October 14, 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 X. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON AGENDA AND NON AGENDA ITEMS
This item, which was formerly just an announcement read by the City Clerk about the Council’s procedures regarding public comments and not itself an invitation to speak, is a little confusing.
As the Mayor may explain, this now seems to be the one and only chance to comment on non-agenda items and agenda Item XI (“Matters Which Councilmembers Have Asked to Be Placed on a Future Agenda”), but not the only chance to speak on all other agenda items (for which separate invitations will be extended), and maybe not even a chance to comment on them (it is not clear if members of the public get two chances to speak regarding those other items, once here and once when they’re called).
As a non-agenda comment, on October 8, soon-to-be-City Manager Seimone Jurjis made an excellent Speak Up Newport presentation regarding the City’s housing plans. One theme was the constantly changing and sometimes contradictory direction given by the state. As a further example of that conflicting direction, the Council may wish to learn more about the California Court of Appeals opinion published on October 10 in the case of New Commune DTLA LLC et al. v. City Redondo Beach et al. In a ruling binding on lower courts, the appeals court appears to have found that HCD has incorrectly certified house elements that, like Newport Beach’s, rely on “housing overlays” to meet more than 50% of their affordable housing obligations while leaving the original non-residential zoning as a continuing option. As a result, Redondo Beach was declared out of compliance with state housing laws irrespective of HCD's certification to the contrary. As a non-lawyer, it would seem to me that Newport Beach might be vulnerable to a similar challenge, so some discussion of what needs to be done to correct that might be wise.
Item XI. Matters Which Councilmembers Have Asked to Be Placed on a Future Agenda
As someone who frequently uses a bicycle as a means of transportation, I support the idea of reviewing and making improvements to the City’s current regulations affecting bike safety. But I think this needs to be a matter of public discussion. I do not support directing staff to privately decide what is best for the residents and come back with a series of ordinances for ratification on the consent calendar, without Council discussion or a chance for effective public input.
It is, therefore, unfortunate that these requests for future agenda items are themselves listed as a “Non-Discussion Item” making a clarification of their intent impossible.
I hope that if a majority of the Council supports this item, staff takes that as direction to prepare a study session at a future meeting, and not to prepare ordinances or resolutions before the Council and public have been given an opportunity to review the issues and potential solutions.
Received After Agenda Printed
October 14, 2025
Written Comments
October 14, 2025, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 2 of 4 Item 1. Minutes for the September 23, 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. Page 410 , Item IV, bullet 1: “ Mayor Stapleton recognized Friends of the Library President Amy Hunt
who
was
joined
by
Board
Members
Catherine
Wallach,
Becky
Halladay, and Janet Callister
and
presented
Library
Services
Director,
Melissa
Hartson
with
a
$250,000
check
.”
Operations
Manager;
Board
Members
Mario
Cuevas, and Diane Daruty, ; Board Member and
Naturalist
Maureen
Flanagan;
Julie
Powers,
Treasurer;
Board
President
Bryan
Tsu
and
Co-Vice
President
Bettina
Eastman
.”
Associate
Planner
Oscar
Orozco
presented
the
staff
report
including
a
PowerPoint
presentation
reviewing
details
of
the
urgency
ordinance
and
resolution;
the
background
of
the
item;
noted
illegal
activity
at
tobacco
retailers;
reviewed
the
temporary
moratoriums’ moratorium’s timetable and
proposed
code
revisions
.”
previously
considered
A-1
item
as
well
as
indicated
in
the
title
of
the
agenda
item;
thanked
her
colleagues
on
the
City
Council
for
their
support;
emphasized
the
importance
of
putting
protections
in
place
for
the
community;
and
was
fully
supportive
of
moving
forward
.”
Item 3. Ordinance No. 2025-26: Adding Chapter 6.30 Prohibition of Sale and
Distribution
of
Flavored
Tobacco
Products
There would seem to be some confusion about the scope of this ordinance, which emphasizes why introducing
and
adopting
ordinances
on
the
consent
calendar
is
highly
problematic.
As pages 419 and 420 of the draft minutes from September 23 indicate, when the Council considered
initiating
Zoning
Code
amendments
to
address
tobacco
sales,
Council
member
Grant
asked
if
they
could
also
initiate
code
amendments
revising
the
locations
where
smoking
is
allowed,
and
Mayor
Pro
Tem
Kleiman
assured
her
that
was
already
included
within
the
scope
of
what
they
were
initiating,
as
did
City
Attorney
Harp.
However,
most
of
the
restrictions
about
where
smoking
is
allowed appear not in the Zoning Code (Title 20 and for the coastal zone, the similar Title 21), 1 but rather in Title 6 (“Health and Sanitation”) and specifically in Chapter 6.25 (“Regulation of Smoking in Public Areas”). Although nothing in the present agenda item title (copied above) or staff report indicates it has any purpose
other
than
to
add
a
new
chapter
prohibiting
the
sale
and
distribution
(but
not
use)
of
flavored tobacco products, as I pointed out in my written comments when it was introduced on September 23, half of it consists of revising Chapter 6.25. One discovers this only upon reading the full
title
of
the
ordinance
in
recommendation
“b”.
In
other
words,
this
ordinance
seems
to
be
City
1 In Title 21, references to smoking appear only in the definition of “smoking lounge” as a land use. Title 20 contains
additional
scattered
restrictions
on
where
smoking
can
occur
and
consideration
of
exposure
of
neighboring
properties
to
secondhand
smoke
in
granting
some
conditional
uses.
