quiet" is a slogan rather than a statement of a scientific fact supported by unequivocal evidence. It is even unclear how height can be maximized while speed is being minimized.] Item 3. Safety Enhancement Zones Expansion and Enforcement During Peak Activity Periods I do not think introducing ordinances on the consent calendar is ever a good idea. I also think it's a bad idea to adopt resolutions whose validity is contingent upon the eventual adoption of an February 10, 2026, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 4 of 7 ordinance introduced (rather than adopted) at the same time. The staff report is not clear as to whether that is the case here, but wouldn't it be better to adopt the resolution at the same time the ordinance is actually adopted, so that if the ordinance is not adopted the resolution doesn't have to be repealed? This particular combination of resolution and ordinance is especially strange since they seem to be about a policing issue, yet the recommendation is coming from the City Manager's Office rather than the Police Department. As to the staff report, it contains two tables breaking down the residence of people arrested during the Spring Break and Fourth of July periods, apparently intended to establish that a lot of troublemakers from outside Newport Beach come here during those times. But it is not clear if what is being presented is the arrests in the enhancement zones or in the city as whole. Nor is it clear how this compares to the pattern of arrests made during the rest of the year. Are the arrests during the rest of the year mostly of Newport Beach residents? Or are arrests then, too, dominated by lawbreakers from outside Newport? The report also provides no evidence that there is a higher incidence of unruly behavior in areas such as Corona del Mar between PCH and Fifth Avenue compared to areas of the city with higher concentrations of short-term lodgings (such as Balboa Island) that are not proposed as safety enhancement zones. Moreover, no redline is provided of the Municipal Code revisions proposed by the ordinance, making it particularly difficult to be sure what is actually being proposed versus the staff report's interpretation of what the revisions are intended to accomplish. This makes it a particularly opaque, rather than transparent, process. Making the materials available only electronically, and not providing free printed copies for the public to review makes the process even more opaque. In addition to providing no redline, the staff report does not even purport to give a complete description of what changes are being made. For example, it appears the ordinance, if adopted, will expand the effective hours of the Memorial Day zones from three days (Saturday, Sunday and Monday) to four (Friday, Saturday, Sunday and Monday), but make no similar change to the Labor Day zones. I can find no explanation of why this is being done. The whole Safety Enhancement Zone designation process is confusing since the original ordinance said, and the later revisions continue to say, the zones can be established by ordinance or resolution. In the present case, as best I can tell, the ordinances (the Municipal Code) will continue to be relied on to permanently designate the zones for the Memorial Day, Fourth of July and Labor Day zones, while the resolution is intended to designate the Spring Break zones. Yet parts of the Spring Break language are being (redundantly?) added to the ordinance. Why is this being done? It only leads to the possibility of a conflict between the code and the resolution. For example, the resolution identifies "March 14th" as "the first day of the first Spring Break' and requires notice to be posted "on or before 6:00 p.m. on Friday March 13th." But the ordinance says notice shall be given "before 6:00 p.m. of the first day of any Spring Break as set forth in a resolution adopted by the City Councif' which would be 6:00 pm. on March 14th. If this is to be February 10, 2026, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 5 of 7 in the code (and I don't know why it should be), wasn't it intended to say "before 6:00 p.m. on the day before the first day of any Spring Break"? I similarly don't understand why, if the ordinance is intended to permanently codify the boundaries of the "West"' Newport and Corona del Mar zones, and if the resolution is intended only to designate Spring Break days, why does it restate so many parts of the language already made permanent in the code, including a complete restatement of the boundaries, hours and means of notice? Shouldn't the ordinance be corrected so that information doesn't have to be repeated, allowing the resolution to simply reference the permanent code language when no change to it is intended? Finally, not only is "West" no longer appropriate, a code section that once created a single enhancement zone has, for some time, created two. In view of that, shouldn't the title of NBMC Section 1.04.060 ("Safety Enhancement Zone") be made plural? Item 5. Resolution No. 2026-9: Waiving City Council Policy B-8 to Permit the Pacific Coast Triathlon on Sunday, September 13, 2026 City Council Policy B-8, prohibiting non -City athletic special events on City property between June 15 and September 15, exists for the reasons stated in the policy. While much of this triathlon appears to take place on the Crystal Cove Beach, which is not City property, and presumably not subject to Policy B-8, part of it, the staff report suggests, also takes place on Coast Highway, which (near Crystal Cove) I am also doubtful is City property. Assuming some of the event is being requested to take place on property that Policy B-8 applies to, neither the staff report nor the proposed resolution explains why the concerns that prompted the creation of the policy would not apply on September 13. The mere existence of a scheduling conflict on the part of the sponsor would not cause them to vanish. Does staff have some reason to believe the summer concerns would dissipate sufficiently by September 13? Or that so close to the end of summer, the benefits provided by this event outweigh the liabilities? Item 6. Resolution No. 2026-10: Initiating General Plan, Local Coastal Program, and Newport Beach Municipal Code Amendments to Implement Recommendations from the Corona del Mar Commercial Corridor Study (PA2024-0002) Will there be any further public involvement prior to the presentation to the proposed implementations to the