October 28, 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 October 14, 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 numbers refer to Volume 66.
including airline deregulation in 1978, the establishment of the Airport Working Group in 1982, the Master Plan of 1983, the 1985 JWA Settlement agreement, which governs airport noise, capacity, and curfew, and highlighted the collaborative efforts of all elected officials who participated.” [Limiting the praise to “elected officials” seriously distorts the message of the presentation. Mr.
Edwards named a great many people who collaborated, only a small fraction of whom were elected. Since his list was long and he said he might be missing some, “of the many” might be better than “of all.”]]
Policy A1 A-1 item request from Councilmember Weigand at the August 26, 2025 meeting, staff presented a review and discussion on Traffic Calming and Public Safety Measures in the Bayview Heights neighborhood of Santa Ana Heights.”
Orchid Street resident, noted the need for traffic calming and supported the closure of Spruce Avenue.”
[See video. The speaker clearly stated he lives on Orchid Street, not Orchard Drive. Unless the City has other evidence for the spelling of the first name, the speaker seems likely to have been the Neil Treffers found starting on page 21 of the item’s correspondence posting.]
closing Spruce at Bristol is a problem, and that 25 miles per hour signage would be helpful.” [See page 6 of the correspondence.]
Committee will be meeting; announced the General Plan Advisory Committee Update Open House on October 21, 2025, at 6:30 p.m. in the Civic Center Community Room and the GPAC Virtual General Plan Update Open House to be held virtually at 6:00 p.m. the following day. He further commented that in 1929, the City established an Airport Committee responsible for evaluating a potential airport site in Newport Beach; and provided context regarding the proposal of Lido Isle Channel as a location for seaplanes and Mariner's Mile for land planes, which was ultimately considered unfeasible.”
approve the Consent Calendar including amendments to Agenda Item 1; (the Minutes), a “no” vote on Agenda Item 3 by Councilmember Weigand, and removal of Agenda Item 8 for further discussion by Councilmember Weigand.”
Received After Agenda Printed
October 28, 2025
Written Comments
October 28, 2025, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 2 of 6
station
is
slated
for
replacement
in
2032,
emphasized
the
need
to
quickly
commence
planning
and
development,
noted
Council
has
discretion
in
determining
the
approach,
noted
that
a
working
group
of
Chamber representatives residents and City Council members would be subject to Brown
Act
requirements,
and
clarified
that
the
decision
on
how
to
form
the
committee
was
ultimately
up
to
the
City
Council
.”
[See video. It is unclear how “ residents ” became restricted to “ Chamber representatives .” As best I can tell, Mr. Jurjis repeatedly and consistently said “residents” and did not mention any “Chamber,”
let
alone
its
“representatives.”]
council
members
participating
in
discussion
of
complex
projects;
suggested
staff
provide
a
range
of
possibilities
at
a
Study
Session
at
which
time
an
ad
hoc
committee
could
be
created at that time.” Page 430 , full paragraph 2: “ Kelilah D. Federman, of Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo and representing
Orange
County
Residents
for
Responsible
Industry,
provided
comments
related
to
the
reasons
regarding
the
appeal
and
the
request
to
appeal
Planning Commission Resolution No.
2025-66,
citing
environmental
and
CEQA
concerns
.”
[I don’t know if Ms. Federman’s oral comments included a reference to “Resolution No. 2025-66,” but her letter did, and clearly identified it as a Planning Commission resolution rather than the Council resolutions that would otherwise be assumed in references within City Council minutes.]
Item 4. Resolution No. 2025-67: Vacation of Existing Sewer Easement at 124
Kings
Place
For unknown reasons, the exhibits provided as Attachment A (Area Map) and Attachment B (Map of
Easement
to
be
Vacated)
do
not
reproduce
properly
as
printed
out
in
black-and-white
in
the
agenda
packet
provided
by
the
City
Clerk.
Most
of
the
caption
boxes
at
the
bottom
are
blank,
and
the
color
used
to
indicate
the
area
to
be
vacated
cannot
be
distinguished.
Even
without
those
problems,
the
meaning
of
notations
like
“V’
STREET”
and
“V’
MISCELLANEOUS”
is
not
obvious.
Attachment B also fails to clearly indicate the relationship of the vacated easements to the 2015 grant
of
a
new
10-foot
easement
illustrated
in
Attachment
C,
and
whether
there
is
any
overlap.
