Newport Beach City Council
February 10, 2026

From: Jim Mosher
To: City Clerk"s Office
Cc: Dept - City Council
Subject: Comments on Council agenda items (Feb. 10, 2026 meeting) Date: February 09, 2026 4:54:20 PM
Attachments: 2026-02-10_CC_Agenda_Comments_JimMosher.pdf [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Report phish using the Phish Alert Button above.

Madam Clerk,
Please find attached some written comments regarding selected items on tomorrow's Newport Beach City Council agenda.

Yours sincerely,
Jim Mosher
February 10, 2026
Written Comments
February 10, 2026, 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) PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS The Planning Commission met between this Council meeting and the last, yet, for what I believe is

the

first

time

in

decades,

the

Council

agenda

includes

no

report

as

to

what

happened

at

the

Planning

Commission

meeting.

I

believe

the

reason

for

those

reports,

which

were

originally

discussion

items,

and

the

reason

the

Commission

meets

on

the

Thursday

before

Council

meetings,

is

so

the

Council

members

can

be

timely

informed

of

Commission

actions

and

potentially

“call

up”

those

it

feels

merit

additional

review.

More

recently

they

have

provided

the
Council and public an opportunity to see the Community Development Department’s Tentative Agenda of items to be heard at future public meetings. For whatever it may be worth, at its February 5th meeting, the Commission approved a controversial proposal to build 33 townhomes in seven 38-foot tall buildings on the property at the

corner

of

Dover

and

Cliff

Drives,

even

though

two

of

the

five

Commissioners

present

thought

its

design

what

one

might

hope

for

at

that

prominent

location.

I

thought

it

remarkable

that

many,

including

me,

praised

the

developer

for

showing

restraint

in

not

proposing

to

build

the

81 units

in

65-foot

tall

buildings

that

they,

“by

right”

could

have

done.

But

that

“right”

was

a

very

recently

acquired

one,

through

the

“housing

overlays”

by

which

this

property,

without

any

meaningful

public

notice

or

review,

was

given

”one-size-fits-all”

building

standards

intended

for

the

Westcliff/17th

Street

commercial

zone,

and

not

at

all

appropriate

to

this

isolated

site.

It

also

seemed

remarkable

that

in

responding

to

the

main

concerns

about

traffic,

no

one

mentioned

the

site

is

adjacent

to

existing

County

bus

stops,

an

alternative

mode

of

transportation

we

have

never

been

able

to

make

attractive

to

our

own

residents.

Although not traditionally reported at Council meetings, a matter the Council might be interested in was an item on the February 3rd PB&R agenda. At that meeting, the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission received what staff claimed was a request from the Ad Hoc Council Policy Review Committee to comment on proposed revisions to Council Policy G-1. What was strange about this is that committee no longer existed, its term having expired on December 31st

without

making

any

recommendations

to

the

full

Council.

Yet

staff

represented

the

language

it

presented

as

what

“the

Council”

wanted,

making

the

Commissioners

assume

their

prerogative

to

suggest

anything

different

was,

at

best,

very

limited.

It

seemed

to

me

that

if

the

committee,

while

it

existed,

had

made

a

recommendation

to

the

full

Council,

it

would

have

been

appropriate,

and

even

necessary

under

our

Charter,

for

the

full

Council,

if

they

agreed

with

recommendations,

to

seek

advice

from

the

Commission

before

adopting

them.

But

it

did

not

seem

appropriate

to

me

that

staff

should

represent

three

Council

members

(who

they

didn’t

even

identify)

as

speaking

for

the

whole

Council.

That

seemed

especially

inappropriate

when

one

of

the

recommendations

was

to

make

the

discretionary

decisions

of

the

Commission

final

and

unappealable.

I

find

it

hard

to

believe

a

majority

of

the

Council

would

share

that

desire

to

divest

themselves

from

oversight

of

their

unelected

appointees.

February 10, 2026, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 2 of 7 Item 1. Reading of Ordinances As I pointed out at the last meeting, this boilerplate item directs “ the City Clerk to read by title only ” “ all ordinances under consideration ,” even though City Charter Section 412 requires a reading only at the time of their adoption. Ordinances are “under consideration” at both their introduction

and

at

their

proposed

adoption.

If

the

Council’s

direction

is

to

request

ordinance

titles

to

be

read

only

at

the

time

of

adoption,

it

is

a

mystery

why

they

do

not

revise

the

language

in

the

agenda

to

say

so.

