August 26, 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 July 22, 2025, Regular City Council Meeting and July 29, 2025, Special City Council Meeting
The passages shown in italics below are from the draft minutes with suggested corrections shown in strikeout underline format. The page numbers refer to Volume 66.
Chief included an increase in each of their base salaries by 9% for the Fire Chief and Assistant Fire Chief; and 6% for the Assistant Chief and Lifeguard Operations, effective July 12, 2025; 4% increases for all three positions effective July 11, 2026; and 4% increases in all three positions effective July 10, 2027.” [see video]
Councilmember Grant, and unanimously carried by those members present (Councilmember Barto absent), to approve the Consent Calendar including amendments to Agenda Item 1; staff requested continuance of Agenda Item 3; amendment to Agenda Item 6, Exhibit B; and with noted recusals on Agenda Items 3, 5 and 15.” [Note: although Item 3 was continued, recusals with regard to it are noted earlier on the page]
probably include the reason, as the previous page noted there were recusals, but did not say why. Something in keeping with the style of the other notes might be: “Councilmembers Weber, Grant, and Mayor Pro Tem Kleiman recused themselves from Agenda Item 3 citing real property conflicts of interest.”
report shows allocations funds that were received from the federal government, but it is unclear exactly how much money we have to spend and if we do not spend it, what are the City’s options. Mr. Mosher further noted that it is unclear whether we have $402,000 or $315,000 to spend; reviewed historical loan and payoff funding for the improvements in Balboa Village that appears to have gone away; noted an administrative fee from MicroBaker Michael Baker International and questioned how they were chosen; noted that under “Capital Projects” there is an amount that seems to exceed the limit and questioned whether it was a typographical error; additiona;ly additionally under “Capital Projects” there is an application from Trellis who works in senior home maintenance and it appears that would have been a good project to fund; and noted the Consolidated Action Plan is provided in the staff report by a link and is incomplete due to the inclusion omission of appendices one of which explains the public survey process.”
opinions from the City Attorney; noted that there was no announcement of an appointment at the last City Council meeting; voiced his objection to the process especially because there is no urgency about this matter; noted the City Council has five months before needing to appoint a City Manager; explained that the hiring processes should be followed per the City Charter; noted that the Charter requires the screening of applicants but to his knowledge there was no application process; reviewed the two previous City Manager appointments that had included a Received After Agenda Printed
August 26, 2025
Written Comments
August 26, 2025, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 2 of 9 nationwide search; and stated what he thought there were ethical lapses with the proposed City Manager
appointee
.”
people
to
be
in
charge
of
the
City;
…”
[delete
comma]
Item 3. Ordinance 2025-19: Amending Title 11 (Recreational Activities) of
the
Newport
Beach
Municipal
Code
Related
to
the
Prohibition
of
Climbing
on
Railings
of
Public
Property
and
Amending
Title
11 (Recreational
Activities)
Related
to
Swimming
Regulations
and
Restrictions
on
Diving,
Jumping
and
Climbing
on
Public
Property
Adjacent
to
Waterways
I am always troubled to see ordinances being both introduced and adopted on the consent calendar.
It
means
that
we
are
expanding
our
Municipal
Code
with
an
ever-increasing
number
of
laws
that
have
never
been
carefully
reviewed
in
public,
let
alone
debated.
In the present case, the preamble (on staff report page 3-3) to the proposed ordinance indicates its
intent
is
confined
to
jumping
into
water.
But
the
proposed
new
NBMC
Section
11.12.140
1 “prohibiting
the
climbing
on
railings
of
public
property”
doesn’t,
when
read
in
isolation,
have
anything
to
do
with
swimming
or
recreation.
