June 10, 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 3. Postponement of Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance Nos. 2025-7 and 2025-8 Approving an Amendment to the North Newport Center Planned Community (PC-56)
It is certainly helpful to let the public know both that a previously-announced agenda item has been postponed, and the date to which it has been postponed.
It would seem even more helpful to let the public know why the item has been postponed.
Item 4. Ordinance No. 2025-9: Adding Chapter 12.70 (Prohibition on Attending Street Races and Reckless Driving Exhibitions) to Title 12 (Vehicles and Traffic) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code to Prohibit Spectators from Being Present at Street Races and Reckless Driving Exhibitions in Newport Beach
The consent calendar, by its own description, is reserved for “routine” matters, which presumably implies they are straight-forward and not controversial. Yet there seems to be an increasing tendency to put on the consent calendar all the Council’s business that does not legally require a hearing. And to the public’s detriment, Council members seem almost embarrassed to publicly ask any questions regarding what they are being asked to approve. It is possible they have asked questions privately, but the public does not know.
In the present case, the state has seen a proliferation of ordinances criminalizing being a spectator of the sort targeted here, including in Orange County at least in the cities of Anaheim, Buena Park, and Santa Ana. While the ordinances tend to copy language from one another, with some variations, their adoption has not always been without controversy. Out of fears of its entangling innocent bystanders, a 2021 attempt to enact an ordinance in Santa Ana barely squeaked by its first reading on a 4:3 vote, and failed at its second reading, although their present ordinance, linked to above, was adopted on a 6:1 vote two years later.
As to the need for the ordinance, the staff report says “While the CVC criminalizes both reckless driving and participating in speed contests, it does not currently prohibit spectators at these events.” However, at least one attorney who offers to defend persons ticketed seems to disagree, stating that (at least for street racing) spectators are already included under the statewide prohibitions of Vehicle Code Subsection 23109(b), and others for aiding and abetting an illegal activity under Penal Code Section 31.
In copying one another, it is curious that most of the many ordinances (as does the present one) repeat exactly the inartful definition of:
“"Reckless driving exhibition" means any exhibition of reckless driving referred to in California Vehicle Code section 23103.”
which implies Vehicle Code section 23103 provides a definition of an “exhibition of reckless driving” or provides specific examples of exhibitions that are prohibited and may be referred to.
Received After Agenda Printed
June 10, 2025
Written Comments
June 10, 2025, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 2 of 8 It does not. It simply defines “ reckless driving ” in general as driving “ in willful or wanton disregard
for
the
safety
of
persons
or
property
.”
It would seem better to say: “" Reckless driving exhibition" means any exhibition of what California Vehicle Code section 23103
refers
to
as
reckless
driving.
”
although even then, more precision might be needed to define when such driving becomes an “exhibition.”
Similarly, most of the ordinances repeat the statement that: “ "Off-street parking facility" has the same meaning as set forth in subdivision (c) of California Vehicle
Code
section
12500
and
includes
any
public
or
private
parking
facility
open
and
accessible
to
members
of
the
public
.”
But if, rather than copying from another city's ordinance, anyone bothered to read Vehicle Code Subsection 12500(c), they would discover it is more nuanced than that. Its definition of "Off-street parking facility" includes all publicly-owned parking facilities, but only those privately-owned
ones
that
charge
no
fee
for
parking.
So
the
ordinances,
as
written,
would
not
seem
to
apply
to
spectating
at
a
reckless
driving
exhibition
that
is
being
conducted
(with
or
without
the
lot’s
owner’s
permission)
on
a
private
lot
that
charges
to
park.
And
changing
“accessible”
to
“freely
accessible”
would
not
solve
this,
since
the
state
definition
includes
publicly-owned
lots
even
if
their
use
is
not
free.
