In addition to the findings set forth in Section IV (Findings Required for Removal of a City Tree),
• Petitions that are submitted more than 90 days past the date stamped by staff before distribution shall be invalid and the request shall not be forwarded to the Commission for consideration. The Landscape Manager may extend this timeframe at his or her discretion.
• City staff shall post the tree(s) proposed for reforestation with an 8” x 5” placard at least 14 calendar days prior to the scheduled Commission meeting. The placard will include the date it was posted, the date, time and location of the Commission meeting and a City contact number.
• For requests from a homeowners association: City staff shall notify private property owners within a 500 -foot radius of the tree(s) requested for reforestation via postcard at least 14 calendar days prior to the Commission meeting. The postcard will include the date, time and location of the Commission meeting and a City contact number.
•E. In hearing reforestation requests, the Commission may consider any and all relevant circumstances, including but not limited to the following:
327
G-1
18 o1. Health or overall condition of the tree(s) );
o2. Degree of verifiable public or private property damage from the tree(s ) o );
o3. Degree of verifiable view impairment from the tree(s)); o4. IfWhether the tree species is a Problem City Tree (Section II) See Definitions); o5. The level of community support and/or opposition;
o6. The value of the existing tree(s) versus the value of the replacement tree(s)); o7. Whether the tree species is inappropriate for the location or does not conform to the current treescape ; and/or
1. Efforts made to ensure adequate notification.
•F. The decision of the Commission shall be final unless called up by a Councilmember. and not appealable and/or subject to call for review.
D.
G. Reforestation Work Upon Commission Approval.
• The replacement tree(s) shall be an appropriate tree(s) that meets the criteria of the City's Street Tree Designation List or the City Parkway Tree Designation List as identified in City Council Policy G -6, or the requestor must obtain approval from the Co mmission of the designation of a different tree species other than the designated street tree, or an appropriate species based on the City Tree Designation Lists.
If the Commission approves the reforestation request, the following criteria apply to the completion of the reforestation work.
1. Prior to removal of the tree, the notification requirements set forth in Section VII(A) (Tree Removal Notification Requirements) shall be met.
•2. There shall be a minimum of a one-for-one replacement of all trees. Replacement trees must comply with City Council Policy G -6 unless the Commission approves a different tree designation and shall be a minimum size of 36 -inch boxed trees and species, unless the parkway space will not accommodate a 36-inch boxed tree or a tree cannot be planted due to planting restrictions contained in City Council Policy G -6.
Per the Landscape Manager’s discretion, a larger sized box tree may be planted if it is replacing a tree of significant size or value in the City’s inventory and ample planting space is available. Per the Landscape Manager’s discretion, a larger sized box tree may be planted if it is replacing a tree of significant size or value in the City’s inventory and ample pla nting space is available. If there is notno room for the replacement tree(s) at a specific site as designated by City Council Policy G-6, then the replacement 328
G-1
19 tree(s) shall be planted in a public area in the same neighborhood at the option of the requestor.
1. The requestor shall be responsible for the watering and fertilizing ofthe replacement trees to ensure their proper growth and development as outlined in City Council Policy G-6. Section 13.09.030 of the Municipal Code also requires property owners to water and fertilize parkway trees adjacent to their property. Section 13.09.030 of the Municipal Code also requires property owners to water and fertilize parkway trees adjacent to their property.
VI. TREE MAINTENANCE
The City will endeavor to fund the care of the Urban Forest to the highest level possible through the efficient use of regular tree trimming, root pruning, root barrier and pesticide programs in accordance with City Council Policy G-6. Section 13.08.040 of the Municipal Code prohibits any person from tampering with City trees.
VII. ENCROACHMENT AND DEMOLITION PERMITS
All encroachment permits (permits for private property development which are proposed to install improvements in the City right of way) or demolition permits that involve the removal or replacement of City tree(s) must be specifically noticed by the proper ty owner to City staff prior to the building and/or demolition permit process whenever possible. The proposed construction plans must indicate preservation of existing City trees wherever possible (except trees that are dead, dying, or in an advanced state of decline).
VII. NOTIFICATIONS
A. Tree Removal Notification Requirements
1. Emergency – Dead t rees and trees considered so hazardous as to necessitate an emergency removal shall be exempt from this provision. In the case of emergency removals, the Landscape Manager or the City Arborist shall have the authority to direct the removal of a hazardous tree.
2. Non-Emergency – For non-emergencies, the City shall post a Standard or Problem Tree that is not a hazard with an 8” x 5” placard at least seven (7) calendar days prior to the scheduled removal trees. The placard shall also note a Staff contact number and a date on which it was posted.
Staff shall also provide advance written notification, as applicable, to the adjacent property owner, the legally established homeowners ’ association, and the Councilperson of the district where the removal is proposed , of the intent to remove a Standard Tree.
Any appeal regarding a tree removal decision must be received by the Municipal Operations Director no later than seven (7) calendar days following the date of posting 329
G-1
20 or notice of intent. The Director will delay tree removals until the appeal period has expired or until the Commission has acted upon an appeal.
B. Public Hearing Notification Requirements
1. Prior to PB&R Commission hearing on a tree removal request, the City shall post the Standard Tree or Problem Tree proposed for removal with an 8” x 5” placard at least fourteen (14) calendar days prior to the scheduled hearing. An 8” x 5” placard will be posted on a Special Tree considered for removal at least thirty (30) days before the hearing. The placard will include the following information: the date of its posting, the date, time and location of the hearing , and a City contact number. The placard will include the date it was posted, the date, time and location of the hearing and a City contact number.
For requests from a If the proposed development requires the removal of City trees (that are not dead, dying or in decline), the property owner must submit a tree removal form to the Landscape Manager, pay for all related tree removal and one-for-one replacement costs, and meet all provisions of City Council Policies L-2 and L-6 and City Municipal Code Sections 13.08 and 13.09, or any successor policies or sections. Approval or disapproval of all tree removal/ replacement requests associated with encroachment and demolition permits will be the responsibility of the Municipal Operations Director or a designee.
VIII. TREE TRIMMING STANDARDS
The City Council has adopted tree trimming cycles for trees of different ages and species. Tree trimming cycles and trimming standards shall represent the maximum feasible frequency given current fiscal conditions. Except as provided in the Supplemental Trimming Section below, trimming shall be in accordance with the standards of the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA). In those communities with a homeowners association, periodic tree trimming with an emphasis on crown reduction or vista trimming will be considered by the City Arborist upon written request by the association.
IX. SUPPLEMENTAL TREE TRIMMING
The City will consider requests to trim certain trees more frequently or to trim trees consistent with practices applied prior to the adoption of ISA standards (to enhance public and private views, preserve required sight/distance standards, or other public purposes) which are submitted by affected private property owners or the board of a homeowners association and the request is accompanied by a completed "Supplemental Tree Trimming Form" and full payment for the requested tree trimming. However, since these practices often require 'topping' or possible disfiguring of a tree(s) and are often aesthetically displeasing and injurious to a tree, reforestation shall be considered when 330
G-1
21 supplemental tree trimming is impractical or infeasible as determined by the City Arborist.
The Landscape Manager shall establish procedures to implement the supplemental trimming provisions of this Policy. In areas with an active homeowners association, approval must be obtained from a legally established association by the requestor of supplemental tree trimming if the requested trimming is to be undertaken within the association boundaries.
2. homeowner’s association: City staff shall notify private property owners within a 500- foot radius of the tree requested for reforestation via postcard at least fourteen (14) calendar days and thirty (30) calendar days for Special Trees prior to the Commission hearing. The postcard will include the date, time and location of the hearing and a City contact number.
[Attachment – Exhibit A Special City Trees]
History
Action Policy # Date Enacted
Adopted I-9 05-09-1966
Reaffirmed I-9 08-30-1966
Amended I-9 08-14-1967
Reaffirmed I-9 11-12-1968
Reaffirmed I-9 03-09-1970
Reaffirmed I-9 02-14-1972
Amended I-9 11-09-1976
Amended I-9 11-12-1985
Amended I-9 11-28-1988
Amended I-9 03-14-1994 (changed to G-1)
Amended G-1 04-11-1994
Amended G-1 02-26-1996
Amended G-1 07-14-1997
Amended (Administratively) G-1 11-24-1997
Amended G-1 08-10-1998
Amended G-1 01-25-1999
Amended G-1 02-22-2000
Amended G-1 04-23-2002
Amended G-1 04-27-2004
Amended G-1 10-11-2011
Amended G-1 09-08-2015
Amended G-1 08-08-2017
Amended G-1 02-09-2021
Amended
Amended
Amended
G-1
G-1
G-1
05-09-2023
12-09-2025
02-24-2026
331
G-1
22 332
G-1
23 EXHIBIT A
SPECIAL CITY TREES
TYPE LOCATION SPECIES #
LANDMARK Balboa Boulevard Median Araucaria heterophylla 1 Bob Henry Park Ficus rubiginosa 1
Castaways Park Phoenix canariensis 1
Lido Hotel Site Ficus microcarpa 'Nitida' 2
Dover Drive east of Irvine Avenue Erythrina caffra 1
Dover Drive at Westcliff Liquidambar styraciflua 3
John Wayne Park Erythrina caffra 1
Lido Isle Medians Pinus pinea 4
Main Street Ficus microcarpa 'Nitida’ 1
Marine Avenue (Balboa Island) Eucalyptus (Various Species) 47 Ocean Blvd. (Corona del Mar) Phoenix canariensis 5
Wedge Area Myoporum laetum 2
West Jetty View Park (near Historical Marker) Phoenix canariensis 2 Westcliff & Dover (Groves) Bike Trail Eucalyptus globulus 23
DEDICATED Bayside Park (Newport-Irvine Rotary Club) Pyrus calleryana TREES Bayview Park (Gene Atherton)
Bayview Park (Thomas Edward Mansfield &
Owen Thomas Vatter)
Cinnamomum camphora
Cassia leptophylla
Begonia Park (Dr. Leo V. Turgeon) Bauhinia blakeana
Begonia Park (Cheryl Bailey Ringwald) Prunus cerasifera Bob Henry Park (Bob Henry) Ficus rubiginosa
Bonita Canyon Sports Park (Elaine Linhoff) Melaleuca linarifolia Bonita Canyon Sports Park (Fern Pirkle) Melaleuca linarifolia Buffalo Hills Park
(Bahia Community Earth Day Celebration)
Erythrina caffra
Buffalo Hills Park
(North Beach Sunrise Rotary Club)
Stenocarpus sinutaus
Castaways Park (Kevin Murphy) Pinus torreyana
Castaways Park (Mary Louise Romine) Pinus torreyana
Castaways Park (Joe Clarkson) Platanus racemosa
Castaways Park (Michael F. Gustin)
Castaways Park (Robert W. Hanley)
Platanus racemosa
Populus Fremontii
Castaways Park (Arthur Grant Kidmann Jr.) Platanus racemosa Castaways Park (Grover Stephens, Ph.D.) Platanus racemosa Castaways Park (John D. Woodruff) Platanus racemosa
Castaways Park (Nancy Bergeson) Quercus agrifolia
Castaways Park (Logan David Burley) Quercus agrifolia
Castaways Park (Sawyer Dean Burley) Quercus agrifolia
Castaways Park (Sawyer Dean Burley)
Castaways Park (Gregory Caurteau)
Quercus agrifolia
Quercus kelloggii
333
G-1
24 Castaways Park (Bob & Susan Caustin) Quercus agrifolia Castaways Park (Joe Clarkson) Quercus agrifolia
Castaways Park (Yen Chu Kuo) Quercus agrifolia
Castaways Park (Ryan Lemmon) Quercus agrifolia
Castaways Park (Virginia Najera) Quercus agrifolia
Castaways Park (Eva Victoria Najera) Quercus agrifolia
Castaways Park (David Rapp)
Castaways Park (Sheldon Powell Riley)
Quercus agrifolia
Populus Fremontii
Castaways Park (Nancy & Jack Skinner) Quercus agrifolia Castaways Park (Staycee Stone) Quercus agrifolia
Castaways Park (Jason Stradman) Quercus agrifolia
Castaways Park (Robert T. Talbot) Quercus agrifolia
Castaways Park (Jan Vandersloot) Quercus agrifolia
Castaways Park (Jean Watt) Quercus agrifolia
Cliff Dr. Park (Susan Benz) Bauhinia blakeana
Cliff Dr. Park (Francis P. Hemenway) Cassia leptophylla Cliff Dr. Park (Gary Lovell) Quercus agrifolia
Cliff Dr. Park (Dr. Vandersloot)
Coastal Peak Park (Jared Romine)
Quercus agrifolia
Quercus agrifolia
Eastbluff Park (Lucy Huntsman) Hymenosporum flavum