If
there
is,
does
the
vacation
of
the
old
easement
in
any
way
affect
the
validity
of
the
new
one?
In Exhibit A of the proposed resolution (page 4-13), what is the significance of starting the first paragraph
of
the
legal
description
of
the
property,
and
no
other,
with
“HEREBY
QUITCLAIM”?
That
does
not
seem
part
of
the
description
of
what
is
being
vacated.
SImilarly,
in
Exhibit
B
(on
page
4-13),
why
does
the
Legend
refer
to
“EASEMENT
TO
BE
QUITCLAIMED”?
That
seems
out
of
sync
with
the
resolution,
which
refers
to
its
action
as
a
“summary
vacation.”
Is
a
quitclaim
the
same?
October 28, 2025, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 3 of 6 Item 5. Resolution No. 2025-68: Certifying Funding Listed in the Federal Transportation
Improvement
Program
Since the proposed resolution refers to a list of projects “f or Federal Fiscal Years 2026-27 to 2031-32,
”
which
will
not
start
for
nearly
a
year
(until
October
1,
2026),
the
staff
report
does
not
make
clear
why
it
is
suggesting
the
City’s
Superior
Avenue
Pedestrian/Bicycle
Bridge
and
Parking
Lot (Project No. 15T09), which a Notice of Completion was approved as Item 6 on the February 25, 2025, consent calendar, would be on that new list. Is the report trying to say the Superior Avenue Bridge
is
on
the
current
list,
and
the
Council
is
being
asked
to
approve
staff’s
submission
of
new
projects
for
inclusion
in
the
new
list?
Item S21. Resolution No. 2025-75: Ratifying the Proclamation of the Existence
of
a
Local
Emergency,
and
Declaring
that
the
Local
Emergency
Shall
Remain
in
Effect
Until
Terminated
by
the
City
Council
Given that the City has issued an (undated) press release saying the emergency is over, will this item be withdrawn? Or is it still needed to ratify the actions that were taken? If the latter, does it need to be revised? Item 7. San Diego Creek Trash Interceptor - Notice of Completion for Contract
No.
7127-5
(17X12)
This item would seem to once again highlight the value of reducing trash pollution at its source over
attempting
to
recapture
it
after
it
has
been
released
into
the
environment.
Even if the estimate is correct that the device may recover 200 cubic yards of trash in its first full year
of
operation,
at
a
cost
of
$4.6
million,
that
figures
to
$23
thousand
per
cubic
yard,
not
counting
labor;
and
even
if
the
device
continued
to
function
for
10 years,
that
would
still
be
$2,300
per
cubic
yard
recovered,
which
seems
a
lot
compared
to
the
minimal
original
value
of
most
of
the
material
in
that
cubic
yard.
Keeping the trash out of the environment would seem a much more sensible solution.
Item 10. Fiscal Year 2024-25 Playground Improvements Project - Award of
Contract
No.
9753-1
to
R.E.
Schultz
Construction,
Inc.
(25P01)
First, Attachment A (Location Map) on page 10-5, dated “8/25/20” and saying it illustrates the location
of
the
“City
Yard
Re-Roofing
Project,”
does
not
seem
related
to
this
item.
Second, it explains the apparent low bid was rejected because the bidder lacked designation as an “LSI
Certified
Installer.”
It
does
not
explain
why
during
the
bidding
process,
as
documented
by
that
bidder
in
Attachment
C,
staff
repeatedly
said
the
designation
was
not
required.
October 28, 2025, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 4 of 6 Item 12. Approval of Vehicle Replacement Purchase Orders for Three Pickup
Trucks,
Four
Sedans,
and
One
Van
The agenda title seems a bit misleading, since the abstract and body of the item indicates the “four sedans”
are
actually
“four
Ford
Explorer
SUVs,”
which
do
not
seem
to
fit
the
normal
definition
of
a
sedan
as
a
passenger
car
with
separate
compartments
for
engine,
passengers
and
cargo.
More concerningly, why did staff accept a single bid for the three Toyota Tacoma pickup trucks? That
seems
anomalous
compared
to
the
large
number
of
bids
received
for
the
other
models
sought.
If
there
is
variation
in
pricing,
shouldn’t
more
offers
have
been
solicited?
Also unexplained is why a report from the Public Works Department is being submitted to the Council
by
the
Utilities
Director.
Finally, none of these seem to be particularly fuel efficient. Has the City given up on trying to improve
efficiency
and
reduce
emissions?