Even the copying is not without errors. For example, in the first provision at the top of agenda packet page 4-6: “5. One (1) or more driver is revving a motor vehicle's engine or causing the motor vehicle's tires
to
spin
”
not only does Newport Beach insist (as some of those other cities do) on its odd practice of believing
that
“One”
or
“1”
is,
by
itself,
not
understandable,
and
needs
to
be
stated
both
ways,
but
even
more
oddly,
Newport
Beach
wants
to
say
“
driver
”
where
every
other
city
I
can
find
says
“
drivers
.”
The proposed arrangement of Section 12.70.040 also seems awkward, with the opening of subsection
B
repeating
part
of
the
introductory
paragraph
it
is
a
subsection
to.
It
would
have
seemed
sufficient
to
say:
“B. A totality of circumstances which may include, but are not limited to: ” Finally, although there seem to be many of these ordinances, it would have been helpful for the staff
report
to
indicate
whether
tickets
issued
under
them
have
been
challenged,
and
if
so,
whether they have been found consistent with: (1) the US Constitution's First Amendment guarantee of “the right of the people peaceably to assemble,” and (2) the state’s interest in having
uniform
vehicular
rules
that
do
not
vary
for
jurisdiction
to
jurisdiction.
In connection with the latter, it might be noted that the state regulations, being in the Vehicle Code,
focus
on
the
drivers
of
cars
engaged
in
reckless
activity.
Some
of
the
local
ordinances
add
passengers,
as
well
as
spectators,
to
their
scope.
Given
the
lack
of
discussion,
it
is
unclear
June 10, 2025, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 3 of 8 if the omission of passengers from this proposed ordinance is intentional, inadvertent, or thought
to
be
covered
by
it
or
the
state
law.
Item 9. Resolution No. 2025-30: Adopting a Memorandum of Understanding
with
the
Newport
Beach
Police
Association
and
Associated
Salary
Schedule
This looks like a very generous adjustment. How does it compare to the compensation being offered
for
similar
work
in
other
Orange
County
cities?
Item 10. Resolution No. 2025-31: Amending the Structure, Membership,
Roles
and
Responsibilities
of
the
Aviation
Committee
The Council’s Aviation Ad Hoc Committee members might be commended on the promptness with
which
they
have
formulated
their
recommendation,
but
much
less
so
on
the
transparency
with
which
it
was
arrived
at.
Given that the City has an existing Aviation Committee that exists to advise the Council on aviation-related matters, it is curious they were not consulted as to how to make their work more effective.
Or
were
they?
The
staff
report
doesn’t
say.
On the City Clerk’s page devoted to Boards, Commissions and Committees, the Aviation Committee has a unique status as the only one listed under the category of “Council/Citizens Ad Hoc
Committees,”
even
though
it
does
not
seem
to
be
an
“ad
hoc”
(limited
purpose/short
duration)
committee,
and
even
though
it
is
unclear
what
distinguishes
it
from
the
many
bodies
listed
under
“Citizens
Advisory
Committees”
(a
majority
of
which
have,
despite
the
name,
Council
members
on
them).
1 The proposed structure does seem to be unique in some respects: 1. It is the only committee with non-Council members that I can think of in which the number
of
citizen
members
is
“up
to”
rather
than
a
definite
number,
implying
that
it
might
have
no
citizen
members
at
all.
2. Current citizen members are invited to “serve” through June 30, although since no meetings
have
been
scheduled
during
that
time,
it
is
unclear
what
their
service
might
consist
of.
3. With only quarterly meetings planned, it seems unlikely to maintain the interest of its members.
On a more technical level, it would have been helpful to provide a redline showing more exactly how
the
proposed
resolution
differs
from
the
existing
one.
I
might
note:
1. The “Authorization” section on agenda packet page 10-7 is missing Resolution Nos. 9833 and 10098, both of which extended the term of the original “Orange County Airport Aviation Committee,” prior to its renaming as simply the “Aviation Committee.” 1 The committee categories are defined in City Council Policy A-2. The committees listed as “Citizens Advisory
Committees”
that
include
Council
members
appear
to
have
been
incorrectly
listed.
