April 29, 2025, City Council Agenda Comments
The following comments on items on the Newport Beach City Council agenda are submitted by:
Jim Mosher ( [email protected] ), 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 strikeout underline format. The page number refers to Volume 66.
(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.]
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.]
the City's General Plan Housing Element.” [see video]
the housing element Housing Element.”
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.]
from the City's General Plan agenda for future housing.” [see video] Received After Agenda Printed
April 29, 2025
Written Comments
April 29, 2025, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 2 of 5
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
contributor(s)
.”
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. I 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. I 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:
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.
I
do
not
believe
that
without
the
full
and
exact
text
of
what
is
to
be
inserted,
the
ordinance
can
even
be
introduced.