June 24, 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 SS2. Preparing for the Implementation of Advanced Air Mobility Since the City’s Aviation Committee has not met publicly for a long time, and is in the midst of reorganization (see Item 10 from the June 10 Council meeting), I was unaware the City had contracted with Peter Kirsch. Indeed, I am unable to find any indication of a contract with him in the Clerk’s online contract archive, despite the City Charter Section 603(c) requirement for the Clerk’s records to contain all written contracts.
I do know of Mr. Kirsch from his very thoughtful keynote presentation entitled “Working Together on Land Use Compatibility” at the 2024 Aviation Noise & Emissions Symposium organized by UC Davis. It can be viewed on YouTube. Although it does not deal with Advanced Air Mobility, it does highlight the need for those seeking relief from conflicts to do what is in their own power to avoid making the conflicts worse. The City’s recent history of overruling objections raised by the County Airport Land Use Commission seems exactly what Mr. Kirsch warned against.
Item IX. History of Mayor Dora Hill: The Unlikely Architect of Modern Newport Beach
Bill Lobdell has done much to shine light on various corners of the City’s history. This presentation will likely be similar to his podcast dated September 01, 2021, a near-transcript of which he published as an article in Newport Living.1.
There seems to be a possibility that one aspect of that fascinating and otherwise well-informed historical vignette could be a little misleading: namely, the interpretation that Mayor Dora Hill directed the enactment of our City Charter and that without her leadership, the transition from the former city to one with seven “from district” council members and a professional city manager would have come decades later.
The problem with this interpretation is that the timing is inconsistent with the timeline found in the Charter Background document prepared by our recently-retired City Clerk Leilani Brown for presentation to the most recent Charter Update Committee at their May 24, 2012, meeting, as well as with the timeline included in the “Certificate” at the end of the Charter itself.2 As the former (but not the latter) documents, our city charter was the fruit of two efforts involving a citizens’ petition to the council demanding the election of an independent committee of freeholders to draft and present a charter to the voters for their consideration.3 3 The council’s role in this mode of charter adoption is purely ministerial. They have no say over who is on the committee or what it presents to voters.
2 A facsimile of the charter as originally adopted, including a November 12, 1954, witnessing statement by Mayor Dora O. Hill and the January 1955 approval by the state legislature, can be found archived in the City’s Laserfiche system among the ordinances for 1955. 1 The podcast includes audio excerpts from an oral history archived by San Diego State University, and a YouTube video of Mayor Hill’s appearance as a guest during the November 4, 1954 episode of Groucho Marx’s television quiz show You Bet Your Life
Received After Agenda Printed
June 24, 2025
Written Comments
June 24, 2025, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 2 of 7 The first petition, received in March 1948, possibly in response to the City Council’s voluntary adoption
of
a
city
manager
form
of
government,
4 resulted
in
a
proposed
charter
5 narrowly
rejected in the February 8, 1949, election by a vote of 1,174 “yes” to 1,325 “no.” As the Clerk’s Background document indicates, the Council revived the idea of adopting a city charter
in
1953,
and
was
considering
itself
appointing
a
committee
to
draft
it,
but
was
preempted
by
new
petition
demanding
the
election
of
independent
freeholders,
circulated
by
a
group
calling
itself
the
the
Harbor
Citizens
League,
headed
Arthur
R.
Cubbage,
who
seems
to
have
viewed
the
1949
vote
on
the
previous
group
of
freeholders’
product
as
a
rejection
of
the
city
manager
form
of
government.
In
any
event,
at
the
October
28,
1953,
Council
meeting
the
Clerk
certified
a
sufficient
number
of
signatures
on
that
petition
to
force
the
election
of
a
new
set
of
freeholders,
and
at
the
resulting
December
22,
1953,
election,
the
residents
overwhelmingly
voted
to
do
that.
According to the Certificate at the end of the Charter, and the Clerk’s Background document, the freeholders
certified
their
completed
charter
proposal
on
March
29,
1954,
at
which
meeting
the
Council
set
the
election
to
vote
on
it
for
June
8,
1954.