Planning Commission? And will all of the recommendations be reviewed by them? Item 7. General Plan Update Steering Committee (GPUSC) Bi-Monthly Update to the City Council and Resolution No. 2026-11: Dissolving the GPUSC and GPAC I hope I am not the only one to see some humor in it being five months since the last "bi-monthly" update. ' "West" surely seems a misnomer if the zone now extends to B Street on the Peninsula. February 10, 2026, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 6 of 7 Regarding the proposed Resolution No. 2026-11 dissolving the GPUSC and GPAC, the resolutions creating those committees have also given the Council the right to dissolve them whenever it wishes. But they would both expire automatically when and if the Council adopts a revised General Plan. I can understand why the Council may wish to dissolve the committees at this time, to avoid the further expense of maintaining them when it may seem unlikely there will be a need to call on them. It is less clear to me why the Council would be asked to "rescind" the resolutions that created them, as Section 1 of the proposed resolution asks the Council to do. Are we trying to erase all trace of the committees' existence and suggest the former appointments to them were never legally valid and the members' work asked for in error? While the City may prefer looking forward to looking back, I am not sure why we would be so anxious to actively erase the past. Regarding the report, while there is, at least for now, a video of the final joint meeting of the GPUSC and GPAC, it seems doubtful there will ever be any minutes of it. So, I can reveal myself as the lone "nay" in the 25-1 vote (with one GPAC member absent) on the motion "to support the Draft moving forward" mentioned on page 4 of the staff report. Not only did I sincerely feel the draft needed substantially more work and review, but in the past those voting in favor of GPAC motions have been pilloried by some Council members for subsequently not endorsing every single policy or recommendation they were recorded as voting "for." I doubt there are many of the 25 who would endorse every recommendation in the draft if asked about it separately. Item 8. Resolution No. 2026-12: Establishing the Public Lands Trust Management Ad Hoc Committee to Review and Develop Recommendations Regarding the California State Lands Commission Report Regarding the City's Management of the Tidelands The State Lands Commission report highlights some fairly clear problems with the City's management of the granted lands, and a reasonably clear list of actions needed to remedy them. For a City that prides itself on transparency, I have trouble seeing how the appointment of a 2-member ad hoc committee that will spend up to 11 months meeting outside the public eye is an appropriate response, particularly in view of the SLC's expectation of seeing progress within 6 months. I am particularly concerned about the statement in the staff report that "The Committee will review the Report's findings, provide focused policy directions to staff, guide stakeholder outreach, and develop recommendations for consideration by the full City Council at a duly noticed public meeting," and in the City Manager's From City Hall to You newsletter that "This group would also work closely with staff as discussions continue on complying with the SLC's report." The sequence, with the recommendation coming last, seems out of whack. Ad hoc committees that are allowed to meet outside the public eye are created to advise the city council. They are not empowered to advise or direct City staff. Only the Council as whole can provide policy February 10, 2026, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 7 of 7 directions to staff, although, if they wish, it can be after the Council as a whole considers the advice produced by the committee. Item 10. Professional Services Agreements for On -Call Professional Planning Services and Staff Augmentation with Sagecrest Planning and Environmental, Kimley-Horn and Associates, Psomas, and Moore lacofano Goltsman Reports of this sort, presenting the results when similar services have been requested of multiple potential contractors normally provide more detail as to how the recommendations were arrived at, typically including an evaluation panel's scoring results (see, for example, Item 9 on this agenda, "Approval of On -Call Professional Services Agreements for Geotechnical and Material Testing Services"). In the present case, the agenda says four (apparently out of 17 proposals) are recommended, all for "Professional Planning Services and Staff Augmentation." The staff report does not explain if all the proposers bid to provide the same set of services, or if they were selected for their ability to provide different services. Nor does it say who evaluated the proposals (a panel or an individual?) nor how. In Table 1, the 13 "Proposals Not Selected" appear to be listed in alphabetical order, giving no hint as to who may have been a close runner-up to the four selected firms. By contrast, the 4 "Selected for Recommendation" are not alphabetical, but I don't know if this means the one listed last, "MIG, Inc.," barely made the cut, or something different — such as that the department had four different categories of services it was seeking, a selected one contractor for each. Greater clarity would have been helpful to understanding this recommendation. Item 11. Proposed Traffic Calming and Public Safety Measures in the Bayview Heights Neighborhood Where does the name "Bayview Heights" that is proposed for the City monument sign come from? Is it an official City name, or an informal local name? In addition to its technical standards, doesn't Policy L-26 require some level of community support of the proposed measures? The October 14, 2025, Council meetina that is referenced was a study session, not a normal council business item. Although a waiver of Policy L-26 is being requested, shouldn't the present staff report at least present the petition results? More importantly, since the traffic calming measures were not universally or uniformly supported (and some residents may have wanted even more), why are the present proposals hidden in the consent calendar? Was the neighborhood notified that a decision will be made? More specifically, were the occupants of the homes closest to the proposed speed cushion locations notified of the proposal? Are they sympathetic to having them installed?