Eastbluff Park (Billy Covert) Ficus macrophylla
Galaxy View Park (Trey Hunter) Cupaniopsis anacardiodes Galaxy View Park (Dylan Ayres) Metrosideros excelsa
Galaxy View Park (Virginia Roberts) Cassia leptophylla
Grant Howald Park (Jean & Coalson Morris) Cassia leptophylla Grant Howald Park (Skipper Mark Howes) Hymenosporum flavum Grant Howald Park (Mark Munro) Metrosideros excelsa
Grant Howald Park (Pete Munro) Metrosideros excelsa
Grant Howald Park (Cara Lee) Spathodea campanulata
Irvine Terrace Park (Beckett Glyer) Platanus racemosa
Irvine Terrace Park
(U.S. Bicentennial Freedom Tree)
Platanus racemosa
Irvine Terrace Park (California Bicentennial) Pinus Pinia Irvine Terrace Park (Dana Harmon) Liquidambar styraciflua Irvine Terrace Park (Sister City of Okazaki) Pinus nigra L Street Park (Tim Van Ostenbridge) Cassia leptophylla
Las Arenas Park (Ed Healy) Melaleuca linarifolia
M Street (median) (Walter Knott) Pinus pinea
Mariners Park (Sierra Beth) Bauhinia variegata
Mariners Park
(Dr. Anthony & Madeline DeCarbo)
Cedrus deodara
Mariners Park (Isy Pease) Pinus halepensis
Mariners Park
(Christopher & Marisha Thompson)
Pinus eldarica
Mariners Park (Meghan & Camielle Thompson) Pinus eldarica Mariners Park (Frank Tallman) Pinus radiata
334
G-1
25 Mariners Park
(North Beach Sunrise Rotary Club)
Senocarpus sinuatus
Mariners Park (Graci Lee Henry) Magnolia ‘Little Gem’
Mariners Park (Susana Lee Niederhaus) Bauhinia variegata North Mariners Park (Marcie Schrauder) Pinus radiata
Newport Pier / 24th Street Bike Path
(Marie “Maxine” Louchis)
Chamaerops humilis
Old School Park (Mary Jo Tyler) Bauhinia variegata
Old School Park (Jean & Coalson Morris) Cassia leptophylla Peninsula Park (Gray Lunde Tree) Chamaerops humilis
Peninsula Park (Don Perdue) Ravenea rivularis
San Miguel Park (Jon Walters) Schinus molle
Spyglass Hill Park (Dennis George Brice) Acacia baileyana Spyglass Hill Park (Edith Mary Brice) Acacia baileyana
Veterans Park (Rosemary Rae Hill Hansen) Lagenstoemia indica fauriei WCH & Superior Ave City Parking Lot
(Louise Greeley)
Cassia leptophylla
West Newport Park (Russell Marc Beaumont) Erythrina caffra West Newport Park (Jeff Steven Reinker) Erythrina caffra West Newport Park
(Brownie Girl Scout Troop 2072)
Spathodea campanulata
Various locations:
Castaways Park and Cliff Drive Slopes
(Dr. Jan David Vandersloot & Family)
Qurcus agrifolia
NEIGHBORHOOD
TREES Along Avon Ave Eucalyptus globulus 8
Buena Vista and Lindo Ave Erythrina caffra 1
Candlestick Lane (Baycrest) Eucalyptus citriodora 10
Clay St. (Irvine Ave to St. Andrews Rd.) Ficus microcarpa ‘Nitida’ 21 Cliff Drive (north side, west of Dover Dr.) Agathus robusta 4 Cliff Drive Park (Scout House) Ficus benjamina 1
Commodore Rd. Eucalyptus citriodora 2
Corona del Mar State Beach Washingtonia robusta 74
601 Dover Drive Eucalyptus ficifolia 1
Dover Drive (Mariners Drive to Irvine Ave) Eucalyptus globulus 6 Eastbluff Park Ficus macrophylla 6
Glenwood Lane Eucalytpus citriodora 2
Goldenrod Ave (Ocean Blvd. to Fifth Ave.) Washingtonia robusta 144 Heliotrope Ave (Corona del Mar) Pinus radiata 2
Irvine Ave (17th St. to Dover Dr.) Phoenix dactylifera 30 Irvine Ave (17th St. to Dover Dr.) Spathodea campanulata 39 128 Kings Place Roystonea regia 1
L Street Park Quercus suber 36
Leeward Lane Fraxinus uhdea ‘Tomlinson’ 38
M Street Park Pinus pinea 1
Margaret Drive (median) Erythrina caffra 1
335
G-1
26 Marguerite Ave. (Ocean Blvd. to Fifth Ave.) Phoenix canariensis 64 Mariners Drive Jacaranda mimosifolia 44
Newport Center Drive Washingtonia robusta 363
Poppy Ave (Corona del Mar) Eucalyptus rudis 24
Rhine Wharf Park Archontophoenix
cunninghamiana
12 Along Riverside Ave (adjacent to Cliff Dr Park) Schinus terebinthefolius 10 725 St. James Rd. Eucalyptus ficifolia 1
Sandalwood Lane Eucalyptus citriodora 2
Santa Ana Ave. Eucalpytus robusta 39
Seaview Ave (Corona del Mar) Pinus radiata 1
Shorecliffs Entrance Erythrina caffra 46
Starlight Circle Eucalyptus citriodora 5
Via Lido Bridge Eucalyptus globulus 16
Waterfront Drive (Avocado Ave to Acacia Ave) Schinus molle 16 West Newport Park Metrosideros excelsus 55
336
1 G-6
MAINTENANCE AND PLANTING OF CITYPARKWAY TREES
The City Council is vitally interested in beautification of City parkways. The City will endeavor to fund the care of the Urban Forest to the highest level possible through the efficient use of regular tree trimming, root pruning, root barrier and pesticide programs. Public cooperation in helping to develop and maintain healthy and attractive parkway trees is encouraged. Section 13.08.040 of the Municipal Code prohibits any person from tampering with City trees.
I. MAINTENANCE OF CI T Y PARKWAY TREES
The Municipal Operations Department will maintain City trim the parkway trees on a rotation schedule , including but not limited to trimming, staking, root pruning, nutrition, and pest control. An effort will be made to trim the parkway trees on less than a three -year cycle. More frequent trimming maywill be performed on approved trees and in approved view areas. Public safety issues such as low branches and heavy foliage will be given priority. over view-type trimming. An effort will be made to trim parkway trees located in heavy summer traffic areas during the fall and winter months. Annual trimming of certain species of trees prone to wind damage will be done prior to the winter season.
II. TREE TRIMMING STANDARDS
Tree trimming cycles and trimming standards shall represent the maximum feasible frequency given current fiscal conditions. Except as provided in the Supplemental Trimming Section below, trimming shall be in accordance with the standards of the Internation al Society of Arboriculture (ISA). In those communities with a homeowner ’s association, periodic tree trimming with an emphasis on crown reduction or vista trimming will be considered by the City Arborist upon written request by the association.
III. SUPPLEMENTAL TREE TRIMMING
The City will consider requests to trim certain trees more frequently or to trim trees consistent with practices applied prior to the adoption of ISA standards (to enhance public and private views, preserve required sight/distance standards, or other publi c purposes) which are submitted by affected private property owners or the board of a homeowners association and the request is accompanied by a completed "Supplemental Tree Trimming Form" and full payment for the requested tree trimming. However, since th ese practices often require 'topping' or possible disfiguring of a tree(s) and are often aesthetically displeasing and injurious to a tree, reforestation shall be considered when supplemental tree trimming is impractical or infeasible as determined by the City Arborist.
The Landscape Manager shall establish procedures to implement the supplemental trimming provisions of this Policy. In areas with an active homeowner’s association, approval must be obtained from a legally established association by the requestor of supplemental tree trimming if the requested trimming is to be undertaken within the 337
2 G-6
association boundaries.
II.IV. TREE DESIGNATION LISTS
The City Council has adopted an official street tree list, the Street Tree Designation List (Exhibit A), which will be used by the Municipal Operations Department, to determine species for replacement of trees removed from established parkways and for planning purposes in all new subdivisions and commercial developments. A second list, the Parkway Tree Designation List (Exhibit B), has been added as a species palette for residents to choose approved, new and replacement, trees based on the size of parkway available for planting. The Eastbluff Community Association has its own City approved street tree list (Exhibit C).
The Municipal Operations Director, or designee, will have the authority to add species to the Street and Parkway Tree Designation Lists, which will be updated on an as -needed basis by the Municipal Operations Department staff and reviewed by the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission ("Commission") for approval before adoption by the City Council.
III.V. STANDARDS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR PLANTING CITYPARKWAY TREES
This Section is intended for planting parkway trees related to new construction, in accordance with City Code 13.09.010.
General Requirements
1. 72-hour notification shall be given to the Municipal Operations Department staff by permittees prior to the initial installation of parkway trees for approval of species, material quality, and planting supervision. Inspection requests by permittees shall be scheduled 24-hours in advance using the Public Works inspection request line or via the City website as required.
1.2. Position of parkway trees is subject to approval by the Municipal Operations Department, and any tree not properly placed will be relocated by permittees at no cost to the City. In the interest of public safety, unless an exception is granted by the City Arborist, trees shall be planted not less than :
• 15 feet back of beginning of curb returns at intersections. • 10 feet from lamp standards.
• 10 feet from fire hydrants.
• 5 feet from service walks or driveways.
• 10 feet from meters and sewers.
• 25 feet from stop signs.
338
3 G-6
2.3. Trees shall be a minimum container size of 36" size box, if growth space allows.
• Condition: Plants shall be symmetrical, typical for variety and species, healthy, vigorous, free from plant disease, insect pests and shall have healthy, normal root system free from being root bound. Trees shall not be pruned nor topped prior to delivery.
• Inspection: All plant material shall be subject to inspection and approval by the Municipal Operations Department, Municipal Operations Department staff prior to planting. The City has the right to reject any item offered in its sole and absolute discretion.
• Parkway Tree Planting: Per City Standards as found in the Tree Planting Detail available on the City's website.
2.4. Newly planted trees shall be irrigated with an automated system tied to the property under construction.
3.5. GUARANTEES
• 36" boxed trees shall be guaranteed as to growth and health for a period of one year after final acceptance by the Municipal Operations Department staff.
• Trees that fail to grow or are injured or damaged during planting operations shall be replaced within 15 days after notification.
Replacement material shall be guaranteed to be specified as original guaranteed material.
IV.VI. ESTABLISHED PARKWAYS
1. For all City tree planting in established parkways (not permit related), adjacent property owners and/or applicants must:
•• Choose from the species listed on the Street Tree Designation List where it applies, or from the Parkway Tree Designation List for all other areas for planting new and replacement trees.
•• Accept responsibility for watering and fertilizing new trees. •• Contact the City Arborist by sending a written request for one or more parkway trees or questions regarding this Policy to: Attn: City Arborist, P. 0. Box 1768, Newport Beach, California 92659 -1768. Email is also available at [email protected]
2. The City will:
• Approve species, location, and spacing of tree planting. 339
4 G-6
• Furnish, install, stake, and initially fertilize new trees (exception would be trees planted in accordance with City Code 13 .09.010). • Prune and spray tree as required.
• Approve type of root barriers for installation.
• Assume trimming responsibilities.
V.VII. PARKWAYS IN ESTABLISHED RETAIL COMMERCIAL/OFFICE CENTERS
Parkway street trees that are removed because they are diseased or have damaged property may be replaced with the same species of trees (or a species other than the designated street tree) provided
(a) the parkway street tree is located adjacent to or within an established retail commercial/office development; (b) replacement with the same species will maintain the appearance of the streetscape and /or ensure consistency with an established landscape master plan adopted by the adjoining landowner; (c) the parkway street trees have a history of little or no hardscape damage nor injury claims related to hardscape damage caused by the tree; and (d) the property owner has agreed in writing to repair or pay the cost of repair/and or replacement of hardscape or underground utilities damaged by the new trees.
[Attachment - Exhibit A]
[Attachment - Exhibit B]
[Attachment - Exhibit C]
History
Adopted I-19 - 11-22-1982
Amended I-19- 11-14-1983
Amended I-19- 10-22-1990
Amended I-19- 10-22-1992
Amended I-19 - 1-24-1994 (changed to G-6)
Amended G-6- 7-23-2002
Amended G-6 - 4-13-2004
Amended G-6 - 8-24- 2004
Amended G-6 - 9-8-2015
Amended G-6 - 8-8-2017
Amended G-6 - 2-9-2021
Amended G-6 - 11-14-2023
Amended G-6 - 11-14-2023
Amended G-6
Amended G-6
12-9-2025
2-24-2026
340
5 G-6
Exhibit A
Street Tree Designation List
STREET TREE DESIGNATION LIST
ID HOA FROM TO BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME
ANACAPA DR Fashion Island 1300 1300 Ficus rubiginosa 1. Rusty Leaf Fig BALBOA BLVD E 600 2100 Syagrus romanzoffiana 1. Queen Palm
BALBOA BLVD W
1000
1500
Arbutus unedo
Cassia leptophylla
Washingtonia robusta
1. Strawberry Tree
2. Gold Medallion
Tree
3. Mexican Fan Palm
BALBOA BLVD W Median 1000 3200 Washingtonia robusta 1. Mexican Fan Palm BLUE KEY Harbor View
Hills South 3600 3734 Magnolia grandiflora 'Little
Gem'
l. Magnolia, Little
Gem
BLUE WATER DR Broadmoor 2501 2825 Magnolia grandiflora 'St Mary'