The problem is the freeholders’ completion of the proposed City Charter by March 29, 1954, seems
to
have
occurred
before
or
contemporaneously
with
when
6 Dora
Hill
was
unexpectedly
asked,
decided
to
run
for,
and
was
elected
to
the
Council
on
April
13,
1954,
or
seated
and
selected as Mayor on April 20, 1954. While a June 3, 1954, article in the Newport Harbor Ensign mentions Mayor Dora Hill as being in the audience at a debate about the charter measure, and “Mr. and Mrs. Edgar R. Hill” are listed as the first-named endorsers of the measure in a “Vote Yes on the Proposed Charter” political ad on the next page, I am not aware of any evidence that Ms.
Hill
was
a
driving
force
behind
or
in
any
way
directed
our
Charter’s
creation
or
its
content.
To the contrary, while she may have favored adoption of a charter, and might possibly have even
run
for
Council
as
a
proponent
of
the
Charter
effort,
she
does
not
seem
to
have
run
as
a
freeholder
to
draft
one
in
1948
or
1953,
and
between
her
appointment
to
the
Library
Board
in
1948
and
her
unanticipated
election
to
the
Council
in
1954,
the
only
other
mention
of
her
in
the
City Council minutes seems to be on page 2 of those for March 26, 1951, which mentions a letter she signed as President of the Newport Harbor PTA, requesting a specially-trained juvenile
officer.
6 The folklore, as reported in 50 Golden Years
is
that
the
request
and
decision
happened
on
“an
April
morning,”
but
with
an
election
set
for
April
13,
it
is
not
clear
when
the
council
candidate
filing
deadline
in
1954
would
have
been.
One
might
think
the
campaign
would
have
lasted
longer
than
12 days
(at
present,
filing
is
required
to
be
completed
a
minimum
of
88 days
before
the
election).
5 I
have
not
found
a
copy
of
the
charter
rejected
in
1949,
but
it
seems
to
have
included
a
change
of
the
City’s
name
to
“Newport
Harbor”
–
a
proposal
rejected
by
voters,
again,
according
to
the
Clerk’s
Background
document,
at
the
April
8,
1958,
election.
4 The City’s governing body, at that time called a Board of Trustees, had proposed adopting a city manager
form
of
government
as
early
as
1928
with
Ordinance No. 337, but it was put to the voters and soundly
rejected
by
them
170
“yes”
to
691
“no”
as
recorded
in
Resolution No. 459. Possibly as a result of
changes
in
state
law,
the
Council
was
apparently
able
to
make
the
change
without
a
need
for
voter
approval
with
Ordinance No. 575, introduced on March 8, 1948 – the same meeting at which it received the
petition
demanding
election
of
freeholders
to
draft
a
charter.
At
the
same
meeting,
according
to
the
minutes, the Council appointed “Mrs. Edgar R. Hill of 61; Via Lido Soud” (Dora) to replace a member who had
resigned
from
the
Board
of
Library
Trustees,
and
also
rejected
a
request
she
had
submitted
by
letter
for
a
refund
of
building
permit
and
utility
connection
fees
paid
for
the
Teen-Canteen,
Inc.
June 24, 2025, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 3 of 7 All of this is to say it might be interesting to have a presentation about the many people who contributed
to
the
apparently
rather
convoluted
path
by
which
our
City
came
to
have
its
present
form
of
government,
in
addition
to
the
one
who
happened
to
be
Mayor
at
the
time
voters
approved
something
close
to
what
we
have
today.
Of
special
interest
might
be
how
our
City
would
have
been
different
if
the
alternative
charter
narrowly
rejected
in
1949
had
been
adopted
instead.
Item 1. Minutes for the May 13, 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. Page 328 , Item V, announcements by Council members Barto and Grant: “ Participated in a field
trip
with
the
Ad
Hoc
Refuse
Committee
to
the
Material
Recovery
Facility
(MRF)
in
Anaheim
.”
Comment : Since the City’s contractor for curbside residential trash collection (CR&R) operates its MRF in Stanton, I thought the Council members had misstated the city they visited. But it appears the visit was to the recently-opened Anaheim MRF of a CR&R competitor, Republic Services, that replaced a previous facility destroyed by fire. It would have
been
helpful
to
indicate
what
the
purpose
of
the
trip
was,
and
how
it
relates
to
the
recommendations the Ad Committee is expected to make (see Item 4 from the March 25, 2025, Council agenda). Might the committee be recommending a change in residential trash
contractors?