Accodring
to
the
Policy
A-2
definitions,
they
belong,
with
both
the
existing
and
proposed
Aviation
Committee,
under
“City
Council/
Citizens'
Committees
(Standing
or
Ad
Hoc).”
June 10, 2025, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 4 of 8
2. GIven the stated wish to appoint citizen members who “Possess expertise and professional
experience
in
an
aviation
or
airport
related
field,”
I
am
completely
baffled
by
the
listing
of
experience
in
“commercial
real
estate”
as
an
example
of
such
expertise.
Is
this
a
misprint?
Or
are
the
authors
expecting
some
role
for
the
committee
other
than
one
would
expect
from
the
resolution?
3. In the past, the inclusion of an Aviation Committee member living in Newport Coast has been
said
to
be
an
inviolable
condition
of
the
Newport
Coast
Annexation
Agreement.
How
has
the
elimination
of
that
position
been
justified
without
amending
the
Agreement?
4. The “Purpose & Responsibilities” section refers to Council Policy A-17, but does not indicate if the committee is being asked to review or suggest revisions to it. Isn’t Policy A-17
due
for
an
update?
5. While adding clauses about matters not anticipated in Policy A-17, such as Advanced Air Mobility,
it
refers
to
such
prior
concepts
as
the
Corridor
Cities
Coalition
as
if
they
were
still
viable.
To
the
best
of
my
knowledge,
having
the
support
of
an
active
and
engaged
Corridor
Cities
Coalition
was
considered
important
to
negotiating
the
prior
Settlement
Agreement
amendments.
Yet
the
City
has
done
nothing
to
nurture
it
since,
and
as
far
as
I
know,
the
coalition
no
longer
exists.
Is
the
proposed
new
committee
supposed
to
revive
it?
If
so,
a
committee
of
technical
experts
does
not
seem
particularly
well-suited
to
accomplishing
that
task.
Regarding the existing committee, I don’t think the current dysfunction is a result of its structure so
much
as
the
way
it
has
been
run,
with
infrequent,
and
even
then,
frequently-cancelled,
meetings,
leaving
members
with
a
sense
they
lack
purpose
or
effectiveness.
I also think the ad hoc committee making this recommendation fails to properly understand what has
historically
been
one
of
the
key
functions
of
the
Aviation
Committee,
which
is
to
provide
a
forum
for
residents
to
voice
their
concerns
about
the
airport
to
the
City,
which
the
City
can
then
articulate
to
those
with
the
power
to
do
something
about
them.
The
current
chair
has
mistakenly
told attendees that those concerns would be better directed to the County Airport Commission or to airport staff at JWA’s Quarterly Noise Meetings. But that is not the function of the Airport Commission (they exist to review staff reports going to the Board of Supervisors) and random citizens
speaking
at
the
noise
meetings
do
not
have
the
influence
that
attaches
to
an
official
and
united
message
presented
by
the
City
government.
Regarding preparation for the next round of Settlement Agreement negotiations (the neglect of the existing committee having supposedly resulted from City staff and Council being so busy with
that
they
had
no
time
for
the
committee)
I
think
there
is
much
misunderstanding
about
the
Agreement.
Many
seem
to
think
it
created
the
JWA
curfew
(which
for
“general
aviation”
is
only
a
stricter
noise
limit
during
late
night
hours)
and
is
necessary
to
maintain
it.
In
fact,
the
curfew
and
the
noise
limits
for
both
commercial
and
general
aviation
aircraft
are
part
of
the
County’s
somewhat misnamed General Aviation Noise Ordinance, which slightly predates the Settlement Agreement. The Agreement merely prevents the County from weakening or repealing the curfew
and
noise
limit
provisions
during
its
term.
Since, in previous negotiations, the City gave up limitations of the physical size of airport facilities,
essentially
the
only
thing
that
actually
depends
on
the
Agreement
anymore
are
its
limitations
on
the
number
of
passengers
and
departures
by
the
noisiest
aircraft
–
and
the
City
has
not
been
particularly
effective
at
reining
those
in.
