September 9, 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 VII. MATTERS WHICH COUNCILMEMBERS HAVE ASKED TO BE
PLACED ON A FUTURE AGENDA
Without weighing in on the merits of the proposal presented under this heading, it is remarkable to see from the City’s Active Planning Activities site that on September 3, before this agenda was published, and long before the Council had given any direction to do so, City staff had opened a planning activity file, PA2025-0171, to initiate the code amendments the Council may or may not ask for.
Item 1. Minutes for the August 26, 2025, Special City Council Meeting and the August 26, 2025, Regular 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.
[Comment: The video confirms the accuracy of this, and the absence of any additional explanation. As a bicycle rider, I am pleased to see people are concerned about bike safety.
That said, I have no recollection of previously hearing about the existence of a “Bike and Bike Safety Working Group,” and have no idea of who created it, who is on it or where or when it meets. Is this a City Council group? Or something else?]
to approve the Consent Calendar, including amendments to Agenda Item No. 1, the Minutes; a “no” vote on Agenda Item 3 by Councilmember Weigand; and noted recusals.” [Comment: Although I submitted some suggested corrections to the minutes provided as Agenda Item 1, I do not recall any list of officially-proposed amendments to the minutes having been made available for inspection prior to this motion.]
from the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) requiring the City to revise and update the City’s ADU ordinance; requested the City to do a thorough review of the responsive amendments; and noted what he believed were typographical errors in the proposed ordinance.”
[Note: See my comments on Item 5, below. “Typographical errors” was the City Attorney’s characterization, in response to a Council member’s inquiry, of what I had commented about.
However, my point was they were not typographical errors, but substantive errors requiring the ordinance to be corrected and re-introduced. If the minutes were to be complete, they would indicate that after the Mayor closed public comments, the City Attorney responded to an inquiry from Council member Grant, saying staff could correct typographical errors.] Received After Agenda Printed
September 9, 2025
Written Comments
September 9, 2025, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 2 of 6
communications
with
the
applicant
which were indicated regarding matters described in the staff
report
and
exhibits.
”
[ Comment : To the best of my knowledge, there is no indication in the staff report or exhibits that
Council
members
had
communicated
with
the
applicant.
The
claim
was
that
the
communications
were
confined
to
matters
covered
in
the
written
materials.]
Item 3. Ordinance No. 2025-22: Amending Chapter 10.08 (Use of Public
Property
and
Interference
with
Public
Access)
of
the
Newport
Beach
Municipal
Code
to
Add
Provisions
Related
to
the
Protection
of
Pedestrians,
Vehicle
Traffic
and
Landscaping
Since this item proposes to make amendments to the Municipal Code, it is a bit surprising and disappointing
that
at
its
introduction
no
redline
has
been
provided
showing
exactly
what
is
being
changed.
One
hopes
that
the
changes
are
confined
to
the
subject
at
hand,
but
that
is
unnecessarily
difficult
to
verify.
As to the section that is being added, proposed new Section 10.08.012 (Safe Use of Medians), part
“B”
seems
to
me
to
include
an
unnecessarily
complicated
three-point
exercise
in
logic
that
readers
must
solve
by
referencing
multiple
new
definitions
to
determine
if
they
are
engaging
in
“prohibited
conduct,”
and
in
which
the
each
point,
confusingly,
seems
render
largely
moot
the
previous
ones.
Wouldn’t it have been a lot simpler to say something like: “ Except as provided in subsection C, it is
unlawful
for
any
person
to
stand
or
walk
on
any
median
within
the
City
other
than
on
a
part
providing
a
flat
paved
or
non-decorative
concrete
raised
surface
at
least
forty-eight
(48)
inches
in
width
by
forty-eight
(48)
inches
in
length
.”
Is there anything in the three-point exercise that fails to capture? And wouldn’t it eliminate the need
for
all
the
new
definitions
other
than
those
of
“median”
and
“pedestrian
refuge
island”?
As to the latter, before stepping into the street, if this is adopted, members of the public will now be
expected
to
know,
from
having
previously
visited
the
City
Clerk’s
office
and
consulting
a
list
kept
there,
if
what
they
see
ahead
of
them
is
not
just
a
“pedestrian
refuge
island,”
but
a
designated
“pedestrian
refuge
island.”