Item 2. Minutes for the January 27, 2026, City Council Meeting & January

31,

2026,

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. Page 481 , Item SS1. paragraph 1, sentence 3: “ Since then, the City Council has maintained a policy

of

super-funding

the

pension

plan

by

contributing

both

the

normal
costplus cost plus
surplus

money

to

pay

down

the

liability
.”

improved

and

highlighted

concerns

about

private

equity

and
environmental, social, and
governance

(ESG)-focused investments within CalPERS portfolio .” Page 482 , PUBLIC COMMENTS, paragraph 3: “ Jim Mosher questioned the purpose of the trust
.”
[Comment: I more specifically asked how funds in a trust reserved for one purpose could be moved

to

a

trust

created

for

a

different

purpose,

and

I

believe

there

was

a

staff

response

to

that

question

which

is

not

recorded

in

the

minutes.]

thought

ordinances

should

be

read

upon

introduction

and

adoption
,

…”

[Comment: If I said this, it was only in the sense that agenda Item 1, as presently written, directs

the

City

Clerk

to

do

so

(see

comment

on

Item

1,

above,

suggesting

the

language

should

be

changed

if

the

Council

wants

something

different).]

Beach,

California,

Correcting

Certain
Scrivner’s Scrivener’s Errors Related to Building and Plan

Check

Fees

and

Clarifying

Notations

Within

the

Schedule

of

Rents,

Fines,

and

Fees
.”
[Comments: Ironically, the term “Scrivner” (a fairly rare family surname) in the resolution title is a scrivener’s error for Scrivener (a professional copyist) which the City Clerk may wish to correct in the archived copy.

Much more importantly, it is surprising to see the minutes record this motion, as well as all subsequent

motions,

as

not

including

part

“a)”

of

the

staff

recommendation

(namely,

a

finding

the

action

is

exempt

from

CEQA),

but

start

with

part

“b)”,

which

is

renumbered

“a)”.

February 10, 2026, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 3 of 7 The omission is particularly puzzling since the video shows this motion was to “ approve the staff recommendation ,” which includes all the parts.}

that
the public can complete had completed a City website survey and staff will return with an update
.”

[See video. The phrasing of the comment may have been slightly ambiguous, but the survey had closed the weekend before the meeting.]

permanent

location

for
a museum the Balboa Island Museum.” [See video. The comment was general. It began with a request for the Council to find a permanent home for the Newport Beach Historical Society, and while it mentioned the uncertain

future

of

the

Balboa

Island

Museum

(which

is

not

a

Historical

Society

facitlity),

the

request

was

for

a

more

generic

“museum

spot.”]

police

and

fire

station

projects.

Approved

by

a

straw

vote

of

7-0-0
”
[Comment: The agenda provided no hint any action would be taken or direction given regarding

the

“Updates

on

Public

Works

and

Capital

Improvement

Program.”

The

significance

of

this

vote

recorded

in

the

minutes

is

very

unclear.

Did

the

Council

take

an

action

here?

Or

did

it

only

direct

staff

to

bring

the

question

of

funding,

and

for

what

possible

projects,

back

for

direction

on

the

agenda

at

a

regular

meeting?

This

is

particularly

confusing
(and disturbing) because Slide 60 of the presentation contained a bullet point saying, “ If Ad Hoc' s preferred Civic Center Park site is recommended “ for a new Police Headquarters, to “
Include

$1.5

million

in

the

current

FY

2025-

26 CIP

budget

to

hire

consultant

team

for

further

design

development,

preparation

of

final

concept

and

EIR

for

further

Council

review

and

approval
.”

Did

the

Council

approve

doing

this?]

“
Dennis

Bress

announced

a

successful

decrease

in

the

noise

originating

from

John

Wayne

Airport

into

Newport

Beach,

emphasizing

the

concept

of

high and , slow, and quiet .” [See video. Mr. Bress’ advocacy has long been for what he calls “ high, slow and quiet ” departures, although he did, this one time, interpolate “ therefore ” between “ and ” and “ quiet .” It

might

be

noted

that

the

idea

that

“high”

and

“slow”

equals

“quiet”

is

a

slogan

rather

than

a

statement

of

a

scientific

fact

supported

by

unequivocal

evidence.

It

is

even

unclear

how

height

can

be

maximized

while

speed

is

being

minimized.]