So,
doesn’t
it
seem
illogical
to
place
it
within
a
NBMC chapter entitled “Swimming Regulations” under the broader NBMC title of “Recreational Activities”? Wouldn’t something about climbing on public property in general make more sense in Title 10 (Offenses and Nuisances) or Title 13 (Streets, Sidewalks and Public Property)? One might also ask if there is not already some law that would allow the police to intervene if someone
is
seen
perched
on
the
railing
of
a
bridge
or
structure
that
is
not
near
water,
in
a
manner
suggesting
intent
to
do
something
placing
themselves
or
others
in
imminent
danger?
1 Although the staff report refers to it as a “Chapter,” it should be evident from page 3-4 that “11.12.140” will
actually
be
a
“Section”
within
Chapter
11.12. August 26, 2025, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 3 of 9 For example, is there no current way to prevent people from balancing on the railing of the cantilevered
bridge
in
the
Civic
Center
Park
(pictured
above)?
Alternatively, if, as the preamble suggests, the intent is indeed to confine this to regulation of climbing
related
to
diving
or
jumping
into
water,
rather
than
adding
a
new
section,
would
it
not
make more sense to add the new regulations to (and combine them with) existing Section 11.12.150 (Diving or Jumping from Public Property) to make obvious the connection with diving and jumping into water (which are swimming regulations)? In other words, wouldn’t it be better, simpler
and
more
concise,
to
simply
propose
to
add
between
the
first
and
second
sentences
of
existing
Section
11.12.150
something
like
“
It
is
additionally
unlawful
to
climb
on
such
structures
with
an
apparent
intent
to
dive
or
jump
”?
As to the revisions that are proposed to existing Section 11.12.150, the item is unusual in that neither
the
staff
report
nor
a
redlined
version
reveals
what
the
revisions
might
be,
or
why
those
particular
changes,
whatever
they
might
be,
are
being
proposed.
A comparison with the existing code suggests that the changes are confined to wordsmithing, likely with no intent to change the meaning of the existing code. That said, it is not obvious the proposed revisions are entirely an improvement or that they have caught
all
the
problems
with
the
existing
code.
In some respects, it may be too broadly written. For example, what is meant by “ or otherwise enter
the
water
”?
Is
it
a
misdemeanor
for
a
boat
owner
to
step
over
a
public
bulkhead
or
seawall
to
“enter
the
water”
to
get
to
their
on-shore
mooring?
In other respects, it may be too narrowly written. For example, are the lists it contains meant to be
exhaustive?
Or
to
be
representative
of
the
kinds
of
things
listed?
If
the
latter,
the
regulation
would
normally
say
something
like
“including
but
not
limited
to,”
which
this
does
not.
In addition to the lack of exceptions for persons legitimately using public property to access the water,
even
the
existing
exception
confined
to
“
City
employees
or
City
contractors
who
are
performing
their
official
duties
”
seems
too
narrow.
Don’t
City
employees
host
events
at
which
Junior
Guards
and
even
Council
members
are
invited
to
jump
from
the
Newport
Pier?
I
don’t
believe
the
Junior
Guards
are
City
employees
or
City
contractors.
Do
we
regard
them
as
criminals
if
they,
or
anyone
else,
follow
a
City
employee’s
instructions
to
jump?
Item 4. Ordinance No. 2025-11: Amending Section 9.04.470 (Local Agency
Very
High
Fire
Hazard
Severity
Zone)
To
Adopt
the
2025
Moderate,
High,
and
Very
High
Fire
Hazard
Severity
Zones,
As
Designated
By
The
California
Department
of
Forestry
and
Fire
Protection
and
Pursuant
to
California
Government
Code
Section
51178
As the staff report indicates, this ordinance was introduced on July 8 with a note that state law required it to be adopted by July 22. Yet, at the July 22 meeting, the adoption was, without explanation, postponed to the present meeting.
August 26, 2025, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 4 of 9 The present report continues to lack explanation of why the item was postponed (there do not be
any
changes
to
the
July
8 version
proposed)
or
what
the
consequences
of
missing
the
state-mandated
deadline
might
be.