1. Magnolia, St.
Marv's
BOMBERO ST Fashion Island 800 800 Ficus rubiginosa 1. Rusty Leaf Fig BRIGHTON RD Cameo Shores 4501 4651 Bauhinia variegata 1. Purple Orchid BUCK GULLY DR Harbor View
Hills South 4000 4001 Magnolia grandiflora 'Little
Gem'
1. Magnolia, Little
Gem
CAMDEN DR Parkway Cameo Shores 4501 4699 Bauhinia variegata 1. Purple Orchid CAMDEN DR Slope Cameo Shores 4500 4599 Bauhinia variegata 1. Purple Orchid CAMEO HIGHLANDS DR Cameo
Highlands 500 735 Bauhinia variegata 1. Purple Orchid
CAMEO SHORES RD Parkway Cameo Shores 101 346 Bauhinia variegata 1. Purple Orchid CAMEO SHORES RD Slope Cameo Shores 100 350 Bauhinia variegata 1. Purple Orchid 341
6 G-6
Exhibit A
Street Tree Designation List
CATAMARAN DR Harbor View
Hills South 3400 3630 Magnolia grandiflora 'Little
Gem'
1. Magnolia, Little
Gem
COAST HWY E
1600
1600
1. Bauhinia blakeana
2. Archontophoenix
cunninghamiana
1. Hong
Kong
Orchid
2. King Palm
COAST HWY E
2200
3934
1. Bauhinia blakeana
2. Arclwntophoenix
cunninghamirma
1. Hong
Kong
Orchid
2. King Palm
COAST HWY E
4001
4401
1. Bnuhinia blakeana
2. Archontophoenix
cunninghamirma
1. Hong
Kong
Orchid
2. King Palm
COAST HWY E
4104
4400
1. Bauhinia blakeana
2. Archontophoenix
cunninglumiiana
l. Hong Kong
Orchid
2. King Palm
COAST HWY E Median
300
2100
1. Spathodea campanulata
2. Archontophoenix
cunninghamiana
1. African Tulip
Tree
2. King Palm
CORTLAND DR Cameo
Highlands 4500 4839 Bauhinia variegata 1. Purple Orchid CROWN DR Even Harbor View
Hills 2720 2740 Magnolia grandiflora 'Little
Gem'
1. Magnolia, Little
Gem
CROWN DR Parkway Harbor View
Hills 2501 2735 Magnolia grandiflora 'Little
Gem'
1. Magnolia, Little
Gem
DE ANZA DR Magnolia grandiflora
'cultivar'
342
7 G-6
Exhibit A
Street Tree Designation List
DORCHESTER RD Cameo
Highlands 4500 4833 Bauhinia variegata 1. Purple Orchid EBBTIDE RD Even Harbor View
Hills 2700 2700 Magnolia grandiflora 'Little
Gem'
1. Magnolia, Little
Gem
EBBTIDE RD Parkway Harbor View
Hills 1100 2915 Magnolia grandiflora 'Little
Gem'
1. Magnolia, Little
Gem
EVENING CANYON
RD
301 365 Erythrina caffra 1. Coral Tree
FAIRFIELD DR Parkway Cameo Shores 4501 4645 Bauhinia variegata 1. Purple Orchid FAIRFIELD DR Slope Cameo Shores 4500 4500 Bauhinia variegata 1. Purple Orchid FARALLON DR Fashion Island 1900 2101 Ficus rubiginosa 1. Rusty Leaf Fig GARRETT DR Parkway Cameo
Highlands 501 725 Bauhinia variegata 1. Purple Orchid
GARRETT DR Slope Cameo
Highlands 500 500 Bauhinia variegata 1. Purple Orchid
GOLDENROD AVE 200 721 Washingtonia robusta 1. Mexican Fan Palm GOLDENROD AVE Harbor View
Hills 900 1133 Magnolia grandiflora 'Little
Gem'
1. Magnolia, Little
Gem
HAMPDEN RD Even Cameo Shores 4500 4700 Bauhinia variegata 1. Purple Orchid HAMPDEN RD Parkway Cameo Shores 4501 4717 Bauhinia variegata 1. Purple Orchid HARBOR VIEW DR Parkway Harbor View
Hills 2500 3007 Magnolia grandiflora 'Little
Gem'
1. Magnolia, Little
Gem
HARBOR VIEW DR Slope Harbor View
Hills 2800 3101 Magnolia grandiflora 'Little
Gem'
1.Magnolia, Little
Gem
343
8 G-6
Exhibit A
Street Tree Designation List
HELIOTROPE AVE
*7
200
721
1. Magnolia grandiflora
'Little Gem'
2. Howea forsteriana
1. Magnolia, Little
Gem
2. Kentia Palm
HERON WAY Harbor View
Hills South 1300 1325 Magnolia grandifl ora 'Little
Gem'
1. Magnolia, Little
Gem
INLET ISLE DR Harbor View
Hills South 3701 4012 Magnolia grandiflora
'Little Gem'
1. Magnolia, Little
Gem
IRVINE AVE Median 1. Phoenix dactylifera
2. Spathodea campanulata
1. Date palm
2. African tulip
ISLAND VIEW DR
Broadmoor
2501
2727
1. Magnolia, grand flora
'Little Gem'
2. Howea forsteriana
1. Magnolia, 'Little
Gem'
2. Kentia Palm
JAMBOREE RD
500
600
1. Tabebuia impetiginosa
2. Liquidambar styraciflua
'Rotundiloba'
1. Pink or
Lavendar
Trumpet
2. Roundleaf Sweet
Gum
JAMBOREE RD Median
800
900
1. Tabebuia impetiginosa
2. Liquidambar styraciflua
'Rotundiloba'
1. . Pink or
Lavendar
Trumpet
2. Roundleaf Sweet
Gum
JAMBOREE RD Median
1100
1500
1. Tabebuia impetiginosa
2. Liquidambar styraciflua
'Rotundiloba'
1. Pink or
Lavendar
Trumpet
2. Roundleaf Sweet
Gum
KEEL DR Harbor View
Hills South 1200 1537 Magnolia grandiflora 'Little
Gem'
1. Magnolia, Little
Gem
344
9 G-6
Exhibit A
Street Tree Designation List
KEYBAY Harbor View
Hills South 3800 3930 Magnolia grandiflora 'Little
Gem'
1. Magnolia, Little
Gem
KEY VIEW Harbor View
Hills South 1436 1456 Magnolia grandiflora 'Little
Gem'
1. Magnolia, Little
Gem
KEY WEST Harbor View
Hills South 1200 1224 Magnolia grandiflora 'Little
Gem'
1. Magnolia, Little
Gem
LIGHTHOUSE LN Broadmoor 2500 2828 Magnolia grandiflora 'St Mary'
1. Magnolia, St.
Mary's
MACARTHUR BLVD
1. Magnolia
grandiflora 'Little
Gem'
2. Liquidambar stymcifiua
'Rotundiloba'
1. Magnolia, Little
Gem
2. Roundleaf Sweet
Gum
MARGUERITE AVE
200 721 Archontophoenix
cunninghamiana 1. King Palm
MARGUERITE AVE
1600 1740 Archontophoenix
cunninghamiana 1. King Palm
MARGUERITE AVE Even
1520 1520 Archontopoenix
cunninghnmiana 1. King Palm
MILFORD DR Cameo Shores 101 345 Bauhinia variegata 1. Purple Orchid
MORNING CANYON RD
318 342 Erythrina caffra 1. Coral Tree
NEWPORT BLVD
100
600
1. Tipuana tipu
2. Tristania laurina
3. Washingtonia robusta
1. Tipu
2. Water Gum
3. Mexican Fan Palm
345
10 G-6
Exhibit A
Street Tree Designation List
NEWPORT BLVD
2600
3300
1. Tipuana tipu
2. Tristania laurina
3. Washingtonia robusta
1. Tipu
2. Water Gum
3. Mexican Fan Palm
NEWPORT CENTER
DR
100 900 Washingtonia robusta 1. Mexican Fan Palm
NEWPORT CENTER
DR
1000 1200 Washingtonia robusta 1. Mexican Fan Palm
NEWPORT CENTER
DR Median 100 900 Washingtonia robusta 1. Mexican Fan Palm
NEWPORT CENTER
DR Median 1000 1200 Washingtonia robusta 1. Mexican Fan Palm ORRINGTON RD Parkway Cameo Shores 4500 4645 Bauhinia variegata 1. Purple Orchid ORRINGTON RD Slope Cameo Shores 4510 4510 Bauhinia variegata 1. Purple Orchid OUTRIGGER DR Harbor View
Hills South 1200 1430 Magnolia grandiflora 'Little
Gem'
1. Magnolia, Little
Gem
PARK GREEN DR Harbor View
Hills South 3601 3907 Magnolia grandiflora 'Little
Gem'
1. Magnolia, Little
Gem
PEARL AVE Balboa Island 100 132 Magnolia grandiflora
'Samuel Sommers'
1. Magnolia, Samuel
Sommers
PEBBLE DR Parkway Harbor View
Hills 2700 2921 Magnolia grandiflora 'Little
Gem'
1. Magnolia, Little
Gem
PEBBLE DR Slope Harbor View
Hills 2800 2800 Magnolia grandiflora 'Little
Gem'
1. Magnolia, Little
Gem
PERHAM RD Parkway Cameo Shores 4501 4645 Bauhinia variegata 1. Purple Orchid PERHAM RD Slope Cameo Shores 4500 4500 Bauhinia variegata l. Purple Orchid POPPY AVE 200 352 Tristania laurina 1.WaterGum
346
11 G-6
Exhibit A
Sheet Tree Designation List
Spathodea campmwlata 2.African
Tulip Tree
QUIET COVE 3400 3449 Geijera parviflora 1. Australian Willow ROCKFORD PL Cameo
Highlands 500 521 Bauhinia variegata 1. Purple Orchid
ROCKFORD RD Cameo
I-Iighlands 500 721 Bauhinia variegata 1. Purple Orchid ROXBURY RD Cameo Shores 4500 4646 Bauhinia variegata 1. Purple Orchid SALT AIR CIR Broadmoor 2501 2601 Magnolia grandiflora 'St Mary'
1. Magnolia, St.
Mary's
SALT AIR DR Odd Broadmoor 1301 1301 Magnolia grandiflora 'St Mary'
1. Magnolia, St.
Mary's
SALT AIR DR Slope Broadmoor 1300 1320 Magnolia grandiflora 'St Mary'
1. Magnolia, St.
Marv's
SAN CLEMENTE DR Fashion Island 850 901 Ficus rubiginosa 1. Rusty Leaf Fig SAN MIGUEL DR Fashion Island 300 366 Ficus rubiginosa 1. Rusty Leaf Fig SAN MIGUEL DR Fashion Island 1600 2601 Ficus rubiginosa 1. Rusty Leaf Fig SAN NICOLAS DR Fashion Island 500 567 Ficus rubiginosa 1. Rusty Leaf Fig SAND KEY Harbor View
Hills South 1200 1235 Magnolia grandiflora 'Little
Gem'
1. Magnolia, Little
Gem
SANDCASTLE DR Harbor View
Hills South 850 1555 Magnolia grandiflora 'Little
Gem'
1. Magnolia, Little
Gem
SANDPIPER DR Parkway Harbor View
Hills 1010 1106 Magnolia grandiflora 'Little
Gem'
1. Magnolia, Little
Gem
347
12 G-6
Exhibit A
Street Tree Designation List
SANDPIPER DR Slope Harbor View
Hills 1015 1101 Magnolia grandiflora 'Little
Gem'
1. Magnolia, Little
Gem
SANDUNE LN Harbor View
Hills South 3800 3930 Magnolia grandiflora 'Little
Gem'
1. Magnolia, Little
Gem
SANTA BARBARA
DR Fashion Island 870 1001 Ficus rubiginosa 1. Rusty Leaf Fig SANTA CRUZ DR Fashion Island 800 901 Ficus rubiginosa 1. Rusty Leaf Fig SANTA MARIA RD Fashion Island Ficus rubiginosa 1. Rusty Leaf Fig SANTA ROSA DR Fashion Island 1500 1501 Ficus rubiginosa 1. Rusty Leaf Fig SAUSALITO DR Harbor View
Hills South 3400 3621 Magnolia grandiflora 'Little
Gem'
1. Magnolia, Little
Gem
SEA LN Harbor View
Hills 900 950 Magnolia grandiflora 'Little
Gem'
1. Magnolia, Little
Gem
SEABREEZE LN Harbor View
Hills South 3400 3631 Magnolia grandiflora 'Little
Gem'
1. Magnolia, Little
Gem
SEACREST DR Harbor View
Hills South 1200 1533 Magnolia grandiflora 'Little
Gem'
1. Magnolia, Little
Gem
SETTING SUN DR Parkway Harbor View
Hills 2701 3007 Magnolia grandiflora 'Little
Gem'
1. Magnolia, Little
Gem
SETTING SUN DR Slope Harbor View
Hills 2700 3000 Magnolia grandiflora 'Little
Gem'
1. Magnolia, Little
Gem
SURFVIEW LN Harbor View
Hills South 3500 3620 Magnolia grandiflora 'Little
Gem'
1. Magnolia, Little
Gem
SURREY DR Cameo
Highlands 4500 4824 Bauhinia variegata 1. Purple Orchid 348
13 G-6
Exhibit A
Street Tree Designation List
TILLER WAY Harbor View
Hills South 900 1039 Magnolia grandiflora 'Little
Gem'
1. Magnolia, Little
Gem
TOPSIDE LN Harbor View
Hills South 3798 4015 Magnolia grandiflora
'Little Gem'
1. Magnolia, Little
Gem
TREMONT LN Slope Cameo Shores 4500 4600 Bauhinia variegata 1. Purple Orchid WATERFRONT DR 2200 2220 Schinus molle California Pepper WAYNE RD Cameo
Highlands 4500 4621 Bauhinia variegata 1. Purple Orchid WHITE SAILS WAY Harbor View
Hills 1000 1133 Magnolia grandiflora 'Little
Gem'
1. Magnolia, Little
Gem
349
14 G-6
Exhibit B
City of Newport Beach Parkway Tree
Designation List
Pkwy
Size
Botanical
Name
Common
Name
Height Spread Type Water
Needs
24"
Avail.
36"
Avail.
48"
Avail.
Notes
2'+ Acacia baileyana Bailey
Acacia
25 15 Evergreen L Yes No No
2'+ Archontophoenix
cunninghamiana
King Palm 40 20 Evergreen M Yes Yes Yes
2'+ Chionanthus
retusus
Chinese
Fringe
Tree
20 15 Deciduous M Yes Yes No
2'+ Heteromeles
arbutifolia
California
Holly
20 15 Evergreen L No No No Available-15 Gal
2'+ Ligustrum
lucidum
Glossy
Privet
25 15 Evergreen L Yes Yes No
2'+ Melaleuca
nesophila
Pink
Melaleuca
25 15 Evergreen L Yes No No
2'+ Photiniax fraseri Fraser
Photinia
20 10 Evergreen M Yes Yes No
2'+ Prunus
cerasifera
'Newport'
Newport
Plum
15 10 Deciduous Yes No No
2'+ Prunus
cerasifera
'Purple Pony'
Dwarf
Purple
Leafed
Plum
15 10 Deciduous Yes No No
350
15 G-6
Exhibit B
City of Newport Beach Parkway Tree
Designation List
Pkwy
Size
Botanical
Name
Common
Name
Height Spread Type Water
Needs
24"
Avail.