Is
that
really
practical?
Even
if
it
is,
when
will
the
list
be
produced
and
how
often
will
it
be
updated?
And
shouldn’t
it
be
posted
on
the
internet?
And since we are cracking down on crossing medians, might one also ask if some other part of the
code
makes
it
unlawful
to
stand
in
a
part
of
the
street
that
is
not
a
median?
Item 4. 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 provided extensive written comments regarding this item when it was introduced as Item 3 at the August 26 meeting.
September 9, 2025, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 3 of 6 As pointed out then, if the concern about climbing on railings is confined to it as a prelude to diving
and
jumping
from
them,
the
new
language
could
be
combined
with
the
existing
diving
restrictions
rather
than
creating
a
new
section.
Perhaps more importantly, the exceptions to both the old and proposed new regulations are confined
to
“
City
employees
or
City
contractors
who
are
performing
their
official
duties
.”
This
is
a
missed
opportunity
to
add
to
the
exceptions
members
of
the
public
acting
at
the
direction
and
under
the
supervision
of
City
employees
or
contractors,
as
during
safety
training
activities.
Council member Weigand voted against introduction of this ordinance for reasons he did not explain.
Why
the
other
Council
members
don’t
want
to
enact
better
ordinances
is
beyond
me.
Item 5. Ordinance No. 2025-20: Amending Title 20 (Planning and Zoning)
of
the
Newport
Beach
Municipal
Code
Updating
ADU
and
JADU
Standards
(PA2025-0093)
As the draft minutes (Item 1 on the present agenda) indicate, I provided oral comments on this ordinance when it was introduced as Item 34 at the August 26 meeting. Those comments referred to substantive inconsistencies between the ordinance as proposed and
the
HCD
review
letter
and
a
letter
from
the
California
Housing
Defense
Fund
which
some
of
the
revisions
supposedly
responded
to.
The
City
Attorney
suggested
I
was
pointing
out
"typographical
errors”
which
our
Charter
allows
staff
to
correct.
But
my
comments
were
not
about
typographical
errors,
they
were
about
conscious
word
choices
that
affect
the
substantive
meaning
of
the
proposed
codes.
For example, when one has two sets of regulations, A and B, there is a fundamental and obvious
difference
between
saying
a
resident
must
comply
with
A
and
B
(i.e.,
they
must
comply
with
both),
compared
to
saying
they
must
comply
with
A
or
B
(i.e.,
they
can
choose
which
they
want
to
comply
with
and
ignore
the
other).
In the present case, HCD reminded the CIty of the existence of California Government Code Section 66323 which, as I understand, sets certain standards that, if a proposed ADU meets them, requires approval despite its not meeting local standards that conflict with them. In other words,
Government
Code
Section
66323
provides
an
alternative
path
to
ADU
approval,
not
an
additional
restriction
on
it.
In view of that, in NBMC Subsection 20.48.200.C.1, which is proposed, on agenda packet page 5-8,
to
condition
approval
on
a
finding
that
“
The
dwelling
conforms
to
the
development
standards
and
requirements
for
accessory
dwelling
units
and/or
junior
accessory
dwelling
units
as
provided
in
this
section
and
California
Government
Code
Section
66323;
and,
”
it
seemed
to
me
that
HCD
would
expect
to
see
“
or
”
rather
than
“
and
”.
The
use
of
“and”
suggests
compliance
with
the
standards
of
Section
66323
is
not
sufficient,
but
the
more
restrictive
local
standards
must
always
be
met
as
well.
If
so,
I
suspect
they
will
reject
this
and
the
identical
language
submitted
to
the
Coastal
Commission.