October 14, 2025, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 3 of 4 staff’s response to the Council’s September 9th “A-1” directive “ initiating a comprehensive review of regulations related to smoking and nitrous oxide .” I agree with Council member Grant that a more thorough review of the City’s smoking regulations, with
public
discussion,
would
be
good,
and
much
better
than
simply
rubber-stamping
whatever
appears
on
the
consent
calendar.
Item 4. Ordinance No. 2025-27: Adding Chapter 6.40 Prohibition of Sale, Distribution
and
Use
of
Nitrous
Oxide
My comments on this ordinance are the same as I submitted when it was introduced on September 23. Like the preceding item, I think it would have benefitted from public discussion. The same could be
said
for
Items
5 through
7,
all
introduced
and
now
being
proposed
for
adoption
on
the
consent
calendar.
Item 8. Resolution No. 2025-65: Creating the Newport Beach Police Headquarters
Assessment
Committee
Since it was not obvious when the request for this item was presented as an “A-1 item” on September 23, I am pleased to see the committee will hold all its meetings in public. It does, however, seem to me that the more than three years the committee is allowed to make its recommendations
(see
“Expiration”
on
page
8-8)
is
a
bit
excessive.
Wouldn’t
a
less
distant
deadline
encourage
pursuing
the
committee’s
goal
more
diligently?
Item 10. Balboa Yacht Basin Maintenance Dredging - Award of Contract No.
9944-1
(26H13)
It would have been nice to see more than one bid. Also, given that the City is the landlord, it seems a little strange that it would let the tenants decide whether
they
want
to
allow
the
dredging
to
include
the
areas
beneath
their
individual
slips.
With
the
expectation
of
a
complete
rebuild
in
two
years,
and
the
possibility
there
will
be
no
disposal
site
available
at
that
time,
wouldn’t
it
be
better
to
require
the
tenants
to
move
out
the
contractor’s
way
so
all
the
dredging
can
be
completed
now?
(it
might
also
be
less
expensive)
Item 11. Approval to Purchase Three 2026 or Newer Model Year Rescue Ambulances
from
Professional
Sales
and
Service,
L.C.
For reasons unclear to me, Council Policy F-9 not only places a 100,000 mile limit on front-line ambulances, but also allows the retired units to be kept in reserve for no more than four years (seemingly,
even
if
not
used).
The
staff
report
does
not
clearly
indicate
the
age
or
status
of
the
current
reserve
units.
Also, the price of ambulances appears to be increasing much more rapidly than inflation in general.
Does
staff
expect
that
trend
to
continue
or
to
abate?
If
it
is
expected
to
continue
at
a
similar
pace,
would
it
make
sense
to
buy
more
units
at
current
prices
and
place
them
in
storage
until
needed?
October 14, 2025, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 4 of 4 Item 13. Approval of the Lecture Hall Auditorium Naming Rights Agreement
It is commendable there are people willing to donate money to commemorate a name other than their
own.
This reminds me of an instance connected with the fundraising for the expansion of the Central Library
in
which
the
Board
of
Library
Trustees
was
asked
by
the
Foundation
to
approve
signage
mockups
for
new
rooms
with
such
names
as
the
“Charles
Dickens
Reading
Area,”
the
“Emily
Dickinson
Study
Room”
and
the
“John
Steinbeck
Lounge.”
The
Trustees
naively
imagined
the
Foundation
was
proposing
to
find
fans
of
those
authors
willing
to
donate
to
fund
the
signs,
when
the
intent
was
actually
to
find
donors
interested
in
replacing
the
authors’
names
with
their
own.
So it is good the Foundation has found people interested in honoring the Foundation rather than themselves.
That said, the naming of an “auditorium” within a “lecture hall” seems a bit strange to me. Normally, I
would
think
of
an
auditorium
as
something
larger
than
a
lecture
hall.
But
in
the
literal
sense
of
an
auditorium being a place in which listening occurs, I guess having such a space within a lecture hall building could make sense.
Item 14. Annual Review of Visit Newport Beach Audited Financial Statements
and
Expenditure
Report
I am not an accountant, so most of this reporting is difficult for me to comprehend. Among the questions
I
have
trouble
finding
answers
to:
● Are we to understand that VNB is now 100% funded by the City, 2 or does it have other
sources
of
revenue
or
other
clients?
● Is there any continuing overlap between the personnel serving VNB and those serving other operations,
such
as
the
Meetings
Assessment
Partnership?
If
so,
how
are
the
activities
and
the
time
and
expenses
devoted
to
each
segregated?
● With Newport Beach & Company having dissolved, are the “NB&Co Fees” on page 14-40 and
addressed
in
Note
B
on
page
14-41
a
thing
of
the
past?
Will
any
similar
fees
replace
them?
● Are the “Community Sponsorships” on page 14-40 and addressed in Note A on page 14-41 also
a
thing
of
the
past?
I
can
see
how
providing
marketing
for
events
that
might
boost
tourism
could,
possibly,
fit
under
the
services
the
City
is
paying
VNB
for,
as
listed
on
page
14-39.
But
I
don’t
see
VNB
giving
the
City
money
to
other
organizations
of
VNB’s
choosing
listed
as
a
service
requested.
2 A note under “TOT” on page 14-11 suggests VNB could now be 100% City-funded (“ For the years ended June
30,
2025
and
2024,
the
Organization
received
approximately
100%
and
66%,
respectively,
of
its
service
fee
revenues
from
the
City
through
the
TOT
”),
but
I
am
not
sure
that
“service
fee
revenues”
are
VNB’
only
revenues.