Item 3. Safety Enhancement Zones Expansion and Enforcement During

Peak

Activity

Periods
I do not think introducing ordinances on the consent calendar is ever a good idea. I also think it’s a

bad

idea

to

adopt

resolutions

whose

validity

is

contingent

upon

the

eventual

adoption

of

an

February 10, 2026, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 4 of 7 ordinance introduced (rather than adopted) at the same time. The staff report is not clear as to whether

that

is

the

case

here,

but

wouldn’t

it

be

better

to

adopt

the

resolution

at

the

same

time

the

ordinance

is

actually

adopted,

so

that

if

the

ordinance

is

not

adopted

the

resolution

doesn’t

have

to

be

repealed?
This particular combination of resolution and ordinance is especially strange since they seem to be

about

a

policing

issue,

yet

the

recommendation

is

coming

from

the

City

Manager’s

Office

rather

than

the

Police

Department.

As to the staff report, it contains two tables breaking down the residence of people arrested during

the

Spring

Break

and

Fourth

of

July

periods,

apparently

intended

to

establish

that

a

lot

of

troublemakers

from

outside

Newport

Beach

come

here

during

those

times.

But

it

is

not

clear

if

what

is

being

presented

is

the

arrests

in

the

enhancement

zones

or

in

the

city

as

whole.

Nor

is

it

clear

how

this

compares

to

the

pattern

of

arrests

made

during

the

rest

of

the

year.

Are

the

arrests

during

the

rest

of

the

year

mostly

of

Newport

Beach

residents?

Or

are

arrests

then,

too,

dominated

by

lawbreakers

from

outside

Newport?

The report also provides no evidence that there is a higher incidence of unruly behavior in areas such

as

Corona

del

Mar

between

PCH

and

Fifth

Avenue

compared

to

areas

of

the

city

with

higher

concentrations

of

short-term

lodgings

(such

as

Balboa

Island)

that

are

not

proposed

as

safety

enhancement

zones.

Moreover, no redline is provided of the Municipal Code revisions proposed by the ordinance, making

it

particularly

difficult

to

be

sure

what

is

actually

being

proposed

versus

the

staff

report’s

interpretation

of

what

the

revisions

are

intended

to

accomplish.

This

makes

it

a

particularly

opaque,

rather

than

transparent,

process.

Making

the

materials

available

only

electronically,

and

not

providing

free

printed

copies

for

the

public

to

review

makes

the

process

even

more

opaque.

In addition to providing no redline, the staff report does not even purport to give a complete description

of

what

changes

are

being

made.

For

example,

it

appears

the

ordinance,

if

adopted,

will

expand

the

effective

hours

of

the

Memorial

Day

zones

from

three

days

(Saturday,

Sunday

and

Monday)

to

four

(Friday,

Saturday,

Sunday

and

Monday),

but

make

no

similar

change

to

the

Labor

Day

zones.

I

can

find

no

explanation

of

why

this

is

being

done.

The whole Safety Enhancement Zone designation process is confusing since the original ordinance

said,

and

the

later

revisions

continue

to

say,

the

zones

can

be

established

by

ordinance

or

resolution.

In

the

present

case,

as

best

I

can

tell,

the

ordinances

(the

Municipal

Code)

will

continue

to

be

relied

on

to

permanently

designate

the

zones

for

the

Memorial

Day,

Fourth

of

July

and

Labor

Day

zones,

while

the

resolution

is

intended

to

designate

the

Spring

Break

zones.

Yet parts of the Spring Break language are being (redundantly?) added to the ordinance. Why is this

being

done?

It

only

leads

to

the

possibility

of

a

conflict

between

the

code

and

the

resolution.

For

example,

the

resolution

identifies

“March

14th”

as

“
the

first

day

of

the

first

Spring

Break
”

and

requires

notice

to

be

posted

“on

or

before

6:00

p.m.

on

Friday

March

13th
.”

But

the

ordinance

says

notice

shall

be

given

“
before

6:00

p.m.

of

the

first

day

of

any

Spring

Break

as

set

forth

in

a

resolution

adopted

by

the

City

Council
”

which

would

be

6:00

pm.

on

March

14th
.

If

this

is

to

be

February 10, 2026, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 5 of 7 in the code (and I don’t know why it should be), wasn’t it intended to say “ before 6:00 p.m. on the

day

before

the

first

day

of

any

Spring

Break
”?
I similarly don’t understand why, if the ordinance is intended to permanently codify the boundaries

of

the

“West”
1 Newport

and

Corona

del

Mar

zones,

and

if

the

resolution

is

intended

only

to

designate

Spring

Break

days,

why

does

it

restate

so

many

parts

of

the

language

already

made

permanent

in

the

code,

including

a

complete

restatement

of

the

boundaries,

hours

and

means

of

notice?