Similarly, the NBMC Subsection 20.48.200.F, on page 5-10 is proposed to read “ Except as modified
by
this
subsection
or
authorized
by
California
Government
Code
Section
66317
and
66323,
an
accessory
dwelling
unit
and/or
junior
accessory
dwelling
unit
shall
conform
to
all
objective
standards
of
the
underlying
residential
zoning
district,
any
applicable
overlay
district,
and
all
other
applicable
provisions
of
Title
20 (Planning
and
Zoning),
including
but
not
limited
to
September 9, 2025, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 4 of 6 height. setback, site coverage, floor area limit, and residential development standards and design criteria .” As I understand it, Government Code Section 66317 is a separate state law requiring automatic approval of an ADU application if local action is not taken within a certain time,
whether
or
not
the
approval
is
required
by
Section
66323
or
any
other
law.
As
another
alternative
way
of
getting
approval,
and
not
an
additional
restriction,
it
would
seem
the
highlighted
“and”
should
also
be
an
“or.”
Finally, I did not have time to address this orally, but I believe there could be a problem with the new
NBMC
Subsection
20.48.200.F.9
on
page
5-14,
which
is
proposed
to
read
“
Any
accessory
dwelling
unit
or
junior
accessory
dwelling
unit
that
is
listed
on
the
California
Register
of
Historic
Resources
shall
meet
all
Secretary
of
the
Interior
Standards,
as
applicable
.”
I
could
be
wrong,
but
the
concern
was
about
new
ADU’s
proposed
on
an
existing
property
that
is
designated
as
a
historical
resource,
not
just
with
applications
regarding
an
existing
ADU
that
is,
itself,
designated
as
a
historical
resource.
As
written,
the
concern
kicks
in
only
in
the
latter
case.
Wasn’t
this
intended,
instead,
to
read
“
Any
accessory
dwelling
unit
or
junior
accessory
dwelling
unit
on
a
property
that
is
listed
on
the
California
Register
of
Historic
Resources
shall
meet
all
Secretary
of
the
Interior
Standards,
as
applicable
”?
Again, this is not a typographical error, but a question about choosing the words that cause the ordinance
to
mean
what
it
is
intended
to
mean.
Finally, on page 5-9, NBMC Subsection 20.48.200.D is proposed to contain a statement that “
For
purposes
of
this
section,
"multi-unit
dwelling"
means
a
development
containing
two
or
more
dwelling
units
on
one
lot
.”
Since
this
says
it
is
a
special
definition,
it
is
completely
unclear
to
me
if
the
count
is
intended
to
include
accessory
dwelling
units
on
the
lot,
or
not.
Shouldn’t
it
say?
The existing definitions in NBMC Chapter 20.70 do not help me resolve the intent. With little hope that any of these comments will have any affect on the Council’s action, I have not
read
the
rest
of
the
proposed
ordinance
with
the
same
care.
Item 7. Resolution No. 2025-57: Opposing Proposition 50 and Enabling
Legislation
This does not seem to be an effort to influence state legislation that might affect Newport Beach, but
rather
an
effort
to
tell
voters
how
to
vote
on
a
matter
expected
to
be
before
them
in
a
special
election
on
November
4,
2025.
As the Whereas clauses of the proposed resolution indicate, the legislation putting the matter of congressional redistricting before voters, ACA 8, AB 604 and SB 280, have all passed the legislature, and the latter two have been signed into law. While a city council’s attempts to influence legislation have long been considered a legitimate, and
in
some
cases
a
potentially
beneficial,
use
of
public
resources,
I
thought
things
changed
once
an
issue
was
on
the
ballot
for
voters
to
decide.
With
the
limited
exception
of
election
laws
authorizing
council
members
to
submit
their
personal
arguments
for
publication
in
the
sample
ballot,
for
or
against
a
measure
their
body
has
placed
on
a
ballot,
I
thought
there
was
a
taboo
against
the
voters’
public
resources
being
used
to
influence
their
vote.
In
other
words,
once
a
decision
is
before
voters,
I
thought
that,
with
the
limited
exception
of
being
allowed,
when
asked,
to
provide
objective,
factual
information
about
the
potential
effects
of
a
measure
on
the
agency,
public
agencies
were
not
supposed
to
use
their
power
to
tip
the
scale.
September 9, 2025, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 5 of 6 While I share many of what seem to be the Council members’ concerns, and while those Council
members
are
free
to
express
their
personal
opinions,
I
do
not
think
“the
City”
should
be
taking
a
position
on
a
ballot
measure.