Is the ordinance being presented for adoption the same as that introduced on July 8? Why was the adoption delayed? What are the consequences of missing the state-required adoption date? My guess is the consequences may be confined to the City losing the ability to add areas to the state
map,
but
I
don’t
know
if
this
is
correct.
Item 8. Ordinances Nos. 2025-15 and 2025-16: Newport Beach Municipal
Code
Amendments
Related
to
Short
Term
Lodging
(PA2023-0116)
As I indicated at the first reading, in addition to the issue regarding the 20-unit minimum ownership
requirement
to
qualify
for
a
STL
permit
in
a
mixed
use
area,
there
is
a
conflict
between
the
City’s
understanding
of
the
City’s
1,550
STL
permits
cap
and
the
Coastal
Commission’s
understanding
of
it.
As
proposed
here,
the
Coastal
Commission
understands
1,550
to
be
the
City’s
limit
for
permits
in
the
coastal
zone,
alone,
whereas
the
City
understands
it
to
be
the
limit
on
STL
permits
in
the
entire
city
(including
both
the
coastal
zone
and
areas
outside
the
coastal
zone).
Before
adopting
this,
the
Council
should
be
careful
it
understands
the
possible
consequences
of
that
difference
in
interpretation.
Item 9. Ordinance No. 2025-17: Approving the Third Amendment to Development
Agreement
No.
DA2012-003
for
the
Uptown
Newport
Planned
Community
located
at
4321
Jamboree
Road
(PA2025-0010)
If the Council members have reviewed public comments received at the June 19, 2025, Planning Commission meeting where this agreement was reviewed (see video) they will know they have constituents who bought into the Uptown Newport concept on the belief that the landlord
had
an
agreement
with
the
City
that
the
TowerJazz
semiconductor
plant,
next
to
which
they
live,
and
the
disturbances
it
generates,
would
be
gone
by
a
date
certain.
This amendment, if approved, would extend that end date by 3.5 years. Since the agreement is contingent
on
public
benefits
to
be
provided
by
the
developer,
they
thought
it
would
be
reasonable
for
the
City
to
require
additional
benefits
to
compensate
for
the
additional
and
unanticipated
inconveniences
residents
would
be
put
to
by
the
delay.
Yet
the
present
proposal
does
not
include
any
new
public
benefit
in
return
for
the
extension.
While I am not sure that phasing out industrial uses is in the best interests of the City, I am sympathetic
to
the
residents’
concerns,
and
feel
an
increased
benefit
is
appropriate
in
return
for
an
extended
term.
It might be noted that this amendment places the anticipated closing date of TowerJazz beyond the
ending
date
of
the
current
development
agreement.
And
I
understand
an
extension
of
the
agreement
itself
is
being
negotiated.
I
hope
the
delay
in
the
previously-agreed-to
closing
date
for
TowerJazz
will
be
factored
into
the
public
benefit
needed
to
extend
the
term
of
the
agreement.
August 26, 2025, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 5 of 9 It might be noted that at the June 19 hearing, Mr. Shopoff, the developer, said he expected TowerJazz
to
close
“much
sooner”
than
the
3.5 years.
But
years
ago,
Mr.
Shopoff
similarly
promised
he
would
move
heaven
and
earth
to
get
Uptown
Newport
moved
from
the
Santa
Ana
Unified
School
District
to
the
Newport
Mesa
Unified
School
District,
so
that
its
residents
could
feel
truly
part
of
the
larger
community.
And
nothing
happened.
Item 10. Ordinance No. 2025-17: Approving the Third Amendment to Development
Agreement
No.
DA2012-003
for
the
Uptown
Newport
Planned
Community
located
at
4321
Jamboree
Road
(PA2025-0010)
As I attempted to argue to the Coastal Commission, without much success, the ordinance, as proposed, appears to not update the map of the planned community in Section 21.80.065 of the LCP Implementation Plan. As a result, the map will be out of sync with the text, showing a location
for
“a
tennis
clubhouse,
bungalows
and
villas”
whereas
the
text
will
specify
“a
tennis
and
pickleball
club,
villas,
condominiums,
and
a
hotel.”