Shouldn’t

the

ordinance

be

corrected

so

that

information

doesn’t

have

to

be

repeated,

allowing

the

resolution

to

simply

reference

the

permanent

code

language

when

no

change

to

it

is

intended?
Finally, not only is “West” no longer appropriate, a code section that once created a single enhancement

zone

has,

for

some

time,

created

two.

In

view

of

that,

shouldn’t

the

title

of

NBMC
Section 1.04.060 (“Safety Enhancement Zone”) be made plural? Item 5. Resolution No. 2026-9: Waiving City Council Policy B-8 to Permit

the

Pacific

Coast

Triathlon

on

Sunday,

September

13,

2026
City Council Policy B-8, prohibiting non-City athletic special events on City property between June 15 and September 15, exists for the reasons stated in the policy. While much of this triathlon

appears

to

take

place

on

the

Crystal

Cove

Beach,

which

is

not

City

property,

and

presumably

not

subject

to

Policy

B-8,

part

of

it,

the

staff

report

suggests,

also

takes

place

on

Coast

Highway,

which

(near

Crystal

Cove)

I

am

also

doubtful

is

City

property.

Assuming some of the event is being requested to take place on property that Policy B-8 applies to,

neither

the

staff

report

nor

the

proposed

resolution

explains

why

the

concerns

that

prompted

the

creation

of

the

policy

would

not

apply

on

September

13. The

mere

existence

of

a

scheduling

conflict

on

the

part

of

the

sponsor

would

not

cause

them

to

vanish.

Does

staff

have

some

reason

to

believe

the

summer

concerns

would

dissipate

sufficiently

by

September

13?

Or

that

so

close

to

the

end

of

summer,

the

benefits

provided

by

this

event

outweigh

the

liabilities?

Item 6. Resolution No. 2026-10: Initiating General Plan, Local Coastal Program,

and

Newport

Beach

Municipal

Code

Amendments

to

Implement

Recommendations

from

the

Corona

del

Mar

Commercial

Corridor

Study

(PA2024-0002)
Will there be any further public involvement prior to the presentation to the proposed implementations

to

the

Planning

Commission?

And

will

all

of

the

recommendations

be

reviewed

by

them?

Item 7. General Plan Update Steering Committee (GPUSC) Bi-Monthly Update

to

the

City

Council

and

Resolution

No.

2026-11:

Dissolving

the

GPUSC

and

GPAC
I hope I am not the only one to see some humor in it being five months since the last “bi-monthly” update. 1 “West” surely seems a misnomer if the zone now extends to B Street on the Peninsula.

February 10, 2026, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 6 of 7 Regarding the proposed Resolution No. 2026-11 dissolving the GPUSC and GPAC, the resolutions

creating

those

committees

have

also

given

the

Council

the

right

to

dissolve

them

whenever

it

wishes.

But

they

would

both

expire

automatically

when

and

if

the

Council

adopts

a

revised

General

Plan.

I

can

understand

why

the

Council

may

wish

to

dissolve

the

committees

at

this

time,

to

avoid

the

further

expense

of

maintaining

them

when

it

may

seem

unlikely

there

will

be

a

need

to

call

on

them.

It

is

less

clear

to

me

why

the

Council

would

be

asked

to

“rescind”

the

resolutions

that

created

them,

as

Section

1 of

the

proposed

resolution

asks

the

Council

to

do.

Are

we

trying

to

erase

all

trace

of

the

committees’

existence

and

suggest

the

former

appointments

to

them

were

never

legally

valid

and

the

members’

work

asked

for

in

error?

While

the

City

may

prefer

looking

forward

to

looking

back,

I

am

not

sure

why

we

would

be

so

anxious

to

actively

erase

the

past.

Regarding the report, while there is, at least for now, a video of the final joint meeting of the GPUSC and GPAC, it seems doubtful there will ever be any minutes of it. So, I can reveal myself

as

the

lone

“nay”

in

the

25-1

vote

(with

one

GPAC

member

absent)

on

the

motion

“
to

support

the

Draft

moving

forward
”

mentioned

on

page

4 of

the

staff

report.

Not only did I sincerely feel the draft needed substantially more work and review, but in the past those

voting

in

favor

of

GPAC

motions

have

been

pilloried

by

some

Council

members

for

subsequently

not

endorsing

every

single

policy

or

recommendation

they

were

recorded

as

voting

“for.”