At the very least, the last three Whereas paragraphs should say “the City Council” rather than “the
City.”
Item 22. Resolution No. 2025-60: Notice of Intent to Override Orange County
Airport
Land
Use
Commission’s
Determination
of
Inconsistency
for
the
Snug
Harbor
Surf
Park
Project
at
3100
Irvine
Avenue
(PA2024-0069)
This item is a bit difficult to comment on because what happened at the August 7, 2025, ALUC meeting
has
not
yet
been
documented
in
the
form
of
minutes
or
a
recording
readily
available
to
the
public.
That said, regarding the proposed resolution, the statements at the top of page 22-8c about the project site’s noise environment are misleading. According to JWA’s most recent Noise Abatement Program Quarterly Report (Jan - Mar 2025) the site is wholly within the 65 dB CNEL contour. One of the major concerns raised in a September 3, 2025, letter from airport management (as opposed
to
the
ALUC)
was
about
the
potentially
high
occupancy
of
a
site
in
the
safety
zones.
This
issue
(regarding
which
airport
management
may
have
confused
total
daily
occupancy
with
the
maximum
number
of
persons
present
at
any
one
time)
is
discussed
at
length
in
proposed
resolution,
but
it
is
not
clear
those
assurances
of
consistency
consider
the
monthly
special
events.
As
heard
by
the
Planning
Commission
on
September
4,
there
seem
to
be
no
limits
on
the
number
of
attendees,
the
number
present
at
one
time,
or
the
duration
of
the
special
events.
Without such limits, a finding of consistency may be impossible to make. Regarding the final finding (“ The Project is consistent with the overflight standards of the AELUP
”
on
page
22-8j),
it
is
not
clear
to
me
what
“overflight
standards”
it
is
referring
to
or
how
“overflight”
is
being
defined.
Moreover,
the
statement
that
“Overflights
will
be
the
same
with
the
Project
as
with
the
existing
golf
course”
is
simply
an
observation
that
the
construction
or
non-construction
of
the
project
will
not
change
the
intensity
or
route
of
air
traffic
from
or
to
JWA.
That
seems
self-evident,
so
I
don’t
see
what
this
claims
to
establish.
The
same
could
be
said
of
the
noise
observations.
It
is
hard
to
see
how
the
fact
that
the
noise
will
be
unchanged
provides
justification
for
increased
development
(from
something
like
11,000
square
feet
to
nearly
80,000
square
feet)
at
a
high
noise
site.
Item 24. Five Citizen-Member Appointments to the Aviation Committee I cannot find it explained in the staff report, but my understanding of the past and present enabling
resolutions
for
the
Aviation
Committee
is
that
one
of
the
citizen
appointees
must
be
a
resident
of
the
Newport
Coast
annexation
area.
Based
on
an
examination
of
the
unredacted
applications
in
the
City
Clerk’s
office,
it
appears
to
me
the
only
nominee
with
that
qualification
is
Mary-Christine
(MC)
Sungaila.
If
true,
it
would
seem
she
would
need
to
be
appointed,
with
the
other
four
appointments
being
made
from
the
nine
remaining
nominees.
However,
it
seems
a
bit
contradictory
to
the
stated
intent
to
follow
Council
Policy
A-2
that
only
one
nominee
was
September 9, 2025, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 6 of 6 provided for that position, when the policy requires two nominees per position. It seems especially
contradictory
when
there
was
at
least
one
other
qualified
applicant
from
Newport
Coast
(Amber
Snider).
Of the remaining citizen nominees from among whom the Council will choose, I would again emphasize
Jack
Stranberg’s
accomplishments
during
his
service
on
the
prior
Aviation
Committee.
I
believe
the
recent
transition
by
Southwest
Airlines
from
serving
JWA
with
the
smaller
and
noisier
Boeing
737-700
to
using
the
larger
yet
quieter
Boeing
737
MAX
8 (which
can
carry
more
people
with
less
noise)
is
largely
the
result
of
his
patient
diplomacy
with
that
carrier.