Item 15. Alley Reconstruction (Assessment District 111, Underground Utility
District
22 Phase
2 and
Assessment
District
124
Phase
0 Areas)
-
Notice
of
Completion
for
Contract
No.
8820-2
(23R07)
For those not following this closely, the staff report does not explain why “ the poles along North Bayfront
alley
have
not
been
removed
”
if
this
“
was
the
final
step
in
the
utility
undergrounding
process
after
power
pole
removal
and
associated
water
main
replacement
efforts
in
the
AD
111
area
.”
Was
it
never
the
plan
to
remove
them?
Or
is
this
not
really
the
“final
step”?
Item 16. Approval of Professional Services Agreement with Verde Design,
Inc.
for
Bonita
Creek
Park
Athletic
Field
Synthetic
Turf
Replacement
(Project
No.
26P11)
(Contract
No.
9890-1)
Is this one of the first synthetic turf installations in the city? It would have been helpful to indicate if
the
turf
to
be
replaced
has
performed
as
expected.
Also, was (or should) the decision to continue with synthetic turf have been reviewed by the Parks,
Beaches
and
Recreation
Commission?
A little history would have been helpful, since this is only preliminary to a larger contract to come.
Item 21. Temporary Fire Station No. 1 Project - Award of Contract No. 8865-3
(23F12)
This project to create a temporary fire station in a portion of the Balboa Pier Parking Lot generated
considerable
pushback
from
nearby
residents
when
it
was
presented
to
the
Zoning
Administrator,
including
how
ingress
and
egress
would
be
handled.
Have
their
concerns
been
addressed?
August 26, 2025, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 6 of 9 Item 29. Approval and Award of Printing Services Agreement for Newport
Navigator
Magazine
with
Advantage
Mailing
LLC
It might have been helpful to indicate which, if any, of the bidders is the incumbent contractor.
From
the
City
Clerk’s
contracts
database,
it
looks
like
the
City
last
constracted
with
Trend
Offset
Printing,
but
they
assigned
the
contract
to
Mittera,
who
is
the
incumbent,
in
2021
per
contract
C-8631-2A.
Item 32. Appointment of William Lobdell as the Newport Beach City Historian
Laureate
Not to detract from Mr. Lobdell’s fine accomplishments, but in completing its review, did the ad hoc
nominating
commitee
consider
or
have
any
other
applicants
to
review?
The
staff
report
does
not
seem
to
say.
Item 33. Confirmation of Nominees to Serve on the Aviation Committee
I have multiple misgivings about the recent reorganization of the Aviation Committee, and am disappointed
that
I
am
not
one
of
the
nominees
despite
having
had
an
application
on
file
far
longer
than
most
of
those
being
considered.
I am, nonetheless, somewhat pleased to see the Council being asked to follow a public process with
two
nominees
for
each
position
and
the
final
selection
to
be
voted
upon
by
the
full
Council
at
its
next
meeting.
The reasons I am only somewhat pleased include the staff report’s statement that the 10 candidates
were
selected
from
23 applications
by
the
Aviation
Ad
Hoc
Committee,
which
it
identifies
as
consisting
of
Councilmember
Barto,
Mayor
Pro
Tem
Kleiman
and
Mayor
Stapleton.
1. I thought the Aviation Ad Hoc Committee had sunset upon making its recommendation to adopt Resolution No. 2025-31 as Item 10 at the June 10, 2025, Council meeting. 2. Even if the Aviation Ad Hoc Committee continues to exist, its members, according to the minutes of the February 25, 2025, Council meeting at which it was created, and confirmed in the June 10 report, consist of Mayor Pro Tern Lauren Kleiman and Councilmembers
Michelle
Barto
and
Noah
Blom
(not
Mayor
Stapleton).