36"
Avail.
48"
Avail.
Notes
2'+ Rhaphiolepis x
'Montie'
Indian
Hawthorne
15 10 Evergreen M Yes Yes No
2'+ Tecoma stans Yellow Bells 20 15 Evergreen M Yes No No 2'+ Trachycarpus
fortunei
Windmill
Palm
30 10 Evergreen M Yes Yes Yes
2'+ Tristania laurina Water
Gum
20 10 Evergreen M Yes Yes No
3'+ Betula pendula European
White Birch
40 25 Deciduous H Yes Yes Yes
3'+ Brahea armata Mexican
Blue Palm
30 15 Evergreen L Yes No No
3'+ Brahea edulis Guadalupe
Palm
30 10 Evergreen L No Yes No
3'+ Cercis
canadensis
'Forest Pansy'
Forest
Pansy
Redbud
15 10 Deciduous M Yes Yes No
3'+ Cercis
occidentalis
Western
Redbud
15 10 Deciduous L Yes Yes No
3'+ Chitalpa
tashkentensis
Chitalpa 25 25 Deciduous L Yes Yes No
351
16 G-6
Exhibit B
City of Newport Beach Parkway Tree
Designation List
Pkwy
Size
Botanical
Name
Common Name Height Spread Type Water
Needs
24"
Avail.
36"
Avail.
48"
Avail.
Notes
3'+ Duranta
repens
Golden
Dewdrop
20 15 Evergreen M Yes No No
3'+ Eriobotrya
deflexa
Bronze Loquat 25 25 Evergreen M Yes Yes No
3+ Handroanthus
chrysotricha
Yellow
Trumpet Tree
25 20 Deciduous M Yes No No
3'+ Heteromeles
arbutifolia
Toyon Tree 15 10 Evergreen L No No No Available-15 Gal
3'+ Howea
forsteriana
Kentia Palm 35 20 Evergreen M Yes Yes No
3'+ Hymenesporum
flavum
Sweetsha de 40 20 Evergreen M No No No Available-15 Gal 3'+ Lagerstroemia
indica 'Indian
Tribes'
Crape Myrtle 25 20 Deciduous M Yes Yes Yes Natchez (white) Dynamite (vibrant red),
Tuscarora (pink)
Muskogee (purple)
3'+ Livistona
chinensis
Chinese
Fountain
Palm
20 10 Evergreen M Yes No No
352
17 G-6
Exhibit B
City of Newport Beach Parkway Tree
Designation List
Pkwy
Size
Botanical
Name
Common
Name
Height Spread Type Water
Needs
24"
Avail.
36"
Avail.
48"
Avail.
Notes
3'+ Livistona decora Fountain
Palm
20 10 Evergreen M Yes No No
3'+ Magnolia
grandiflora 'Little
Gem'
Little
Gem
Magnolia
20 15 Evergreen M Yes Yes Yes
3'+ Maytenus
boaria
Mayten
Tree
20 15 Evergreen M Yes Yes Yes
3'+ Rhus
integrifolia
Lemonade
Berry
10 10 Evergreen VL No No No Available-IS Gal
3'+ Syagrus
romanzoffiana
Queen
Palm
50 20 Evergreen M Yes Yes Yes
3'+ Washingtonia
robusta
Mexican Fan
Palm
90 20 Evergreen L Yes Yes No
3'+ Wodyetia
bifurcata
Foxtail
Palm
40 20 Evergreen M Yes No No
4'+ Arbutus
'Marina'
Strawberry
Tree
20 20 Evergreen L Yes Yes Yes
4'+ Brachychiton
populeneus
Bottle tree 50 40 Evergreen L Yes Yes No
4'+ Cassia leptophylla Gold
Medallion
tree
25 20 Evergreen M Yes Yes No
4'+ Geijera parvifolia Australian
Willow
40 25 Evergreen L Yes Yes Yes
353
18 G-6
Exhibit B
City of Newport Beach Parkway Tree
Designation List
Pkwy
Size
Botanical
Name
Common
Name
Height Spread Type Water
Needs
24"
Avail.
36"
Avail.
48"
Avail.
Notes
4'+ Laurus noblis Grecian Laurel 40 30 Evergreen L Yes Yes Yes 4'+ Laurus
'Saratoga'
Saratoga Laurel 40 30 Evergreen L Yes No No
4'+ Melaleuca
citrinus
Lemon
Bottlebrush
25 20 Evergreen L Yes Yes No
4'+ Melaleuca
viminalis
Weeping
Bottlebrush
25 20 Evergreen M Yes Yes No
4'+ Rhus lancea African Sumac 25 20 Evergreen L Yes No No 4'+ Spathodea
campanulata
African Tulip
Tree
30 20 Evergreen M Yes Yes No
4'+ Stenocarpus
sinuatus
Firewheel Tree 25 15 Evergreen M Yes No No
5'+ Agonis
flexuosa
Peppermint
Tree
35 35 Evergreen L Yes No Yes
5'+ Agonis
flexuosa
'Afterdark'
Afterdark
Peppermint
Willow
35 35 Evergreen L Yes No No
5'+ Albizia
julibrissin
Silk Tree 40 40 Deciduous M Yes Yes No
354
19 G-6
Exhibit B
City of Newport Beach Parkway Tree
Designation List
Pkwy
Size
Botanical
Name
Common
Name
Height Spread Type Water
Needs
24"
Avail.
36"
Avail.
48"
Avail.
Notes
5'+ Bauhinia variegata Purple
Orchid
Tree
30 20 Deciduous M Yes Yes No
5'+ Brachychiton
acerfolius
Flame
Tree
40 30 Evergreen L Yes Yes No
5'+ Calodendron
capense
Cape
Chestnut
40 40 Deciduous M Yes No No
5'+ Erythrina
americana (E.
coralloides)
Naked
Coral
Tree
30 30 Deciduous L Yes Yes No
5'+ Fraxinus
oxycarpa
'Raywood'
Raywood
Ash
35 30 Deciduous M Yes Yes Yes
5'+ Ginkgo biloba
'Fruitless'
Maidenhair
Tree
60 40 Deciduous M Yes Yes Yes
5'+ Tabebuia
heterophylla
Pink
Trumpet
Tree
30 30 Deciduous M Yes Yes Yes
5'+ Jacaranda
mimosifolia
Jacaranda 40 50 Deciduous M Yes Yes Yes
5'+ Koelreuteria
paniculata
Goldenrain
Tree
25 25 Deciduous L Yes Yes Yes
5'+ Lophostemon
confertus
Brisbane
Box
60 40 Evergreen M Yes Yes Yes
355
20 G-6
Exhibit B
City of Newport Beach Parkway Tree
Designation List
Pkwy
Size
Botanical
Name
Common
Name
Height Spread Type Water
Needs
24"
Avail.
36"
Avail.
48"
Avail.
Notes
5'+ Lyonothamnus
floribundus
Catalina
Ironwood
50 30 Evergreen VL Yes No No
5'+ Magnolia
grandiflora
'Majestic
Beauty'
Majestic
Beauty
Magnolia
40 20 Evergreen M Yes Yes Yes
5'+ Magnolia
grandiflora
'Russett'
Russett
Magnolia
20 15 Evergreen M Yes Yes Yes
5'+ Magnolia
grandiflora
'Saint Mary'
Saint
Mary
Magnolia
25 20 Evergreen M Yes Yes Yes
5'+ Magnolia
grandiflora
'Samuel
Sommer'
Samuel
Sommer
Magnolia
40 30 Evergreen M Yes Yes Yes
5'+ Melaleuca
linnarifolia
Flaxleaf
Paperbark
30 30 Evergreen L Yes No No
5'+ Metrosideros
excelsa
New
Zealand
Christmas
Tree
40 40 Evergreen M Yes No No
356
21 G-6
Exhibit B
City of Newport Beach Parkway Tree
Designation List
Pkwy
Size
Botanical Name Common
Name
Height Spread Type Water
Needs
24"
Avail.
36"
Avail.
48"
Avail.
Notes
5'+ Parkinsonia x
'Desert
Museum'
Desert
Museum
Palo Verde
30 35 Semi L Yes Yes Yes
5'+ Pinus brutia Afghan
Pine
60 50 Evergreen L Yes Yes Yes
5'+ Pistacia
chinensis
Chinese
Pistache
40 40 Deciduous M Yes Yes Yes
5'+ Podocarpus
macrophyllus
Yew Pine 50 50 Evergreen M Yes No No
5'+ Prunus
ilicifolia
subsp. lyonii
Catalina
Cherry
30 30 Evergreen VL No No No Available-15 Gal
5'+ Pyrus
betulaefolia
'Southworth'
Dancer
Pear
25 20 Deciduous Yes Yes No
5'+ Pyrus calleryana
'Aristocrat'
Aristocrat Pear 30 40 Deciduous M Yes Yes Yes
5'+ Pyrus calleryana
'Chanticleer'
Chanticle er
Pear
35 20 Deciduous M Yes Yes Yes
357
22 G-6
Exhibit B
City of Newport Beach Parkway Tree
Designation List
Pkwy
Size
Botanical Name Common
Name
Height Spread Type Water
Needs
24"
Avail.
36"
Avail.
48"
Avail.
Notes
5'+ Pyrus
calleryana
'Redspire'
Redspire Pear 35 25 Deciduous M Yes Yes Yes
5'+ Pyrus
kawakamii
Evergreen
Pear
35 25 Deciduous M Yes Yes No
5'+ Quercus
douglasii
Blue Oak 50 50 Deciduous VL Yes Yes No
5'+ Quercus ilex Holly Oak 50 50 Evergreen L Yes Yes Yes 5'+ Sapium
sebiferum
Chinese
Tallow
Tree
40 35 Deciduous M Yes Yes No
5'+ Sophora
japonica
'Regent'
Chinese
Scholar
Tree
40 40 Deciduous M Yes Yes No
8'+ Afrocarpus
falcatus
Fern Pine 60 60 Evergree n Yes Yes Yes
8'+ Araucaria
heterophylla
Norfolk
Island Pine
80 30 Evergreen M Yes Yes No
8'+ Brachychiton
discolor
Pink Flame
Tree
70 50 Semi L No No No Available-15 Gal
8'+ Cinnamomum
camphora
Camphor Tree 50 60 Evergreen M Yes Yes Yes
358
23 G-6
Exhibit B
City of Newport Beach Parkway Tree
Designation List
Pkwy
Size
Botanical Name Common
Name
Height Spread Type Water
Needs
24"
Avail.
36"
Avail.
48"
Avail.
Notes
8'+ Erythrina caffra Kaffirboom
Coral
Tree
40 40 Evergreen L Yes Yes No
8'+ Fraxinus velutina
'Modesto'
Modesto Ash 50 30 Deciduous M Yes Yes Yes
8'+ Koelreuteria
bipinnata
Chinese
Flame
Tree
50 50 Deciduous M Yes Yes Yes
8'+ Pinus canariensis Canary
Island Pine
80 50 Evergreen L Yes Yes Yes
8'+ Pinus pinea Italian
Stone Pine
60 40 Evergreen L Yes Yes Yes
8'+ Pinus
torreyana
Torrey Pine 70 40 Evergreen L Yes Yes No
8'+ Platanus x
hispanica
London
Plane
Tree
70 40 Deciduous M Yes Yes No
8'+ Platanus
mexicana
Mexican
Sycamore
60 40 Evergreen M Yes Yes No
8'+ Platanus racemosa California
Sycamore
60 40 Deciduous M Yes Yes Yes
359
24 G-6
Exhibit B
City of Newport Beach Parkway Tree
Designation List
Pkwy
Size
Botanical Name Common
Name
Height Spread Type Water
Needs
24"
Avail.
36"
Avail.
48"
Avail.
Notes
8+ Podocarpus
gracilior
Fern Pine 60 60 Evergreen M Yes Yes Yes
8'+ Quercus
agrifolia
Coast
Live Oak
70 80 Evergreen L Yes Yes Yes
8'+ Quercus
engelmannii
Engleman
Oak
60 80 Evergreen L Yes Yes No
8'+ Quercus lobata Valley
Oak
70 50 Deciduous L Yes Yes No
8'+ Quercus virginiana Southern
Live Oak
60 80 Evergreen M Yes Yes Yes
8'+ Roystonea
regia
Cuban
Royal
Palm
80 40 Evergreen M Yes Yes No
8'+ Schinus molle California
Pepper
40 50 Evergreen VL Yes Yes Yes
8'+ Tipuana tipu Tipu Tree 50 60 Semi M Yes Yes Yes
8'+ Ulmus
parvifolia
'Drake'
"Drake"
Chinese
Elm
60 60 Semi M Yes Yes Yes
8'+ Zelkova
serrata
Sawleaf
Zelkova
40 40 Deciduous L Yes Yes No
360
25 G-6
Exhibit C
Eastbluff Community Association Street Tree
Designation List
Pkwy
Size
Botanical Name Common
Name
Height Spread Type Water
Needs
24"
Avail.
36"
Avail.
48"
Avail.