Are
these
purchases
consistent
with
state
regulations?
Item 14. Fiscal Year 2025-26 Citywide Facilities Painting Project - Award of
Contract
No.
9861-1
to
D
and
T
Painting
(26F02)
It is good to see the City received several bids much lower than its estimate, but I was surprised to learn
the
Civic
Center
(City
Hall)
has
an
“exterior
wood
roof”
in
need
of
painting.
I
would
have
thought
modern
construction
would
use
a
more
durable
synthetic
material
of
some
kind.
Item 18. Resolution No. 2025-70: Appeal of Planning Commission’s Approval
of
Minor
Changes
to
Coastal
Development
Permit
No.
PA2024-0140
located
at
100
East
Balboa
Boulevard
(PA2025-0130)
I have considerable sympathy for the appellants wanting to preserve the landmark tree. However, the
decision
as
to
whether
it
will
stay
or
go
rests,
ultimately,
with
the
California
Coastal
Commission,
and
I
feel
that
by
adding
this
revision
and
appeal
while
the
original
decision
remains
pending
before
the
CCC
has
added
unnecessary
delay
and
created
additional
work
for
all
involved.
The motivation seems to be to ensure the City has an application that the CCC will feel no need to further
revise,
which
will
allow
them
to
deny
the
appeal,
making
the
City
the
approver
of
the
project’s
Coastal
Development
Permit.
The
alternative
would
be
to
let
the
CCC
offer
to
approve
a
CDP
of
its
own,
after
making
revisions,
after
which,
if
the
City
wanted
to
make
further
modifications
to
the
project,
it
would
need
to
get
the
CCC’s
consent.
The
difference
does
not
seem
significant
to
me,
since
even
if
the
CCC
let
the
City’s
modified
CDP
stand,
making
the
CDP
“the
City’s
own,”
any
modifications
the
City
might
later
want
to
make
to
it
could
still
be
appealed
to
the
CCC.
Again, the CCC has the ultimate say over what is consistent with the Coastal Act and what is not.
This
second
cycle
of
proposal
and
appeal
seems
to
me
a
rather
pointless
detour
on
the
path
to
a
result
in
others’
hands.
October 28, 2025, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 5 of 6 Item 19. Ordinance No. 2025-34: Extending a Temporary Moratorium on New
Smoke
Shops
and
Tobacco
Retailer
Businesses
As I pointed out when the moratorium began on September 23, while the urgency ordinance title refers
to
a
moratorium
on
“smoke
shops,”
it
actually
bans
new
or
expanded
“tobacco
retailer
businesses,”
and
the
definition
it
provides
of
the
latter
(see
page
19-17
of
the
staff
report)
is
so
broad
as
to
encompass
any
person
who
sells
or
gives
away
any
“tobacco-related
item.”
To my mind, that would not only include many businesses I would not think of as “smoke shops,” but
even
a
person
or
business
providing
nicotine
cessation
products
or
information.
As to the 10-day report, it does explain what staff is doing and hopes to do, but I’m not sure it explains
what
calamity
would
befall
the
City
in
the
absence
of
the
moratorium.
Does
it
have
a
backlog
of
smoke
shop
applications?
However that may be, on the first page of the report (page 19-11 of the staff report), numbered paragraphs
1 and
3 refer
to
an
“
internal-departmental
team
.”
I’m
not
sure
what
that
means:
internal
to
which
department?
Or
was
that
intended
to
read
“
inter-departmental
”?
Similarly, numbered paragraph 4 refers to a list of businesses and “ any potential police activity associated
with
that
business
”
(which
seems
to
refer
to
possible
future
activity).
Was
that
intended
to
read
“
any
police
activity
potentially
associated
with
that
business
”
(referring
to
past
police
activity,
possibly
not
originally
associated
with
the
business).
Item 20. Resolution Nos. 2025-71 through 2025-74: Overriding Orange County
Airport
Land
Use
Commission’s
Determination
of
Inconsistency
and
Approving
the
Snug
Harbor
Surf
Park
at
3100
Irvine
Avenue
(PA2024-0069)
I see from Attachment J that as of the posting of the staff report on October 23, the City had received 1,877 pages of correspondence 1 (to which 3 have since been added to the start), mostly opposed
to
the
Council
approving
the
application.
I
doubt
I
can
add
much
to
that,
but
I
would
hope
the
volume
of
opposition
might
give
the
Council
pause
as
to
finding
the
proposal
compatible
with
community
character
and
expectations.