Or
asking
CR&R
to
modernize
its
facility?
Or
is
CR&R
already
using
the
Anaheim
MRF?
to
designate
one
position
for
Newport
Coast,
but
if
no
one
from
that
area
applies,
it
would
be
open
to
others
to
fill
the
seat
…
Motion
by
Councilmember
Blom,
seconded
by
Mayor
Pro
Tem
Kleiman,
to
…
b)
adopt
amended
Resolution
No.
2025-31,
A
Resolution
of
the
City
Council
of
the
City
of
Newport
Beach,
California,
Amending
the
Structure,
Membership,
Roles
and
Responsibilities
of
the
Aviation
Committee
;
…”
Comment : A review of the adopted Resolution No. 2025-31 indicates that after the Council’s approval, a sentence was added to the membership section of the attachment saying
“
One
member
shall
be
a
resident
of
Newport
Coast,
provided
that
an
eligible
resident
from
Newport
Coast
submits
an
application
for
appointment
to
the
Committee
.”
That
seems
consistent
with,
but
not
exactly
the
same
as,
what
City
Attorney
Harp
proposes in the video.
7 And this is an improvement over the Water Quality/Coastal Tidelands Committee enabling Resolution No. 2021-11, which states appointments are made in January and commence on February 1, even though a verbal amendment made at
the
time
of
adoption
is
said
to
have
changed
that.
Nonetheless,
it
seems
poor
policy
for
the
Council
to
be
adopting
resolutions
without
knowing
exactly
what
words
it
is
adopting.
7 The YouTube version of the video is labeled “Newport Beach Planning Commission Meeting "LIVE" Thursday
June
19,
2025
@6:00
PM”
even
though
it
is
the
June
10 Council
meeting.
June 24, 2025, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 4 of 7
investments
in
security
measures,
including
the
use
of
flock Flock cameras and
implementation
of
a
new
drone
program
.”
removing
Sites
146
and
147
from
the
ordinance
and
resolutions
.”
Comment : This item involved introduction of Ordinance No. 2025-10 and adoption of Resolution No. 2025-32 and Resolution No. 2025-33. The last minute amendment again underscores the pitfalls of orally amending documents on the fly without asking to see what
words
are
actually
being
approved
before
they
are
signed.
After
removal
of
Sites
146
and 147, the Clerk’s version of the introduced Ordinance No. 2025-10 contains an updated map showing seven “Height Exception Areas” labeled A through G, which, as requested,
excludes
from
change
Sites
146
and
147.
However,
what
was
formerly
intended
as
an
identical
map
in
Resolution
No.
2025-32
was
not
updated.
So,
despite
the
requested
amendment,
the
signed
submittal
to
the
Coastal
Commission
continues
to
show
eight
“Height
Exception
Areas,”
including
sites
146
and
147.
While
those
two
sites
are
not
within
the
coastal
zone,
and
therefore
not
within
the
CCC’s
jurisdiction,
the
information
being
submitted
is
incorrect
and
will
cause
Title
20 and
Title
21 of
our
Municipal
Code
to
contain
inconsistent
maps.
Item 3. Ordinance Nos. 2025-7 and 2025-8: Approving an Amendment to
the
North
Newport
Center
Planned
Community
(PC-56)
Development
Plan
and
a
Development
Agreement
Since it proposes massive changes to the character of Newport Center, this item would merit extensive
comment.
But
since
the
chance
of
producing
any
change,
even
the
correction
of
obvious
errors,
at
the
second
reading
of
items
in
Newport
Beach
is
nearly
non-existent,
the
effort
seems
futile.
Speaking of futility, I would not be surprised if the Council members have been extensively lobbied
on
this
matter
by
CAA
Planning
and
its
CEO,
Shawna
Schaffner.
I
used
to
commend
Ms.