Notes
2'+ Tabebuia chrysotricha Yellow
Trumpet Tree
25 20 Deciduous M Yes No No
3'+ Cercis
canadensis 'Forest
Pansy'
Forest
Pansy
Redbud
15 10 Deciduous M Yes Yes No
3'+ Cercis occidentalis Western
Redbud
15 10 Deciduous L Yes Yes No
3'+ Chitalpa tashkentensis Chitalpa 25 25 Deciduous L Yes Yes No 3'+ Eryobotrya deflexa
no fruit
Bronze
Loquat
25 25 Evergreen M Yes Yes No
3'+ Lagerstroemia indica
'Indian Tribes'
Crape Myrtle 25 20 Deciduous M Yes Yes Yes
3'+ Magnolia
grandiflora 'Little Gem'
Little Gem
Magnolia
20 15 Evergreen M Yes Yes Yes
3'+ Rhus lancea African
Sumac
25 20 Evergreen L Yes No No
361
26 G-6
Exhibit C
Eastbluff Community Association Street Tree
Designation List
Pkwy
Size
Botanical
Name
Common
Name
Height Spread Type Water
Needs
24"
Avail.
36"
Avail.
48"
Avail.
Notes
4'+ Arbutus unedo Strawberry
Tree
20 20 Evergreen L Yes Yes Yes
4'+ Cassia
Ieptophylla
Gold
Medallion
tree
25 20 Evergreen M Yes Yes No
4'+ Geijera
parvifolia
Australian
Willow
40 25 Evergreen L Yes Yes Yes
4'+ Spathodea
campanulata
African Tulip
Tree
30 20 Evergreen M Yes Yes No
5'+ Agonis
flexuosa
Peppermint
Tree
35 35 Evergreen L Yes No Yes
5'+ Albizia
julibrissin
Silk Tree 40 40 Deciduous M Yes Yes No
5'+ Bauhinia
variegata
(purpurea)
Purple Orchid
Tree
30 20 Deciduous M Yes Yes No
5'+ Brachychiton
acerfolius
Flame Tree 40 30 Evergreen L Yes Yes No
5'+ Calodendron
capense
Cape Chestnut 40 40 Deciduous M Yes No No
5'+ Fraxinus
oxycarpa
'Raywood'
Raywood Ash 35 30 Deciduous M Yes Yes Yes
5'+ Ginkgo biloba
'Fruitless'
Maidenhair
Tree
60 40 Deciduous M Yes Yes Yes
362
27 G-6
Exhibit C
Eastbluff Community Association Street Tree
Designation List
Pkwy
Size
Botanical
Name
Common
Name
Height Spread Type Water
Needs
24"
Avail.
36"
Avail.
48"
Avail.
Notes
5'+ Jacaranda
mimosifolia
Jacaranda 40 50 Deciduous M Yes Yes Yes
5'+ Koelreuteria
paniculata
Goldenrain
Tree
25 25 Deciduous L Yes Yes Yes
5'+ Lyonothamnus
floribundus
Catalina
Ironwood
50 30 Evergreen VL Yes No No
5'+ Magnolia
grandiflora
'Russett'
Russett
Magnolia
20 15 Evergreen M Yes Yes Yes
5'+ Magnolia
grandiflora
'Saint Mary'
Saint Mary
Magnolia
25 20 Evergreen M Yes Yes Yes
5'+ Magnolia
grandiflora 'Samuel
Sommer'
Samuel
Sommer
Magnolia
40 30 Evergreen M Yes Yes Yes
5'+ Magnolia
grandiflora.
'Majestic Beauty'
Majestic
Beauty
Magnolia
40 20 Evergreen M Yes Yes Yes
5'+ Melaleuca
linnarifolia
Flaxleaf
Paperbark
30 30 Evergreen L Yes No No
5'+ Melaleuca
quinquinerva
(virididfolia)
Cajeput
Tree
40 20 Evergreen M Yes Yes Yes
363
28 G-6
Exhibit C
Eastbluff Community Association Street Tree
Designation List
Pkwy
Size
Botanical
Name
Common
Name
Height Spread Type Water
Needs
24"
Avail.
36"
Avail.
48"
Avail.
Notes
5'+ Metrosideros
excelsa
New Zealand
Christmas
Tree
40 40 Evergreen M Yes No No
5'+ Pistacia chinensis Chinese
Pistache
40 40 Deciduous M Yes Yes Yes
5'+ Prunus ilicifolia
subsp. lyonii
Catalina
Cherry
30 30 Evergreen VL No No No Available -15 Gal
5'+ Quercus
douglasii
Blue Oak 50 50 Deciduous VL Yes Yes No
5'+ Quercus ilex Holly Oak 50 50 Evergreen L Yes Yes Yes 5'+ Tabebuia
heterophyll
Pink Trumpet
Tree
30 30 Deciduous M Yes Yes Yes
8'+ Brachychiton
discolor
Pink Flame
Tree
70 50 Semi L No No No Available-15 Gal
8'+ Cinnamomum
camphora
Camphor
Tree
50 60 Evergreen M Yes Yes Yes
8'+ Fraxinus
velutina
'Modesto'
Modesto Ash 50 30 Deciduous M Yes Yes Yes
8'+ Lophostemon
confertus
Brisbane
Box
60 40 Evergreen M Yes Yes Yes
8'+ Platanus
acerifolia
London
Plane Tree
70 40 Deciduous M Yes Yes No
364
29 G-6
Exhibit C
Eastbluff Community Association Street Tree
Designation List
Pkwy
Size
Botanical
Name
Common
Name
Height Spread Type Water
Needs
24"
Avail.
36"
Avail.
48"
Avail.
Notes
8'+ Podocarpus
gracilior
(Afrocarpus
gracilior)
Fern Pine 60 60 Evergreen M Yes Yes Yes
8'+ Schinus molle California
Pepper
40 50 Evergreen VL Yes Yes Yes
8'+ Tipuana tipu Tipu Tree 50 60 Semi M Yes Yes Yes
8'+ Ulmus parvifolia "Drake"
Chinese Elm
60 60 Semi M Yes Yes Yes
365
L-16
1 TEMPORARY BANNERS EXTENDING OVER OR WITHIN
THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY
Findings and Purpose
Temporary banners and signs pose risks to the public in the form of potential physical obstructions in or over the right -of-way and by distracting an individual who otherwise would, and should, focus on other users. The City Council also finds that, in the absence of the size and number limits specified in this policy, temporary banners or signs could reduce property values, adversely impact land uses, and interfere with the recreational objectives of visitors to the City of Newport Beach. A total prohibition on the installation of temporary banners and signs within the public right -of-way is appropriate , with the exception of the provisions of this Policy and Newport Beach Municipal Code Chapter 20.42 , because there are adequate alternative means of communication for those wishing to engage in commercial or non-commercial speech except for temporary real estate signs and non-profit groups organizations conducting community wide events that are co-sponsored by the City of Newport Beach and open to the general public. Finally, the City Council has determined that the restrictions contained in this policy and the provisions of Newport Beach Municipal Code Title 20 are the least restrictive means available to accomplish the public safety, economic, and aesthetic objectives of the City Council.
General Provisions
Temporary banners and signs shall not be permitted within or over any public street or pedestrian right-of- way with the exception of temporary real estate those signs as specified in Newport Beach Municipal Code Chapter 20.42, or any successor statute, and banners notifying the general public of a community wide event, open to the general public, conducted by a non-profit corporation or organization, and co-sponsored by the City of Newport Beach. Temporary banners and signs shall be installed in strict compliance with the provisions of this Policy and any conditions imposed on the permit by the Public Works Director and, if required, by the Utilities Director.
Permit Process
A. Except as provided in Newport Beach Municipal Code Title 20, or any successor statute, no person shall install any temporary banner or sign within any public right -of-way without first obtaining a permit issued by the Public Works Department.
B. Applications for a temporary banner permit shall be submitted to the Public Works Department on a form supplied by the City, and prior to thirty (30) days of planned installation date.
C. The Public Works Director shall determine if the application complies with the standards specified in this policy.
366
L-16
2 D. The Public Works Director shall approve/deny/recommend City Council approval of the application within five (5) working days. If the City Council approves the request, subsequent requests for the same event maybe approved by the City Manager, provided that the size, number, location , and banner type (language and graphics) are unchanged.
E. The Public Works Director shall approve the permit if the application conforms with the standards contained in this policy.
F. The Public Works Director shall deny the permit if the application does not conform to the standards in this policy and shall give the applicant written notice of, and the reasons for, the denial.
G. The Public Works Director may impose a refundable security deposit to be applied to any damages, repairs to standards, poles, or City property not corrected by permittee within fourteen (14) days of banner removal or any special services required by City.
H. The Permittee shall agree to indemnify and hold harmless the City of Newport Beach.
I. The Permittee shall maintain a minimum of $1,000,000 in liability insurance from a company with a Best’s Key Rating Guide parameter of “A” or better and a financial size category of “VIII” or higher.
Standards
A. Manner of Installation
1. Permittee shall install no more than 100 banners;
2. a) Banners on streetlight poles shall be no more than two -and-one-half (2.5) feet wide and eight (8) feet high. Wind load calculations, determined by a registered engineer, shall be required for banners greater than twenty (20) square feet; b) Banners other than streetlight pole banners shall be no more than four (4) feet by eight (8) feet wide and are subject to review and approval for safety sight distance and clearance issues.
3. No more than one (1) banner shall be installed on any pole or standard and banners may not be installed between poles or standards;
4. The banners shall contain only the name of the permittee and if applicable, the date, time , and the name of the event to be conducted by the permittee;
5. All banner brackets on streetlight poles shall be mounted at least fourteen (14) feet above the ground surface;
367
L-16
3 6. All banner brackets on streetlight poles shall be installed using stainless steel band clamps and the brackets must be sufficiently strong to withstand wind-load generated by ninety (90) mile per hour winds. Each banner shall have a minimum of two (2), five (5) inch half circle wind slits;
7. Poles or standards shall be wrapped with forty -five (45) milliliter thick black rubber sheet or other pre-approved material under all stainless steel brackets and clamps and no portion of any bracket shall be in direct contact with the surface of any street light pole or standard.
In addition, all street light pole(s) being used shall be inspected and approved by the Utilities Department;
8. Banners shall be installed only at locations specified on the permit;
9. Permittee shall install and remove banners in strict compliance with the traffic control, signage and warning device criteria specified in the WATCH handbook and/or the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices; and
10. If more than one permittee requests the use of the same street light pole(s) at the same time, the City may require removal of some of the banners to allow other organizations to install banners authorized under City policies.
B. Time of Installation
1. Permittee shall contact the Public Works Department at least forty-eight (48) hours prior to the installation of any banner on streetlight poles pursuant to the permit; and
2. All banners and supporting material shall be removed within thirty (30) days after the date of installation.
C. Place of Installation
1. Banners shall only be installed on City - owned poles and standards, or approved locations in roadway medians, in City parks, and on other City owned facilities;
2. Banners shall not be installed on any pole or standard which could create sight distance problems for pedestrian or vehicular traffic;
3. Banners shall not be installed on poles or standards in any residential district;.
4. Banners shall only be installed at the approved locations indicated on the plan submitted with the banner application; and.
5. City- owned poles within Caltrans right-of-way shall require an additional review/approval process with Caltrans Permit Department.
368
L-16
4 History
Adopted L-8 – 10-25-1977
Adopted M-4 – 1-24-1994
Amended M-4 – 2-26-1996 (changed to L-16)
Amended L-16 – 2-24-1997
Amended L-16 – 5-8-2001
Amended L-16 – 4-8-2003
Amended L-16 – 10-10-2006
Amended L-16 – 5-14-2013
Amended L-16 – 5-12-2015
Amended L-16 – 8-14-2018
Amended L-16 – 2-24-2026
369
L-23
1 REDUCING BARRIERS TO WIRELESS SERVICE FACILITIES ON PRIVATELY OWNED
PROPERTY, AND THE SITING OF PERSONAL WIRELESS SERVICE FACILITIES
TELECOMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT
ON CITY-OWNED AND CITY-HELD TRUST PROPERTY, AND THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF- WAY
Purpose
The purpose of this policy too is to reduce barriers to wireless service facilities on private property , and City-owned and City-held trust property, and the public right-of-way. This policy To ddescribes the manner in which these locationsspecific Ccity-owned or Ccity-held Trust properties may be used as locations for personal wireless service facilities wireless telecommunications devices that transmit voice and/or data.
Policy
It is the Ppolicy of the City to effectively balance the needs of its residents, visitors, and businesses to use and have access to state -of-the-art wireless telecommunication systems (such as wireless Internet, voice, and other data communications) with the needs of residents to safely and effectively enjoy their property.
This Policy shall be used when considering applications to install wireless communications devices on private property, City-owned, or City-held property by any wireless telecommunications provider or siting company.
Except for sites identified as ineligible for personal wireless service facilities pursuant to this Policy , allUnless otherwise exempt, all proposals affecting City -owned or City -held trust property shall be processed via this Policy through the Community Development Department and the Public Works Department and shall be exempt facilities as provided in Chapters 20.49 and 21.49.
Chapters 20.49 and Chapter 21.49 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code (NBMC) shall be used for wireless service facilities on private property . The NBMC shall be reviewed to reduce the barriers to wireless service facilities.
pursuant to the Municipal Code requirements.
Agreement Required
All personal wireless service facilities telecom facilities located on City-owned property or City-held Trust property, or in the public right-of-way must have an agreement approved as to form by the City Attorney and approved as to substance (including, but not limited to, compensation, term, insurance requirements, bonding requirements, and hold harmless provisions) by the City Manager or their designee prior to the submittal of an application for the necessary permits pursuant to Section IV of this policy. The agreement shall be executed prior to the issuance of a street construction permit (encroachment permit).
Permit Required
370
L-23
2 A. Unless otherwise exempt, all telecom facilities proposed to be located on City -owned or City-held trust property must apply for and receive a permit under the provisions of Chapter 20.49, or any successor chapter prior to the issuance of an encroachment permit.
B. Unless otherwise exempt, all proposals affecting City -owned or City -held trust property shall be processed via this Policy through the Community Development Department and Public Works Department pursuant to the Municipal Code requirements.