3. Screening applications does not appear to be a duty the Aviation Ad Hoc Committee was ever
charged
with.
2 And, it seems necessary to point out this process is at odds with that set forth in the enabling resolution
for
the
committee,
provided
as
Attachment
A
to
the
staff
report.
The
relevant
provision
(see
page
33-7)
clearly
states
that
“
Up
to
five
(
5)
citizen
members
shall
be
appointed
by
the
Mayor,
subject
to
confirmation
by
the
City
Council
.”
There
is
nothing
about
the
full
Council
making
selections
from
a
wider
field.
2 Resolution No. 2025-10 creating the Aviation Ad Hoc Committee does include a responsibility to review and
make
recommendations
regarding
“membership,”
but
I
take
that
to
mean
setting
qualifications
to
be
a
member,
not
screening
applications
for
membership.
Even
more
importantly,
the
Resolution
No.
2025-31
they
recommended
adopting
includes
no
further
role
for
the
Ad
Hoc
Committee
and
explicitly
places
responsibility
for
selecting
Aviation
Committee
appointees
with
the
Mayor.
August 26, 2025, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 7 of 9 The staff report cites City Council Policy A-2 as dictating the method of selection, requiring two nominees for each position and final selection by the full Council, despite what the enabling resolution
for
the
committee
might
say
to
the
contrary.
In
fairness
to
the
Interim
Clerk,
her
choice
to follow Policy A-2 seems based on the Council’s action on Item 10 at the June 10, 2025, to both adopt Resolution No. 2025-31, saying the Mayor makes the appointments, and “ Direct the City
Clerk
to
initiate
the
process
for
filling
the
vacancies
on
the
Aviation
Committee
pursuant
to
the
Maddy
Act
and
City
Council
Policy
A-2
.”
At the very least, it is confusing to adopt a resolution setting one procedure for appointment and simultaneously
give
direction
to
the
Clerk
to
do
something
different.
It
certainly
puts
the
Clerk
in
an
awkward
spot.
I am not sure which prevails, but much as I prefer the A-2 procedure, I would tend to think the method
dictated
by
the
resolution
takes
precedence.
Setting all this aside, of the candidates being considered, I would recommend the Council give special
attention
to
Jack
Stranberg,
one
of
the
proposed
holdovers
from
the
current
Aviation
Committee.
Based
on
my
attendance
at
those
former
Committee
meetings,
it
is
my
impression
that
Jack
has
been
instrumental
in
persuading
Southwest
Airlines,
by
far
the
dominant
commercial
carrier
at
John
Wayne
Airport,
to
greatly
increase
the
fraction
of
their
routes
being
flown
by
the
Boeing
737
MAX
8,
which,
although
not
perfect,
is
both
quieter
than
the
planes
it
will
replace,
and
can
fly
the
same
number
of
people
with
fewer
departures.
This
started
on
August
5th,
and
is
one
of
the
few
positive
accomplishments
in
recent
years.
Item 35. Resolution No. 2025-55: Ford Road Townhomes Appeal (PA2025-0049)
I think it is important for the public to understand that approval of this market rate housing development
will
do
nothing
whatsoever
to
help
Newport
Beach
meet
its
state-mandated
housing
obligations.
Yet, based on information in the staff report and elsewhere, even if the Council thought it both unnecessary
and
incompatible
with
the
neighborhood,
recent
changes
to
state
law
give
it
little
or
no
latitude
to
deny
the
project.
At
most,
it
could
require
the
applicant
to
comply
with
all
the
Objective
Design
Standards
recently
adopted
by
the
Council.
The reason it will do nothing, is that the City faces no current requirement to provide more market
rate
housing,
having
already
approved
more
than
enough.
What it continues to face a requirement for, and a large one, is to allow new housing for households
with
moderate,
low
and
very
low
incomes.
This unfortunate situation of being forced to approve something that is not required, while at the same
time
not
helping
with
what
is
required,
is
the
result
of
bad
decisions
on
the
part
of
the
City.