Schaffner
for
being
one
of
the
very
few
lobbyists
who
continued
to
renew
their
registration
in
Newport’s Lobbyist Registration System a year after it was enacted by Ordinance No. 2020-3. It looks like even she has discovered that the Council has never bothered to impose any consequences
for
not
registering,
so
doing
so
is
as
pointless
as
commenting
on
this
item.
That said, surely the proposed height increases, if approved, will have, at minimum, aesthetic impacts.
Dismissing
those
as
having
been
adequately
considered
in
the
Housing
Element
Implementation
EIR
–
which
assumed
the
existing
limits
would
continue
–
cannot
be
correct.
And as to the higher-cost market rate residential units the height increases will make possible, it is
true
the
agreement
proposes
some
mitigation
in
the
form
of
a
promise
to
build
some
affordable
units
at
some
other
location,
but
the
number
promised
is
far
short
of
the
40%
affordable
our
Housing
Element
promised
was
realistic
to
expect
at
each
of
these
Newport
Center
housing
opportunity
sites.
What has happened to the Housing Element's Policy Action 1K promise to adopt an interim inclusionary
policy
within
6 months
of
Housing
Element
adoption
and
an
inclusionary
ordinance
June 24, 2025, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 5 of 7 within 36 months of Housing Element adoption to ensure the 40% affordable projection is met? Is
the
inclusionary
ordinance
close
to
completion?
Should
the
Council
hold
off
on
approving
this
agreement
until
it
is
decided
what
the
ordinance
will
require?
Item 5. Ordinance No. 2025-10: Approving an Amendment to the Housing
Opportunity
(HO)
Overlay
Zoning
Districts
As noted in a comment to the draft minutes from the June 10 meeting (Item 1, above) where this ordinance
was
introduced,
the
City
may
have
submitted
to
the
Coastal
Commission
a
version
of
the
“Height
Exception
Areas”
map
to
be
adopted
with
this
ordinance,
erroneously
showing
increased
heights
at
the
church
sites
which
the
Council
will
not
be
approving.
As with Item 3, above, I think the aesthetic impacts of the proposed height increases have been too
cavalierly
dismissed.
As
I
indicated
orally
when
this
ordinance
was
introduced,
those
doing
the
evaluation
seemed
unaware
that
Avocado
Avenue
is
a
designated
view
road.
Item 8. Resolution No. 2025-37: Accepting the Department of Homeland
Security
Operation
Stonegarden
Grant
Funds
Fiscal
Year
2024
Section 3 of the proposed resolution commits the City “ to provide all match funds, if any .” The staff report does not explain if any matching funds will be required. Also, in view of the current conflict between state and federal agencies over immigration policy, the
public
may
want
additional
assurances
that
the
equipment
and
overtime
will
not
be
used
to
assist
in
the
apprehension
of
law-abiding
persons
with
long
residence
in
our
country.
Item 22. Visit Newport Beach, Inc. FY 2026 Destination Business Plan Budget,
Leisure
Marketing
(TOT)
FY
2026
Budget,
and
Performance
Standards
Report
The staff report mentions recently-completed “ significant organizational and governance changes
,”
but
it
does
not
provide
any
details
of
what
those
were,
other
than
consolidating
Visit
Newport
Beach
and
Newport
Beach
&
Company..
In particular, it is not immediately apparent from the materials provided whether Visit Newport Beach
or
some
other
entity
provides
the
non-City-funded
functions
that
Newport
Beach
&
Company
formerly
engaged
in,
such
as
conference
sales
and
merchants
associations
support,
or
what
firewalls
are
in
place
to
prevent
commingling
of
the
funds
or
services
with
the
non-City
activities.
It also doesn’t explain if the former position of a Council-appointed City representative on the Visit
Newport
Beach,
Inc.,
Executive
Committee
(which
appointment
was
set
to
expire
this
June),
or
even
the
Executive
Committee,
still
exists.
If
it
has
disappeared,
someone
might
wish
to inform the City Clerk, since the position still appears on her Roster of Boards, Commissions and Committees.
June 24, 2025, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 6 of 7 Item 23. 2025 Drinking Water Quality Report on Public Health Goals The staff report says that “ every June, the Utilities Department mails a detailed drinking water quality
report
to
all
water
users
.”