City Sites Eligible or Ineligible for Personal Wireless Service Facility Placement
A. Sites Eligible for Use . The City Council has determined that the following City locations are acceptable for placement of personal wireless service facilities, in no particular order of preference wireless devices:
1. Fire Stations.
12. Newport Beach City HallCivic Center..
23. Parks..
34. Police Headquarters..
45. Lifeguard Headquarters..
56. The Community Centers..
6. Medians and parkways along public streets
78. The Central Library and Branch Libraries..
89. The Corporate Yards..
910. Qualifying City-held easements..
10. 11. Streetlights (following certification and acceptance by the Utilities Department of an effective test of the facility ’'s impacts to the light standard under various environmental conditions), which may be located upon the right-of-way, or City-trust held property.
11112. Leased City property, subject to the lease provisions..
1223. Open spaces areas owned by the City where no sensitive habitat exists and the personal wireless service facility installationsfacilities are located on existing structures, or are 371
L-23
3 designed to be unobtrusive and/or stealth -integrated to preserve the visual character and natural landscape of the site..
B. Sites Ineligible for Use. The City Council has determined that the following City locations are unacceptable for placement of personal wireless service facilities wireless devices in accordance with the entirety of this Policy:
1. Open space areas owned by the City where placement of facilities in these areas would aesthetically impair the pristine nature of the area.
2. Other properties owned by the City where the placement of facilities would conflict with existing structures, including utilities, or impede views, or otherwise impact use of the facility or property for its designated purpose.
3. Traffic sSignal pPoles.
Compensation and Term
The City Manager shall follow these rules when developing any aAgreement for the placement of any personal wireless service facilities wireless device on City -owned or City-held trust property, or in the public right-of-way:
A. A. Compensation for personal wireless services facilities located in the public right-of-way shall be on City streetlights shall be based on the published rates established by by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Small Cell Order (FCC 18-133) .
Compensation on City-owned property other than a City sStreetlight shall be equal to fair market value, taking into account rent charged by owners of public or private properties within Newport Beach or neighboring cities for a similar type of facility and location. Such compensation shall be determined based on the California Department of General Services published telecommunications lease rates for installation of all types on City-owned public, non-commercial, and commercial properties, as may be amended or replaced. At the discretion of the City Manager, a discount not to exceed twenty percent (20%) may be applied to these rates to facilitate the installation of personal wireless service facilities in locations that address local coverage gaps or improves telecommunication coverage for residents.
B.
via a Rent Survey conducted by the City every five (5) years, as adjusted by the Consumer Price Index (CPI) each calendar year during non-survey yearsbased on the federally published rates for small cell installations on City property in the public right-of-way (Federal Communications Commission Declaratory Ruling and Third Report and Order FCC18-133, as may be amended or replaced), and based on the California Department of General Services published telecommunications lease rates for installation of mid/micro-cell and macro-cell facilities on City 372
L-23
4 property in the public right-of-way, and for installation of all types on City-owned public, non- commercial, and commercial properties, as may be amended or replaced.
C. B. The Agreement shall provide for a specific term to be determined by the City Manager.
Where the term exceeds five (5) years, at the fifth year and every five years thereafter, rent shall be adjusted to fair market value using the Rent Survey (“"Market-Based Adjustment”"), or the adjusted rate as prescribed by the lease terms, whichever is greater.
D. C. The Agreement shall provide for the following rent adjustments:
1. Rent adjustments for personal wireless services facilities located in the public right -of-way on City-owned streetlights 1. shall be adjusted annually by the Consumer Price Index (CPI), or any subsequent rates established by the FCC adjusted annually based on the published rates by the FCC or by the Consumer Price Index (CPI) whichever is greater.
Rent adjustment on City-owned property other than City streetlights shall be adjusted annually based on the California Department of General Services published telecommunications lease rates. by the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for the Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim, California Area, All Urban Consumers, All Items, Base Period (1982-84 = 100), or successor index, as published by the United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics All Urban Consumers, Anaheim-Riverside-Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim or a similar index; and
2. 2. At the end of five (5) years of the Agreement term and every five (5) years thereafter, the Market-Based Adjustment described above; or
3. Optionally, the License Fee shall automatically increase four three percent (43%) each year, and adjust to market rate upon the first renewal term, or the License Fee shall automatically increase five percent (5%) each year, and adjust to market rate upon the second renewal term.
E. 34. The Agreement shall require the applicant to post a bond, letter of credit, or other financial security/securities (“"Financial Security”") in an amount that equals or exceeds the anticipated cost of removing the personal wireless service facility facility or personal wireless service facilities facilities and repairing any damage to City property at the completion of the Agreement term or in the event that the applicant ceases use of or abandons the personal wireless service facility or otherwise does not remove the personal wireless service facility including any equipment or cabinet whether underground, in the public right -of-way, or on City or private property. The Financial Security shall name the City as eligible for receipt of the Financial Security'’s proceeds in the event thatif the applicant ceases use of or abandons the personal wireless service facility(ies).
373
L-23
5 5. If the personal wireless service facility is located upon park property, the City may require as a component of the rent a one (1) time upfront payment in addition to the annual/monthly rent. The amount shall be at the recommendation of the City Manager and the Director of Recreation and Senior Services, or their designee(s).
Effective Date and Council Non-Consent
A. The City Manager shall notify (via memorandum or similar correspondence) the City Council as to a pending Agreement for telecommunications facilities on public land. The Agreement shall take effect forty-five (45) days after the City Manager’s notification of the City Council unless called up by a City Council member within thirty (30) days of the City Manager’s notification of City Council of a pending Agreement per this section.
B. A City Council member reserves the right to, at any time and for any purpose, not consent to the City Manager's issuance of an Agreement under this Policy. The City Council may do so by notifying the City Manager of the Council member's intent to bring the Agreement before City Council. The Council member must express this intent in writing or at a formal Council meeting not more than thirty (30) days after the City Manager has notified the City Council of a pending Agreement. Should the City Council not consent to the issuance of an Agreement, the Agreement shall not become effective.
Proposals for Equipment in the City Right-Of-Way
This policy shall not apply to Encroachment Permits (Telecom) for the use of right-of-way. Newport Beach Municipal Code Title 13, or any successor statute , shall govern consideration of Encroachment Permits (Telecom).
City Communications Systems Exempt
This Ppolicy shall not apply to any communications system used by City personnel for communications deemed necessary for City operations.
History
Adopted L-23 – 9-24-2002
Amended L-23 – 10-10-2006
Amended L-23 – 8-14-2018
Amended L-23 -– 2-24-2026
374
NEWPORT BEACH
City Council Staff Report
COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
CITY OF
February 24, 2026
Agenda Item No. 12
ABSTRACT:
The City of Newport Beach (City) received construction bids for the Citywide ADA Improvements project and requests City Council approval to award the construction contract to Heed Engineering of Foothill Ranch. This project will reconstruct deteriorated concrete sidewalks, curb ramps, driveway approaches, and gutters to meet standards set by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
RECOMMENDATIONS:
a) Find this project exempt fro m the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15302(c), Class 2 (reconstruction of existing facility involving negligible or no expansion of capacity) of the CEQA Guidelines, because this project has no potential to have a significant effect on the environment; b) Approve the project plans and specifications;
c) Approve Budget Amendment No. 26-051 appropriating $582,000 in new expenditures from the Community Development Block Grant to Account No. 12050502-821004- 26R12;
d) Award Contract No. 9943-1 to Heed Engineering for the total bid price of $429,400 for the Citywide ADA Improvements project, and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the contract;
e) Establish a contingency of $86,000 (approximately 20% of the total bid); and f) Approve Contract Amendment No. One to the Professional Services Agreement with Michael Baker International , Inc. for Annual CDBG Administration and Affordable Housing Monitoring (Contract No. 9932-1) to increase the total contract amount b y $31,185 for labor compliance services for the Citywide ADA Improvement project, for TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: David A. Webb, Public Works Director - 949-644-3311, [email protected]
PREPARED BY: Andy Tran, Principal Civil Engineer - 949-644-3315, [email protected]
Lauren Wooding Whitlinger, Real Property Administrator - 949-644-3236, [email protected]
TITLE:
Citywide ADA Improvements – Award of Contract No. 9943-1 (26R12)
375
Citywide ADA Improvements – Award of Contract No. 9943 (26R12) February 24, 2026
a total not-to-exceed contract amount of $427,435, and authorize the City Manager and City Clerk to execute the amendment.
DISCUSSION:
The proposed project is primarily located in the Eastbluff, Bayview Heights, Santa Ana Heights and Airport Area communities, and at various isolated locations throughout the City. Proposed improvements include removing and reconstructing deteriorated concrete sidewalks, curb ramps, drivewa y approaches, and gutters to eliminate potential tripping hazards. This project also includes constructing new curb ramps at intersections currently without ramps to improve access. These improvements will be consistent with City standards and the ADA.
The ADA was enacted in 1990 and prevents discrimination against individuals with disabilities. All private and public infrastructure improvements are required to adhere to ADA design guidelines, which were established by the Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board (Access Board). The City developed an ADA Transition Plan in 2013 to address ADA deficiencies throughout the City. Many ADA improvements, through the City’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP), have been completed since 2013.
Staff continues to include ADA improvements on nearly all CIP projects.
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds became available to the City for accessibility improvement projects in 2025 and 2026 . The City recently completed the San Miguel Park Accessibil ity Playground Improvements project , which was partially funded with CDBG funds. This construction contract will use CBDG funding to further improve accessibility within the public right-of-way.
At 10 a.m. on January 8, 2026, the City Clerk opened and read the following bid for this project:
BIDDER TOTAL BID AMOUNT
Low Heed Engineering $ 429,400.00
2nd Towo Enterprise Inc $ 491,400.00
3rd S&H Civilworks $ 495,900.00
4th Golden Coast Construction $ 499,020.55
5th CJ Concrete Construction, Inc. $ 522,150.00
6th TVR Construction Engineering LLC $ 529,975.00
7th Kalban, Inc $ 550,500.00
8th Turn Around Communication $ 578,500.00
9th Marjani Builders, Inc. $ 586,400.00
10th Grigolla & Sons Const., Co., Inc. $ 610,600.00
11th Premo Construction Inc $ 601,645.00
12th LCR Earthwork & Engineering, Corp. $ 628,500.00
13th Van Engineering Inc $ 632,200.00
14th Global Builders Inc $ 649,888.00
15th Gentry General Engineering Inc. $ 651,431.00
16th LC Paving & Sealing, Inc. $ 653,250.00 376
Citywide ADA Improvements – Award of Contract No. 9943 (26R12) February 24, 2026
17th Diamond Construction $ 654,950.00
18th DASH CONSTRUCTION COMPANY INC $ 685,075.00
19th Nieves General Engineering, INC. $ 708,075.00
20th ALL AMERICAN BUILDING SERVICES $ 734,550.00
21st Nationwide Contracting Services, Inc $ 777,000.00 22nd All Cities Engineering, Inc $ 781,100.00
23rd Armstrong Cal Builders Inc. $ 924,530.00
The City received 23 bids. The low bidder, Heed Engineering, possesses a California State Contractor’s License Classification “A”, as required by the project specifications. A review of references for Heed Engineering shows satisfactory completion of similar contracts for other municipalities.
Heed Engineering ’s bid was 36% below the engineer’s estimate of $670,000. The difference between the low bid and engineer’s estimate is likely associated with the decreased costs of concrete and the competitive construction market.
Pursuant to the contract specifications, the contractor will have 40 consecutive working days to complete the project. Construction is scheduled to start in March with completion prior to the start of the Fiscal Year 2025-26 Slurry Seal Program.
The project plans and specifications will be available for review at the February 24, 2026, City Council meeting or upon request.
To ensure the project conforms to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) requirements under the CDBG program, the City’s CDBG administration consultant , Michael Baker International, Inc. (MBI), will provide labor compliance services before, during, and after completion of the project . The proposed Amendment No. One to the professional services agreement with MBI increases the not- to-exceed amount of the contract by $31,185, which will be funded by the CDBG as part of the capital project.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Upon approval of the proposed Budget Amendment, the CIP budget will include sufficient funding for the award of this contract. The Budget Amendment appropriates $582,000 in additional expenditure from the CDBG account. The following funds will be expended:
Account Description Account Number Amount
CDBG 12050502-821004-26R12 $ 582,000
Total: $ 582,000
377
Citywide ADA Improvements – Award of Contract No. 9943 (26R12) February 24, 2026
Proposed fund uses are as follows:
Vendor Purpose Amount
Heed Engineering Construction Contract $ 429,400
Heed Engineering Construction Contingency $ 86,000
Geocon West, Inc. Materials Testing $ 31,588
Various Printing & Incidentals $ 3,827
Michael Baker International Labor Compliance Services $ 31,185 Total: $ 582,000
The CDBG Program was initiated by Congress in 1974 as part of the Housing and Community Development Act. The program is funded directly by the United States Congress and is administered by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
Due to the favorable bid pricing received, staff recommends establishing a 20% contingency allowance in order to include additional needed concrete improvements from the backlog as well as any unknow construction issues that may arise.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
Staff recommends the City Council find this project exempt from the Califor nia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15302(c), Class 2 (reconstruction of existing facility involving negligible or no expansion of capacity) of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, because it has no potential to have a significant effect on the environment.
NOTICING:
The agenda item has been noticed according to the Brown Act (72 hours in advance of the meeting at which the City Council considers the item).