While designated this as a “housing opportunity site” in the 6th Cycle Housing Element was not necessarily a bad decision, promising that it could specifically yield 6 moderate and 19 low/very low
income
units,
and
then
rezoning
it
with
no
requirement
to
produce
any
of
those
units
was.
August 26, 2025, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 8 of 9 Had the zoning required those units, we would be making some, however modest, progress toward
our
requirements
to
provide
affordable
units.
As
it
is,
the
failure
of
those
to
appear
not
only
means
no
progress,
but
actually
eats
into
the
buffer
the
Council
approved.
3 Item 37. Agreement for Purchase and Sale and Escrow Instructions with
3848
Campus
L.P.
for
the
Purchase
of
Real
Property
at
3848
Campus
Drive
Historically, property in Newport Beach has appreciated in value. But speculating in real estate is
inherently
risky
and
not
normally
the
sort
of
thing
a
city
would
do
with
its
funds.
In
this
case,
the
current
owner
evidently
thinks
it
is
time
to
sell.
In
other
words,
that
the
property’s
value
is
likely
to
fall,
or
at
least
that
his
money
would
do
better
invested
elsewhere.
It is not clear that City staff disagrees with that, for it seems to be recommending snapping it up at
substantially
more
than
its
assessed
value
not
as
an
investment,
but
rather
for
some
needed
future
use.
The specifics of what that future use might be, and when the need will arise, seem suspect. It has previously been suggested that the Newport Center Fire Station needs to move to the current
Transportation
Center
location
north
of
the
City
Hall
and
that
the
City
needs
to
find
a
new
location
for
the
Transportation
Center,
with
3848
Campus
Drive
now
being
revealed
a
logical
location.
But I put in a Public Records Act request for the study purportedly showing the Transportation Center
would
be
a
better
location
for
the
fire
station,
and
the
City
could
find
none.
And
OCTA,
based
on
their
letter
in
the
agenda
packet,
seems
at
best
lukewarm
on
the
idea
of
moving
at
all,
and
especially
skeptical
of
the
idea
that
3848
Campus
Drive
would
be
a
better
location
for
a
Transit
Center
than
its
present
one.
At the same time, doesn’t being near a transit center increase the value and usability of neighboring
properties?
Is it possible the seller sees a chance to make a quick profit on this parcel while increasing the value
of
other
parcels
he
owns
nearby?
Item XXII.A.1. Pacaso, Inc. v. City of Newport Beach It was probably inevitable that Pacaso, Inc., the purveyor of fractional ownership timeshare residences,
would
sue
the
City.
However, it might be worth reminding the Council that from the outset, the City’s legal position was
significantly
undermined
by
the
current
City
Manager
designate
making
public
statements
in
his
role
as
Community
Development
Director
that
the
City’s
existing
codes
could
not
be
used
to
prohibit
Pacaso’s
operations.
This
conclusion
required
a
tortured
reading
of
the
codes,
ignoring
their
history.
As
many
residents
pointed
out,
an
equally
or
even
more
plausible
reading
would
have
been
that
the
existing
timeshare
regulations
prohibited
Pacaso’s
operations
from
the
start,
and
that
all
the
facilities
they
had
created
were
illegal
and
could
be
removed.
3 The buffer allows for affordable units not materializing as promised, but once it is exhausted, the City will have
to
identify
still
more
sites
at
which
affordable
units
can
both
be
allowed
and
expected.
August 26, 2025, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 9 of 9 As a result of the Director’s pronouncements, the City had to embark on a lengthy process of making
cosmetic
amendments
to
the
timeshare
codes
to
restate
their
original
intent,
during
which
time
more
timeshares
were
established
and
are
now
“grandfathered
in”
to
the
detriment
of
their
neighbors.
One might hope the Council will expect greater caution from their City Manager designate in the future
(as
well
as
from
the
next
Community
Development
Director).