I
would
hope
the
Council
might
also
consider
the
opposition not only from the County Airport Land Use Commission (Attachment K) but also from the Airport administration, which constitutes a separate and independent entity whose cooperation residents need on airport issues, and with whom I’ve recently heard the City and Council see themselves
as
partners
with,
working
towards
mutual
goals.
Approving
something
they
clearly
do
not
want
would
not
seem
to
foster
that
new
spirit
of
friendship
and
cooperation.
As indicated in my letter to the Planning Commission, I don’t think the proposal is consistent with either
the
property’s
“PR”
(Parks
and
Recreation)
designation
in
the
Land
Use
Element
of
our
General
Plan
or
its
“OSR”
(Open
Space
and
Recreation
District)
zoning
of
the
Specific
Plan
found
in NBMC Section 20.90.050. While many of its parts are consistent with “PR,” the retail shops and overnight visitor accommodations are not. They make it more of a resort destination like the 1 I cannot find in Attachment J the comments I submitted to the Planning Commission on September 3 for their
September 4 hearing, and I suspect others may not be included, as well. Mine may have been separately
filed
somewhere
as
“late
comments”
on
the
EIR.
They
do
appear
in
the
massive
Planning
Commission
Item
2 file
at
the
preceding
link,
October 28, 2025, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 6 of 6 Pelican Hills where the golf course is on land designated “PR,” while the accommodations and other
amenities
are
on
land
designated
“CV”
(Visitor
Serving
Commercial).
None
of
this
land
is
designated
for
CV
uses.
Similarly,
within
the
universe
of
Parks
and
Recreations,
the
OSR
zoning
restricts
this
site,
if
developed
for
recreation,
to
outdoor
recreation.
Even
of
the
proposed
recreational
uses,
some
of
those
fail
that
test.
The
proposed
fitness
center
somewhere
within
the
proposed
roughly
80,000
square
feet
of
indoor
floor
area
is
clearly
an
example
of
indoor
recreation.
And
again,
overnight
accommodations
are
not
recreational
at
all.
As to the EIR, as previously commented to the Planning Commission, it does not inspire confidence.
As a somewhat random example, those concerned about water use and looking to Appendix S (Water
Supply
Evaluation)
will
read
on
page
4 that
“total
demand
is
expected
to
be
approximately
85-acre
feet
per
year,”
and
that
after
removing
the
existing
use
of
1.56 AFY,
one
will
have
a
“net
increase
in
potable
water
use
of
about
87 AFY.”
Not
only
is
it
later
explained
that
the
uses
to
be
replaced
consume
more
than
1.56 AFY,
but
how
can
eliminating
them
lead
to
a
larger
rather
than
a
smaller
net
increase?
Further
in,
one
is
at
a
loss
to
figure
out
who
will
be
supplying
the
water.
It
seems
mostly
to
suggest
(probably
mostly
correctly)
that
the
City’s
Utilities
Department
will
be
the
supplier,
without
explaining
why
the
City’s
Urban
Water
Management
Plan,
which
it
refers
to
repeatedly,
contains
a
service
area
map
indicating
the
golf
course
is
in
an
area
served
by
the
Irvine
Ranch
Water
District,
and
compounds
the
confusion
by
referring
to
IRWD
demand
data
As to Appendix Q (Noise Analysis), as chair of the GPAC Noise Element Subcommittee, but commenting
as
an
individual,
its
application
of
the
City
of
Newport
Beach
standards
of
significant
noise
increases
appears
to
be
incorrect.
I
am
particularly
concerned
about
the
impact
on
nearby
residents,
such
as
those
on
Anniversary
Lane
or
in
West
Santa
Ana
Heights
in
the
proposed
hours
of
operation
before
7 a.m.
(8
a.m.
on
Sunday)
and
after
10 p.m.,
when
those
areas
enjoy
relief
from
airport
noise.
Tables
8-5
and
8-6
assume
“Increase
Criteria”
in
decibels
taken
from
a
General
Plan
table
of
significant
increases
in
Community
Noise
Equivalent
Levels
and
incorrectly
applied
here
to
readings
that
are
not
CNEL’s.
Put
simply,
the
analysis
is
wrong
and
the
possibility
of
residents
losing
two
hours
of
quiet
on
Sunday
mornings
(and
one
hour
after
10 p.m.
each
night)
should
be
of
great
concern.