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A – Location Map
Attachment B – Budget Amendment
Attachment C – Amendment No. One with Michael Baker International, Inc 378
LEGEND- ACCESS RAMP LOCATIONS- SIDEWALK REPAIR LOCATIONS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACHPUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENTC-9943-102/24/2026CITYWIDE ADA IMPROVEMENTSLOCATION MAP
ATTACHMENT A
379
Department: Community Development
Requestor: Theresa Schweitzer
City of Newport Beach
BUDGET AMENDMENT
2025-26
ONE TIME: 0 Yes O No
D CITY MANAGER'S APPROVAL ONLY
City Clerk:
0 COUNCIL APPROVAL REQUIRED Administrative Services Director:
Budget Manag�W✓ r I
I I I I
EXPLANATION FOR REQ.UEST: u L,
'-'
BA#: 26-051
Approvals
Date
(J�r1.rtA_
·- - Date ;,.113Ju
✓,1 Date 0�\o\ZOZ.Co
To appropriate the Community Development Block Grant for the Citywide ADA Improvements project. This project will D from existing budget appropriations reconstruct deteriorated concrete sidewalks, curb ramps, driveway approaches, and gutters to meet standards set by D from additional estimated revenues the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
REVENUES
Fund# Org Object Project Description
EXPENDITURES
Fund# Org Object Project Description
120 12050502 821004 26R12 CDBG - GRANT EXPENSES
FUND BALANCE
Fund# Object Description
120 300000 COMM DEVL BLK GRANT FUND - FUND BALANCE CONTROL Q from unappropriated fund balance
Increase or (Decrease) $
Subtotal I $ L....:....---------'
Increase or (Decrease)$
582,000.00
Subtotal! $ 582,000.00 L....:.... _____ ..;.._ _ __,
Increase or (Decrease)$
(582,000.00)
Su btota I I $ (582,000.00) �---�---�
Fund Balance Change Required
Attachment B
380
Attachment C
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
From: Garrett, Errica
To: Dept - City Clerk
Subject: FW: Saving Civic Center Park
Date: February 23, 2026 8:25:27 AM
Attachments: image001.png
image002.png
image003.png
image004.png
Errica Garrett
Administrative Assistant
to the Mayor and City
Council
City Manager’s Office
Office: 949-644-3004
100 Civic Center Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92660
From:
Nancy Skinner <[email protected]>
Sent: February 22, 2026 4:07 PM
To: Dept - City Council <[email protected]> Subject: Saving Civic Center Park
[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.
Dear Mayor Kleiman and Member of the Council:
I am writing to urge you and members of the Council to stop considering our Civic Center Park for a new Police Department building.
Many years ago, when citizens were asked to vote for City Hall in the Park, we were told that the rest of the open space would remain as a park, that it was the tradeoff for giving up the open space/park for a new and more accessible City Hall.
Many of us who lived here at the time are feeling our City Council is reneging on what seemed to have been a promise to the residents.
In my opinion, it was the belief that the rest of the open space would remain as a park that led to the success of the vote to approve the City Hall location.
There was a lot
of controversy over using the open space
for our present day City Hall.
The
compromise came in believing that the rest of the open space would remain so Received after Agenda Printed
February 24, 2026
Non Agenda Item
388
forever.
I strongly urge you to remove the park option from your discussions and honor the promises of your predecessors. You have other options.
Thank you in advance for giving serious thought to your decision regarding the park.
Sincerely,
Nancy Skinner
1724 Highland Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92660
389
From: Admin
To: Dept - City Council
Cc: City Clerk"s Office
Subject: Public Comment - City Council February 24th, 2026 Date: February 23, 2026 3:00:19 PM
[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.
Hello Mayor Kleiman and Councilmembers,
On behalf of the Newport Mooring Association, we appreciate the City’s efforts to move forward with a tidelands management committee. These are important issues for the harbor, and we recognize the time and attention they require.
While we would have welcomed a broader and more transparent stakeholder process from the outset, the Newport Mooring Association remains committed to working constructively with the City to ensure equitable and sustainable outcomes for all tidelands users.
We look forward to participating in a collaborative process that reflects the shared goal of fair access and responsible stewardship of our harbor. In that light, we are requesting monthly meetings beginning as soon as possible with the committee so we are aware of updates and can offer input from the community.
Anne Stenton
Newport Mooring Association
390
From: Garrett, Errica
To: Dept - City Clerk
Subject: FW: NBSTRA Letter re: Proposed Safety Enhancement Ordinance Expansion (Feb. 24 Agenda) Date: February 18, 2026 10:27:22 AM
Errica Garrett
Administrative Assistant to the Mayor and City Council
City Manager’s Office
Office: 949-644-3004
100 Civic Center Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92660
-----Original Message-----
From: NBSTRA <[email protected]>
Sent: February 18, 2026 10:22 AM
To: Kleiman, Lauren <[email protected]>; Stapleton, Joe <[email protected]>; Barto, Michelle <[email protected]>; Weigand, Erik <[email protected]>; Grant, Robyn <[email protected]>; Blom, Noah <[email protected]>; Weber, Sara <[email protected]> Cc: Harp, Aaron <[email protected]>; Jurjis, Seimone <[email protected]>; City Clerk's Office <[email protected]>; Dept - City Council <[email protected]>; Murray, John <[email protected]>; Miner, David <[email protected]>; Boyles, Jeff <[email protected]> Subject: NBSTRA Letter re: Proposed Safety Enhancement Ordinance Expansion (Feb. 24 Agenda) [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.
Honorable Mayor, Members of the City Council, and City Staff of the City of Newport Beach:
On behalf of the Newport Beach Short-Term Rental Alliance (NBSTRA), attached please find our letter regarding the proposed expansion of the City’s Safety Enhancement ordinance as it applies to the Short-Term Lodging Program (STLP), ahead of the February 24 City Council meeting.
NBSTRA and responsible STR operators and managers share the City’s public safety goals during Spring Break and major holiday weekends, and we support strong enforcement against true bad actors – including zero tolerance for any threats, harassment, or disruptive conduct directed toward NBPD officers or other City staff.
Our concern is with some specific elements of the ordinance, not the stated goals. We believe this proposal has been rushed and will likely and unfairly penalize permit holders who do everything they can to comply with the laws and regulation. The proposal lacks adequate procedural clarity, while failing to target the sources of bad crowd behavior in public areas.
Our letter goes into our concerns at length, but we hope you will take the time to review our communication carefully and the serious thought expressing our concerns and proposed better path forward. There is still time to get this right by engaging with us.
Our industry represents over 1500 property owners and small businesses owners in this community who share your goals and can help you achieve them.
We respectfully urge the Council to return these STLP provisions to a working-group process and, if immediate action is necessary for Spring Break, to consider a narrowly tailored temporary approach developed with meaningful industry consultation and operational input from all affected stakeholders.
Thank you for your consideration.
Respectfully,
Jeff Flint
Executive Director
Newport Beach Short-Term Rental Alliance (NBSTRA)
Received after Agenda Printed
February 24, 2026
Item No. 3
391
<https://d2DSfQ04.na1.hs-salescrm-
engage.com/Cto/RK+23284/d2DSfQ04/R5R8b44VyN7KpSst2fCX4W1QrL8p3GLCqyW25cCdf1Xp1ctW1GyxPJ1S072bW22TGFR3z8mK0W3JHqNK1Z0NMZn1Q3Hk44W1> 392
From: Garrett, Errica
Sent: February 19, 2026 3:00 PM
To: Dept - City Clerk
Subject: FW: Follow Up Letter from NBSTRA Appreciating Intent Language in Staff Report
Errica Garrett
Administrative Assistant to the Mayor and City Council City Manager’s Office Office: 949-644-3004
100 Civic Center Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92660
-----Original Message-----
From: NBSTRA <[email protected]>
Sent: February 19, 2026 2:15 PM
To: Kleiman, Lauren <[email protected]>; Stapleton, Joe <[email protected]>; Barto, Michelle <[email protected]>; Weigand, Erik <[email protected]>; Grant, Robyn <[email protected]>; Blom, Noah <[email protected]>; Weber, Sara <[email protected]> Cc: Harp, Aaron <[email protected]>; Jurjis, Seimone <[email protected]>; City Clerk's Office <[email protected]>; Dept - City Council <[email protected]>; Murray, John <[email protected]>; Miner, David <[email protected]>; Boyles, Jeff <[email protected]>
Subject: Follow Up Letter from NBSTRA Appreciating Intent Language in Staff Report [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.
Mayor, Councilmembers and City Staff:
Attached please find NBSTRA’s follow-up letter regarding the proposed Safety Enhancement ordinance as it applies to the STLP program, ahead of the February 24 Council meeting. We appreciate the Council’s statements from the dais at the February 10 first reading – and the Council’s direction to the City Attorney to work with us to ensure the ordinance’s intent is clearly reflected in the February 24 staff report and legislative record.
393
While NBSTRA still believes there could have been true collaboration prior to introduction of this ordinance and remains concerned with certain “black & white” provisions in the ordinance text (as outlined in our prior correspondence), we view the clarified intent language in the staff report as a significant improvement. We look forward to working cooperatively with the City, NBPD, Code Enforcement and other departments to support a safe Spring Break and other holiday periods this year, and to keep Newport Beach safe, welcoming, and a great place for residents, visitors, property owners, and the small businesses participating in the STLP program.
Respectfully,
Jeff Flint
Executive Director
Newport Beach Short-Term Rental Alliance (NBSTRA)
<https://d2DSfQ04.na1.hs-salescrm-
engage.com/Cto/RK+23284/d2DSfQ04/R5R8b44VyN7KpSst2fDC_W24W6jT1VnjJGW3DLWvt1X1QwRW1 Gyt6k3yLQ-5W23gh-D3C7GBZW3C6lzM1Z0NMZn1Q3Hk44W1>
394
From: Garrett, Errica
Sent: February 18, 2026 10:27 AM
To: Dept - City Clerk
Subject: FW: NBSTRA Letter re: Proposed Safety Enhancement Ordinance Expansion (Feb. 24 Agenda)
Errica Garrett
Administrative Assistant to the Mayor and City Council City Manager’s Office Office: 949-644-3004
100 Civic Center Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92660
-----Original Message-----
From: NBSTRA <[email protected]>
Sent: February 18, 2026 10:22 AM
To: Kleiman, Lauren <[email protected]>; Stapleton, Joe <[email protected]>; Barto, Michelle <[email protected]>; Weigand, Erik <[email protected]>; Grant, Robyn <[email protected]>; Blom, Noah <[email protected]>; Weber, Sara <[email protected]> Cc: Harp, Aaron <[email protected]>; Jurjis, Seimone <[email protected]>; City Clerk's Office <[email protected]>; Dept - City Council <[email protected]>; Murray, John <[email protected]>; Miner, David <[email protected]>; Boyles, Jeff <[email protected]>
Subject: NBSTRA Letter re: Proposed Safety Enhancement Ordinance Expansion (Feb. 24 Agenda) [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.
Honorable Mayor, Members of the City Council, and City Staff of the City of Newport Beach:
On behalf of the Newport Beach Short-Term Rental Alliance (NBSTRA), attached please find our letter regarding the proposed expansion of the City’s Safety Enhancement ordinance as it applies to the Short- Term Lodging Program (STLP), ahead of the February 24 City Council meeting. 395
NBSTRA and responsible STR operators and managers share the City’s public safety goals during Spring Break and major holiday weekends, and we support strong enforcement against true bad actors – including zero tolerance for any threats, harassment, or disruptive conduct directed toward NBPD officers or other City staff.
Our concern is with some specific elements of the ordinance, not the stated goals. We believe this proposal has been rushed and will likely and unfairly penalize permit holders who do everything they can to comply with the laws and regulation. The proposal lacks adequate procedural clarity, while failing to target the sources of bad crowd behavior in public areas.
Our letter goes into our concerns at length, but we hope you will take the time to review our communication carefully and the serious thought expressing our concerns and proposed better path forward. There is still time to get this right by engaging with us.
Our industry represents over 1500 property owners and small businesses owners in this community who share your goals and can help you achieve them.
We respectfully urge the Council to return these STLP provisions to a working-group process and, if immediate action is necessary for Spring Break, to consider a narrowly tailored temporary approach developed with meaningful industry consultation and operational input from all affected stakeholders.
Thank you for your consideration.
Respectfully,
Jeff Flint
Executive Director
Newport Beach Short-Term Rental Alliance (NBSTRA)
396
<https://d2DSfQ04.na1.hs-salescrm-
engage.com/Cto/RK+23284/d2DSfQ04/R5R8b44VyN7KpSst2fCX4W1QrL8p3GLCqyW25cCdf1Xp1ctW1Gy xPJ1S072bW22TGFR3z8mK0W3JHqNK1Z0NMZn1Q3Hk44W1>
397
From: Garrett, Errica
To: Dept - City Clerk
Subject: FW: Opposed to banning pop-up shades on the beach Date: February 23, 2026 8:25:12 AM
Attachments: image001.png
image002.png
image003.png
image004.png
Errica Garrett
Administrative Assistant
to the Mayor and City
Council
City Manager’s Office
Office: 949-644-3004
100 Civic Center Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92660
From: Peter Hurley <[email protected]>
Sent: February 22, 2026 10:16 AM
To: Dept - City Council <[email protected]> Subject: Opposed to banning pop-up shades on the beach
[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.
Shades do not obstruct lifeguard view of the water if properly positioned 398
From: Garrett, Errica
To: Dept - City Clerk
Subject: FW: Vote to KEEP 10x10 sunshades
Date: February 23, 2026 8:25:13 AM
Attachments: image001.png
image002.png
image003.png
image004.png
Errica Garrett
Administrative Assistant
to the Mayor and City
Council
City Manager’s Office
Office: 949-644-3004
100 Civic Center Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92660
From: Marion Smith <[email protected]>
Sent: February 22, 2026 12:15 PM
To: Dept - City Council <[email protected]> Subject: Vote to KEEP 10x10 sunshades
[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.
PLEASE ADD THIS TO THE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
PLEASE MAKE A COPY FOR EACH BOARD MEMBER. Thank you
The hazards of skin cancer is real and documented in all the research. Sunscreen washes off and has to be reapplied many times
Having adequate sunshade for our families is essential at the beach to precent skin cancer for all ages and a little umbrella is NOT adequate.