I

doubt

there

are

many

of

the

25 who

would

endorse

every

recommendation

in

the

draft

if

asked

about

it

separately.

Item 8. Resolution No. 2026-12: Establishing the Public Lands Trust Management

Ad

Hoc

Committee

to

Review

and

Develop

Recommendations

Regarding

the

California

State

Lands

Commission

Report

Regarding

the

City’s

Management

of

the

Tidelands
The State Lands Commission report highlights some fairly clear problems with the City’s management

of

the

granted

lands,

and

a

reasonably

clear

list

of

actions

needed

to

remedy

them.

For a City that prides itself on transparency, I have trouble seeing how the appointment of a 2-member

ad

hoc

committee

that

will

spend

up

to

11 months

meeting

outside

the

public

eye

is

an

appropriate

response,

particularly

in

view

of

the

SLC’s

expectation

of

seeing

progress

within

6 months.

I am particularly concerned about the statement in the staff report that " The Committee will review

the

Report’s

findings,

provide

focused

policy

directions

to

staff
,

guide

stakeholder

outreach,

and

develop

recommendations

for

consideration

by

the

full

City

Council

at

a

duly
noticed public meeting ," and in the City Manager’s From City Hall to You newsletter that “ This group would also work closely with staff as discussions continue on complying with the SLC’s report
.”
The sequence, with the recommendation coming last, seems out of whack. Ad hoc committees that

are

allowed

to

meet

outside

the

public

eye

are

created

to

advise

the

city

council.

They

are

not

empowered

to

advise

or

direct

City

staff.

Only

the

Council

as

whole

can

provide

policy

February 10, 2026, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 7 of 7 directions to staff, although, if they wish, it can be after the Council as a whole considers the advice

produced

by

the

committee.

Item 10. Professional Services Agreements for On-Call Professional Planning

Services

and

Staff

Augmentation

with

Sagecrest

Planning

and

Environmental,

Kimley-Horn

and

Associates,

Psomas,

and

Moore

lacofano

Goltsman
Reports of this sort, presenting the results when similar services have been requested of multiple

potential

contractors

normally

provide

more

detail

as

to

how

the

recommendations

were

arrived

at,

typically

including

an

evaluation

panel’s

scoring

results

(see,

for

example,

Item

9 on

this

agenda,

“Approval

of

On-Call

Professional

Services

Agreements

for

Geotechnical

and

Material

Testing

Services”).

In the present case, the agenda says four (apparently out of 17 proposals) are recommended, all

for

“Professional

Planning

Services

and

Staff

Augmentation.”
The staff report does not explain if all the proposers bid to provide the same set of services, or if they

were

selected

for

their

ability

to

provide

different

services.

Nor

does

it

say

who

evaluated

the

proposals

(a

panel

or

an

individual?)

nor

how.

In Table 1, the 13 “Proposals Not Selected” appear to be listed in alphabetical order, giving no hint

as

to

who

may

have

been

a

close

runner-up

to

the

four

selected

firms.

By contrast, the 4 “Selected for Recommendation” are not alphabetical, but I don’t know if this means

the

one

listed

last,

“MIG,

Inc.,”

barely

made

the

cut,

or

something

different

–

such

as

that

the

department

had

four

different

categories

of

services

it

was

seeking,

a

selected

one

contractor

for

each.

Greater clarity would have been helpful to understanding this recommendation.

Item 11. Proposed Traffic Calming and Public Safety Measures in the Bayview

Heights

Neighborhood
Where does the name “Bayview Heights” that is proposed for the City monument sign come from?

Is

it

an

official

City

name,

or

an

informal

local

name?
In addition to its technical standards, doesn’t Policy L-26 require some level of community support of the proposed measures? The October 14, 2025, Council meeting that is referenced was a study session, not a normal council business item. Although a waiver of Policy L-26 is being requested, shouldn’t the present

staff

report

at

least

present

the

petition

results?

More importantly, since the traffic calming measures were not universally or uniformly supported (and

some

residents

may

have

wanted

even

more),

why

are

the

present

proposals

hidden

in

the

consent

calendar?

Was

the

neighborhood

notified

that

a

decision

will

be

made?

More

specifically,

were

the

occupants

of

the

homes

closest

to

the

proposed

speed

cushion

locations

notified

of

the

proposal?

Are

they

sympathetic

to

having

them

installed?