A
report
was
actually
not
mailed
to
users
this
year.
Instead,
we
received
a
“Ride
to
Water
Quality”
postcard
announcing
a
report
was
available
online
and
providing a phone number to call to request a printed copy. The 2025 Annual Water Quality Report found at the link provided ( https://www.newportbeachca.gov/government/water-quality ) is something quite different from the “2025 Drinking Water Quality Report on Public Health Goals” attached to the staff report as Attachment A. That report does not yet seem to have been posted to the website yet, with the 2022 report being the most recent available there.
Item 25. Appointments to Scheduled and Unscheduled Board and Commission
Vacancies
The staff report says that Jennifer Strong “ has requested to be withdrawn from consideration pertaining
to
the
Board
of
Library
Trustees
.”
I have little doubt that the Council will ultimately re-appoint Timothy “Chase” Rief to the BLT.
However,
his
term
is
ending
on
June
30th,
and
as
someone
who
has
applied,
continuously,
since
2009,
for
a
position
on
the
BLT
(but
never
been
nominated),
I
have
to
object
to
the
Council
voting on that appointment with a single nominee. Council Policy A-2 requires a minimum of two nominees for each appointment, and there is nothing on the agenda announcing the possibility a
vote
will
be
taken
to
waive
the
policy.
As to waiving Policy A-2, there is no urgency about the matter since City Charter Section 702 allows the incumbents to continue serving until their successors have been named. So, the clearly
better
alternative
is
to
defer
the
vote
until
at
least
two
nominees
have
been
identified.
That is the path that was taken 10 years ago when recently-arrived resident Will O’Neill, similar to
Ms.
Strong,
was
considering
withdrawing
his
nomination
to
serve
on
the
BLT,
8 which
had
been previously confirmed as part of Item 20 on the June 9, 2015, consent calendar. In that case, on June 23rd, the entire BCC appointment process was deferred to the next meeting (see Item 25 on that agenda), apparently to give Mr. O’Neill time to reach his decision. That seems a bit extreme, but when the matter came back as Item 21 on the July 14, 2015, agenda, with Mr. O’Neill having announced his decision to withdraw on June 30, 9 the BLT
appointment
was
further
postponed
until
a
replacement
nominee
could
be
identified.
In
that
case,
it
included
re-posting
of
the
vacancy
announcement
and
accepting
additional
applications,
which
again
seems
a
bit
extreme
since
ample
other
valid
applications
(including
mine)
were
already
on
file
to
choose
between.
In summary, the Council should continue the BLT appointment to a future meeting at which the Appointments
Committee
advances
at
least
two
nominees
for
the
position,
in
keeping
with
9 Although he was not arrested until 2016, Mr. Wu resigned from the Finance Committee on July 1, 2015, and
Mr.
O’Neill
was
appointed
to
replace
him
on
July
28 (see
Item 13
on
the
consent
calendar
from
that
date).
8 Mr. O’Neill’s decision may have been prompted by a developing story about allegations of campaign funds
embezzlement
by
Jack
Wu,
likely
leading
to
Mr.
Wu’s
resignation
of
his
recently-created
position
as
a
citizen
member
of
the
City’s
Finance
Committee,
creating
an
opening
on
that
body.
June 24, 2025, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 7 of 7 Policy A-2, or at which a vote to waive the policy and proceed with a single nominee is properly agendized
and
justified.
Alternatively, and considering that the term limits imposed by Policy A-2 appear intended to limit consecutive
terms,
only,
if
the
Appointments
Committee
is
unable
to
find
any
other
qualified
people
(including
me)
among
the
existing
pool
of
applicants,
they
could,
as
in
2015,
consider
asking
the
Clerk
to
re-advertise
the
opening
and
invite
former
BLT
members
to
reapply.
There also appears to be an insufficient number of nominees for appointment to the City Arts Commission,
with
four
positions
to
be
filled
and
only
seven
candidates,
when
there
should
be
eight.
Again, the Council should either ask the Appointments Committee to find another candidate for appointment
to
the
Arts
Commission,
properly
announce
an
intent
to
waive
Policy
A-2
or
re-advertise
the
openings.