June 10, 2025, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 5 of 8 The following chart compares the actual growth in Million Annual Passengers at JWA (counting both
arrivals
and
departures)
to
the
limits
set
by
the
Agreement.
In
its
initial
phase,
in
the
years
1987
through
1990,
it
definitely
put
a
lid
on
growth.
But
since
then,
the
negotiations
have
repeatedly
raised
the
limit
to
a
level
that
seems
almost
always
above
the
level
that
would
have
been
reached
by
unrestrained
growth.
In
only
a
handful
of
years
(2007,
2017-2019,
and
2023)
does
it
seem
to
have
kept
a
lid
on
the
expansion.
Last
year
(and
likely
this)
it
looks
like
the
Agreement
allows
a
number
of
passengers
well
above
current
demand.
Efforts to rein in the noise from commercial jet operations have had a similarly modest result, as illustrated
by
the
following
table
showing
the
departures
by
class
at
10-year
intervals
over
the
last
30 years,
with
“<SENEL>”
being
the
average
individual
event
noise
in
decibels
at
the
close-in
monitor
#3
on
Anniversary
Lane
(just
north
of
the
Muth
Center
and
YMCA
on
University
Drive):
As shown on the pink line, not only are there more departures than there were 30 years ago, but,
remarkably
and
unexpectedly,
the
average
commercial
departure
generates
more
noise
today
(93.2
dB)
than
it
did
in
1994
(91.5
dB),
at
least
at
this
close-in
location,
which
is
one
of
the
few
where
JWA’s
measurements
allow
a
reliable
comparison.
The increased average noise per departure results largely from there having initially been an intermediate
class
of
departures,
“Class
AA,”
with
a
tighter
noise
limit.
That
was
negotiated
June 10, 2025, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 6 of 8 away in 2003, so we now allow not only a larger number, but a much larger proportion in the noisiest
class,
“Class
A.”
Additionally, every time the equipment used to measure the sound has changed, the County has convinced
the
City
and
the
other
Settlement
Agreement
signatories
to
raise
the
decibel
noise
limits.
To
the
best
of
my
knowledge,
JWA
is
the
only
airport
where
decibel
limits
have
been
relaxed
from
their
historical
values,
allowing
noisier
operations
by
supposedly
quieter
planes.
Item 13. Community Programs and Special Event Grants Recommendations
for
Fiscal
Year
2025-
26 At the top of page 13-5, the staff report says “ Staff met with three councilmembers to discuss its recommendations
for
the
Community
Programs
and
Special
Events
Grants
.”
That
does
not
seem
like
transparency
to
me.
Why
did
staff
meet
with
three
council
members?
Who
chose
them?
What
role
did
they
play
in
shaping
the
recommendations,
and
why
should
their
role
be
any
different
from
that
of
the
other
four
council
members
we
have
elected?
These programs seem largely to support a static list of organizations that expect, and have perhaps
become
dependent
upon,
an
expected
amount
of
public
funding
each
year.
Are
their
actual
proposals
available
for
public
inspection?
The table on page 13-11 shows three new applicants this year. Has anyone who received support
last
year
not
re-applied
for
support
this
year?
Of the new applicants: 1. What park is the Balboa Peninsula Point Association’s “Chili Cook-Off and Picnic at the Park”
held
at?
As
with
their
others
and
some
of
the
other
organization’s
requests,
is
it
open,
on
an
equal
basis,
to
members
of
the
public
who
are
not
members
of
the
Association?
If
not,
why
would
they
be
any
more
deserving
of
support
than
other
neighborhood’s
events?
2. I thought “3rd Thursdays” (the largest new request) was a new initiative of the Corona del
Mar
Chamber
of
Commerce.
Why
is
the
applicant
organization
listed
as
“Visit
Newport
Beach”?
Doesn’t
Visit
Newport
Beach
already
receive
generous
funding
from
the
City?
