May 13, 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 29, 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.
pool users for swim lessons and lap swimming use reside in Newport Beach and 90% in the Newport-Mesa area.”
[See video. In response to the Mayor’s question, Director Levin displayed his Slide 16
showing 71% of registrants from Newport Beach and 19% from Costa Mesa. Those add to 90% (or, as he said, “the vast majority”) from the Newport-Mesa area. Saying that only about 70% reside in the Newport-Mesa area is wrong and leaves readers wondering where the remaining 30% could come from.]
amplified music over recent years has increased which could be bothersome to neighbors.” [note: Further on page 309, neither the minutes nor the description of the motion mention the modifications to Condition of Approval No. 3 despite the extensive discussion of it seen in the video.]
1,500-unit proposal was relies on units added to the General Plan without a Greenlight vote (Charter Section 423).”
Item 4. Resolution No. 2025-20: Adopting a Memorandum of Understanding with the Newport Beach Firefighters Association and Associated Salary Schedule
Certain words and phrases in the proposed agreement (Attachment A to the proposed resolution) are, without any explanation I can find, printed in italics. It would have been helpful to indicate, if it is correct, that these are changes from the current MOU and that the words they replace can be found in the redline version presented as Item 13 at the Council’s April 29, meeting.
That said, the use of italics does not appear to be entirely accurate or reliable.For example, in Section 1.B.1 on page 4-10 of the staff report, “June 30” is not italicized even though it seems to be a change from “December 31.”
Item 5. Resolution No. 2025-21: Adopting a Memorandum of Understanding with the Association of Newport Beach Ocean Lifeguards and Associated Salary Schedule
Same comment regarding the use of italics as for Item 4, except that the corresponding redline was presented as Item 14 on April 29 (and “June 30” does not seem to be a change).
Received After Agenda Printed
May 13, 2025
Written Comments
May 13, 2025, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 2 of 3 Item 6. Resolution No. 2025-22: Accept State of California, Department of
Parks
and
Recreation,
Division
of
Boating
and
Waterways
2025
Grant
for
the
Marina
Park
Boating
Program
As explained in the last paragraph of the first page of the resolution (on page 6-4 of the staff report),
one
of
the
reasons
the
acceptance
of
grants
of
more
than
$30,000
comes
before
the
Council
for
approval
is
so
the
Council
can
review
the
terms
and
conditions
of
accepting
the
grant.
Given the more than 100 pages of grant documents that follow, the location of the terms and conditions
is
not
immediately
apparent.
So,
it
would
have
been
helpful
for
the
report
to
indicate
if
the
City
will
incur
any
obligations
as
a
result
of
accepting
this
grant,
and
if
so,
what
they
are.
Item 10. Professional Services Agreement with Deckard Technologies, Inc.
for
Short-Term
Lodging
Compliance
&
Hotline
The proposed contract with Deckard Technologies indicates it will start effective May 13, 2025. However, the staff report indicates that the existing contract for the same service with GovOS Inc. is not set to expire until August 31 , 2025, and Section 27 of that contract (C-7913-3) requires at least 30-days notice to terminate. How will the transition period over the next 3-½ months be handled? Which contractor will be handling
this
service?
Has
GovOS
Inc.
been
put
on
notice
they
will
be
terminated
before
staff
knows
if
the
contract
with
their
replacement
vendor
will
be
approved?
Item XVI. MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION I think the Council should vote to reconsider its action taken on Item 22 at the April 29, 2025, meeting (Five Crowns Limited Term Use Permit Appeal). Despite the authorization given (per page 311 of the draft minutes) to City staff to amend in unknown ways the findings in the proposed Resolution No. 2025-18 presented on April 29, the normal practice when the changes are not fully announced during the course of the public hearing
would
be
for
the
revised
resolution
to
return
for
the
Council’s
concurrence
at
a
future
meeting
(typically
on
the
consent
calendar).
In this case, the revised Resolution No. 2025-18, signed by the Mayor as having been “adopted” on April 29, even though neither the Council nor the public had a chance to review what was purportedly
adopted,
has
a
number
of
defects.
Among
them,
both
the
title
and
the
operative
clause
in
Section
2 incorrectly
state
that
the
Council
voted
to
“uphold”
the
Planning
Commission’s
(and
Zoning
Administrator’s)
approval
of
the
permit.
In
fact,
after
the
public
hearing
had
closed,
the
Council,
exercising
what
it
believed
to
be
is
prerogatives
under
NBMC
Sections 20.64.030 and 21.64.030,
1 decided not to uphold, but instead to “modify” the earlier approvals by, among other things, extending allowed operating hours by one hour and deleting all
mandatory
noise
mitigation
measures,
relying
only
on
the
operator’s
compliance
with
the
1 Technically, Subsections 20.64.030.D and 20.64.030.D allow the Council only to add conditions of approval,
not
remove
them,
although
Subsections
20.64.030.D,1,c
and
20.64.030.D,1,c
imply
the
appellant
could
have
filed
the
appeal
with
a
request
conditions
be
deleted
.
May 13, 2025, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 3 of 3 City’s Community Noise Control regulations - despite the applicant’s own noise consultant concluding such compliance would be possible only with the proposed mitigation measures (including
a
10 p.m.
closing
time).
Additionally, there are questions as to the Council’s April 29th action’s consistency with the posted Public Hearing Notice. In that notice, the construction of a sound wall and a 10 p.m. closing time are described as elements of the proposal being considered for approval or denial at
the
hearing,
not
merely
as
previously-imposed
conditions
of
approval.
Yet,
with
the
revised
resolution,
the
Council
has
not
merely
modified
conditions
of
approval
the
Planning
Commission
thought
necessary
to
make
the
project
work,
but
has
effectively
approved
a
project
different
from
the
one
that
was
noticed
for
hearing,
and
regarding
which
the
public
had
no
chance
to
comment
since
the
Council
announced
it
would
be
considering
that
modified
project
only
after
the
hearing
had
been
closed.
2 Regarding the last-minute changes, I am not sure the Council members were aware that the City
noise
standards
are
(quite
reasonably)
stricter
between
10 p.m.
and
7 a.m.
than
they
are
during
the
remaining
hours.
The
sound
wall
and
10 p.m.
closing
cited
in
the
hearing
notice
appear
to
have
been
included
as
project
features,
rather
than
mere
conditions
of
approval,
because
Five
Crowns’
own
noise
consultant
had
concluded
that
even
with
those
features,
events
of
the
sort
Five
Crowns
wants
to
hold
would
just
barely
meet
the
more
lenient
City
daytime noise limits (see Table 4 on page 22-37 of the April 29 staff report). Even with them, the contemplated events would be in violation of the 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. limits. I could be wrong, but I am not aware of any instance in Newport Beach in which outdoor dining with
amplified
sound
adjacent
to
residential
uses
has
been
permitted
after
10 p.m.
By not informing the public such a thing was even under consideration, and for the other procedural
deficiencies
cited
above,
the
April
29th
decision
on
agenda
Item
22 seems
ripe
for
reconsideration,
and
the
Council
should
request
a
properly-noticed
future
re-hearing
of
it.
2 The YouTube video at 2:04:00 shows the Mayor denying an audience member’s request to comment after
the
potential
revisions
to
the
project
had
been
announced.
A
second
request
appears
to
have
been
denied
at
2:39:50.