Item 14. Confirmation of Appointments to the Water Quality/Coastal Tidelands
Committee
This committee, and the appointments to it, have a very confusing history. The City’s Water Quality/Coastal Tidelands Committee webpage cites Resolution No. 2021-11 as its current enabling document, which in turn cites Resolution No. 2012-115 as the document that created it. However, as the preamble to that indicates, this was more of a name change, with
the
group
having
a
long
prior
history,
operating
previously
as
the
Coastal/Bay
Water
Quality
Citizens
Advisory
Committee
and
before
that
as
the
Harbor
Quality
Citizens
Advisory
Committee.
Despite that long history, it has had trouble attracting citizen applicants, and although not mentioned on the webpage or in the staff report, an additional Resolution No. 2023-36 was
June 10, 2025, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 7 of 8 adopted to allow continued service, granting a one-time waiver of the term limits for appointments
made
in
June
2023.
It is particularly confusing how the appointments have come to be made in June when Resolution
No.
2021-11
says
“
appointments
shall
occur
in
January
.”
The staff report for Item 19 from June 27, 2023, the last time WQ/CT appointments were made says:
This oral revision is reflected in the following passages from the February 23, 2021, minutes saying:
and
However, they also indicate that on that date “ Peter Belden, Curtis Black, Charles Francher and Richard
McNei
l”
were
appointed
“
to
serve
on
the
Water
Quality/
Coastal
Tidelands
Committee
for
four-year
six-month
terms
.”
And no written revision to Resolution No. 2021-11 seems to have been made.
June 10, 2025, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 8 of 8 Additionally, unless there is something wrong with my math, a “four-year six-month” or “4.5 year” term
from
February
23 (or
possibly
February
1,
as
seems
to
be
specified
in
Resolution
No.
2021-11)
would
end
on
July
31,
2025,
or
August
22,
2025,
not
on
June
30. If the Council wants a June 30 term ending date, shouldn’t it amend Resolution No. 2021-11 to reflect
its
current
understanding
of
the
WQ/CT
terms?
Regarding the proposed appointment of Sharon Ray, since she is currently a Council appointee to the Aviation Committee, that would normally require waiving the policy against appointing people to more than one standing committee at a time. A waiver would not be necessary if Item 10 terminating
all
the
current
members
of
the
Aviation
Committee
on
June
30th
is
approved,
but
that
Item
10 will
be
approved
is
an
assumption
rather
than
a
certainty.
Item 16. Confirmation of Nominees for Scheduled and Unscheduled Board
and
Commission
Vacancies
At this “confirmation of nominees” stage, it would seem helpful to indicate the number of applications
for
each
position
that
the
Appointments
Committee
had
to
choose
among.
It
would
be
even
more
helpful
to
indicate
the
names
of
those
not
nominated
by
the
committee,
since
this
is
presumably
the
opportunity
for
the
council
members
not
on
the
committee
to
add
nominees.
Item 17. Proposed Relocation of Newport Beach Fire Station No. 3 to 1550
Avocado
Avenue
The staff report is very incomplete. “1550 Avocado Avenue” would seem to be OCTA’s Newport Center Transportation Center. Is the
fire
station
proposed
to
completely
replace
it?
Or
to
co-exist
with
it?
If
it
is
planned
to
replace
the
Transportation
Center,
where
would
the
center
go?
Additionally, justifying the relocation on the basis that it will reduce the response time to certain areas
seems
to
ignore
that
it
must
increase
the
response
time
to
others.
It
is
impossible
to
judge
the
overall
effect
from
what
is
provided.
How
many
residents
will
be
better
served
and
how
many
worse?
On a map, the relocation doesn’t make a lot of sense, since it will place Station 3 closer to Station
5 in
Corona
del
Mar
and
to
Station
8 in
Newport
Coast,
leaving
areas
like
Eastbluff
less
well
served
than
now.
A
location
near
the
intersection
of
MacArthur
and
Ford
Road/Bonita
Canyon
Drive
would
seem
more
equally-spaced
from
the
other
stations.