Do not ban 10x 10 structures which have been around for over 45 years! They are no documented cases of them being a safety hazard and I see people respectful to keep them on level sand away from surf. 6 x 6 is TOO SMALL
399
Thank you for your attention to this matter
Have a wonderful day-
Marion Smith
Lido Isle homeowner
400
From: Garrett, Errica
To: Dept - City Clerk
Subject: FW: Input regarding EZ-up size (vote)
Date: February 23, 2026 8:25:17 AM
Attachments: image001.png
image002.png
image003.png
image004.png
Errica Garrett
Administrative Assistant
to the Mayor and City
Council
City Manager’s Office
Office: 949-644-3004
100 Civic Center Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92660
From: Deborah Gubernick <[email protected]>
Sent: February 22, 2026 3:33 PM
To: Dept - City Council <[email protected]> Subject: Input regarding EZ-up size (vote)
[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.
Dear Council Members,
I understand you may be taking a vote on Tuesday regarding banning larger EZ-Ups.
I support banning EZ-Up canopies larger than 6×6 on the beach. Structures of that size can significantly obstruct lifeguards’ views of the shoreline and water, which may delay or complicate emergency response.
We have also observed that the larger EZ-Ups are often used to claim large areas of beach space, frequently accompanied by long rows of chairs set out to hold that space for extended periods. While chairs themselves are not prohibited, the combination of oversized canopies and large chair setups can create crowding, block water access, limit visibility, and make it more difficult for lifeguards to move quickly to the water when seconds matter. It can also feel out of step with the cooperative, shared nature of our local beaches. We've also noticed that the larger canopies are sometimes used to shelter (or hide) dogs at the beach mid-day/all day, 401
or could go hand-in-hand with other unauthorized activities, despite the ordinances to the contrary.
A reasonable size limit perhaps 6x6 or smaller would help maintain appropriate shade for those who need it while also allowing safety, fairness, and accessibility for everyone.
Thank you for your consideration.
Debbie Gubernick
NB Resident - 38th Street
714-222-8017
402
From: Garrett, Errica
To: Dept - City Clerk
Subject: FW: upcoming council meeting Sun Shades 10x10; proposed reduction to 6x6 size.
Date: February 23, 2026 8:25:22 AM
Errica Garrett
Administrative Assistant to the Mayor and City Council
City Manager’s Office
Office: 949-644-3004
100 Civic Center Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92660
-----Original Message-----
From: Trisha Sanchez <[email protected]>
Sent: February 22, 2026 4:02 PM
To: Dept - City Council <[email protected]> Subject: Re: upcoming council meeting Sun Shades 10x10; proposed reduction to 6x6 size. [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.
Thank you city council for this upcoming action;
These 10 x 10 sun shades have become an issue for others to see or walk around in the already crowded areas along our beaches and the small parks along Ocean blvd.
More importantly, it is a visibility issue for lifeguards and first responders who watch out for the safety of visitors and residents.
Sincerely,
Trisha Sanchez
403
From: Garrett, Errica
To: Dept - City Clerk
Subject: FW: 2026-02-24 City Council Meeting - Comments to Item 3, Ordinance No. 2026-2 (Section 4: Use of Shade Coverings)
Date: February 23, 2026 8:25:20 AM
Attachments: image001.png
image002.png
image003.png
image004.png
Errica Garrett
Administrative Assistant
to the Mayor and City
Council
City Manager’s Office
Office: 949-644-3004
100 Civic Center Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92660
From: Ken & Carmen Rawson <[email protected]>
Sent: February 22, 2026 3:59 PM
To: Dept - City Council <[email protected]> Cc: Grant, Robyn <[email protected]>; Weber, Sara <[email protected]>; Kleiman, Lauren <[email protected]>; Weigand, Erik <[email protected]>; Stapleton, Joe <[email protected]>; Barto, Michelle <[email protected]>; Blom, Noah <[email protected]>; Jurjis, Seimone <[email protected]>; Carmen Rawson <[email protected]> Subject: 2026-02-24 City Council Meeting - Comments to Item 3, Ordinance No. 2026-2 (Section 4:
Use of Shade Coverings)
[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.
City Mayor and City Council Members,
I request for this correspondence to be entered into the Public Record for the subject meeting.
My comments are in regards to Ordinance No. 2026-2, specifically Section 11.08.020 Use of Shade Coverings.
Subsection A (2) prohibits the edge of any shade covering being located less than 5 feet from any other shade covering. This requirement makes sense for large Pop-Up Shade canopies but seems 404
inappropriate for smaller personal beach umbrellas. Personal beach umbrellas are typically 5’6’’ to 6’ in diameter (“width”) and provide shade for 1 to 2 people. Under this new rule a family group of four setting out their beach chairs in a line on the oceanfront would result in the two end users being ~14’ apart. Not the most conducive spacing for carrying on a conversation.
For this reason I suggest the category “umbrella” be removed from Subsection E when defining “shade coverings”.
A second item I would like considered is the maximum size of “shade coverings”. As specified in Subsection A (5) they are not to exceed six (6) feet at their widest point. An internet search shows that shade structures like the E-Z Up style or the wind supported “sail” style are typically 10’ x 10’ (standard size). Anything smaller and people move down to a personal beach umbrella. For this reason, I suggest the maximum allowed width size to be increased from six (6) feet to ten (10) feet.
Sincerely,
Ken Rawson5-26 THROUGH 2030-31
405
From: Garrett, Errica
To: Dept - City Clerk
Subject: FW: Beach shade structures
Date: February 23, 2026 8:25:30 AM
Errica Garrett
Administrative Assistant to the Mayor and City Council
City Manager’s Office
Office: 949-644-3004
100 Civic Center Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92660
-----Original Message-----
From: Mindy Adamson <[email protected]>
Sent: February 22, 2026 9:21 PM
To: Dept - City Council <[email protected]> Subject: Beach shade structures
[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.
Hi. I learned the council is voting to reduce the size of shade structures to 6x6’. This is not acceptable. Most residents already own such structures in various sizes, and we need shade protection from the sun. Seems like the council does not care about skin cancer risk or having enough space to create comfort for extended families, including grandparents, parents, kids, possibly other siblings and friends.
We pay a lot of money to live here to enjoy the beach and the great outdoors. Please do not create unnecessary laws.
The police have enough to deal with in ensuring our city’s safety. Too many rules! We live in a beach community… we need shelter!
Sincerely,
Mindy Adamson
CDM
406
From: Garrett, Errica
To: Dept - City Clerk
Subject: FW: Banning 10" beach POP UP umbrellas on our beach.
Date: February 23, 2026 8:25:34 AM
Attachments: image001.png
image002.png
image003.png
image004.png
Errica Garrett
Administrative Assistant
to the Mayor and City
Council
City Manager’s Office
Office: 949-644-3004
100 Civic Center Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92660
From:
Steve Nitkin <[email protected]>
Sent: February 22, 2026 10:04 PM
To: Dept - City Council <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Banning 10' beach POP UP umbrellas on our beach. [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.
Steve Nitkin
Now·One Ford Road
Where is the common sense here. Too much sun can cause sunburn and even cancer over a long time. 10' pop ups are the standard size available and nobody with half a brain has complained about them. 6' units will only shade you when the sun is directly overhead. The city council has plenty of important things to worry about-this should not be one of them. If it's not broken-don't fix it. I will bet dollars to donuts the members of the city council never spend a day at the beach for fear of an angry constituent identifying them and giving them an earful.
Reply
Share
Dear
407
From: Garrett, Errica
To: Dept - City Clerk
Subject: FW: Vote to ban large sunshades on the beach.
Date: February 23, 2026 9:42:56 AM
Attachments: image001.png
image002.png
image003.png
image004.png
Errica Garrett
Administrative Assistant
to the Mayor and City
Council
City Manager’s Office
Office: 949-644-3004
100 Civic Center Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92660
From: John Shetron <[email protected]>
Sent: February 23, 2026 9:04 AM
To: Dept - City Council <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Fwd: Vote to ban large sunshades on the beach.
[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.
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
Subject: Vote to ban large sunshades on the beach.
To whom it may concern.
I strongly support the ban on large sunshades on Newport and CDM beaches — well done!
408
The “tents” on CDM main beach on any summer day is out of control. These structures have turned the public beaches into a “stake your claim” type of camp ground. Action to limit this reserving of beach space is way overdue.
Thank you again for your work and support in banning these large sunshades on our beaches.
John
Sent from my iPhone 409
From: Garrett, Errica
To: Dept - City Clerk
Subject: FW: 10x10 please allow!
Date: February 23, 2026 9:42:59 AM
Errica Garrett
Administrative Assistant to the Mayor and City Council
City Manager’s Office
Office: 949-644-3004
100 Civic Center Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92660
-----Original Message-----
From: Carol Abram <[email protected]>
Sent: February 23, 2026 9:11 AM
To: Dept - City Council <[email protected]> Subject: 10x10 please allow!
[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.
Dear City Council,
Please allow the 10x10 pop ups that so many have purchased for the beach! We are only a family of 5 and need this much space. The larger families need the extra space. There are so many more important areas you should be governing; like the E bike problems.
Please rethink this ordinance!
Carol Abram
214.477.4531
[email protected]
410
From: Garrett, Errica
To: Dept - City Clerk
Subject: FW: Safety Enhancement Ordinance / STLP Program (Feb. 24, 2026) Date: February 23, 2026 10:23:30 AM
Attachments: image001.png
image002.png
image003.png
image004.png
Importance: High
Errica Garrett
Administrative Assistant
to the Mayor and City
Council
City Manager’s Office
Office: 949-644-3004
100 Civic Center Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92660
From: Jean Batley <[email protected]>
Sent: February 23, 2026 10:18 AM
To: Dept - City Council <[email protected]>; City Clerk's Office <[email protected]>
Subject: Safety Enhancement Ordinance / STLP Program (Feb. 24, 2026) Importance: High
[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.
Dear City Councilmembers and Clerk,
Thank you for agreeing to clarify the intent language for the Safety Enhancement Ordinance.
Rather than an all-encompassing, automatic penalty on all actors and actions, the focus should be on truly unsafe conduct and noncompliant bad actors.
As a property owner on the Peninsula since 2002, and having lived there for 13 years, I understand the activities that go on - the noise, music, and parties. I support and understand the Holiday Safety measures needed and the police that enforce them. 411
But for those STLP operators, like myself, that operate in good faith, only wanting to offer the best of Newport Beach to our visitors, the purpose and intent of this Safety Enhancement Ordinance should be very clear, prioritizing violations that directly threaten public safety!
The Newport Beach Short Term Rental Alliance has laid out our concerns, and I pray that we can be good/even better partners and have more and better collaboration with the City.
Property owners give a lot to the City and even more as STLP holders.
Sinerely,
Jean Batley
412
From: Garrett, Errica
To: Dept - City Clerk
Subject: FW: Agenda Item 3
Date: February 23, 2026 10:49:48 AM
Attachments: image001.png
image002.png
image003.png
image004.png
Errica Garrett
Administrative Assistant
to the Mayor and City
Council
City Manager’s Office
Office: 949-644-3004
100 Civic Center Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92660
From: George Weiss <[email protected]>
Sent: February 23, 2026 10:49 AM
To: Dept - City Council <[email protected]> Subject: Agenda Item 3
[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.
I agree that 10 x 10 shade structures and larger ones should be prohibited at public beaches. The problem is people may get around the prohibition by bringing multiple 6 x 6 structures and set them up close to each other.
413
From: Garrett, Errica
To: Dept - City Clerk
Subject: FW: 2026-02-24 City Council Meeting - Comments to Item 3, Ordinance No. 2026-2 (Amend MC to Address Illegal Activity During High-Risk Periods)
Date: February 23, 2026 11:12:23 AM
Attachments: NB Website_Beach Info_Frequently Asked Beach Questions.png NB Instagram Video_Posted 2025-08-28_Tents.png
NB Instagram Video_Posted 2025-08-28_EZ Ups.png
image001.png
image002.png
image003.png
image004.png
Errica Garrett
Administrative Assistant
to the Mayor and City
Council
City Manager’s Office
Office: 949-644-3004
100 Civic Center Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92660
From: Carmen Rawson <[email protected]>
Sent: February 23, 2026 11:01 AM
To: Dept - City Council <[email protected]> Cc: Weber, Sara <[email protected]>; Grant, Robyn <[email protected]>; Kleiman, Lauren <[email protected]>; Weigand, Erik <[email protected]>; Stapleton, Joe <[email protected]>; Barto, Michelle <[email protected]>; Blom, Noah <[email protected]>; Jurjis, Seimone <[email protected]>; Ken & Carmen Rawson <[email protected]>; Beachview Rentals <[email protected]>; [email protected] Subject: 2026-02-24 City Council Meeting - Comments to Item 3, Ordinance No. 2026-2 (Amend MC to Address Illegal Activity During High-Risk Periods)
[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.
City Mayor and City Council Members,
I request for this correspondence to be entered into the Public Record for the subject meeting.
Regarding the subject Proposed Ordinance I have the following comments/questions:
414
Section 1.04.060 Safety Enhancement Zone
number of the 2026 ordinance in question.
Section 5.95.065 Suspensions and Revocations
specially when, based on the proposed ordinance wording, a short term lodging permit shall be revoked if "... any person has violated any of the rules, regulations or laws ... during a high-risk period..." and "... the violation relates in any way to the unit that has a short term lodging permit...".
So what does that mean? If a short term lodger is doing drugs or drinking alcohol or setting fireworks at the beach or being a nuisance at the Pier - meaning beyond the perimeter of the STL unit - is the property owner liable and the STL permit will be revoked? How about inside the STL unit perimeter? How does a property owner or its agent know that a short term lodger is, for example, using Nitrous Oxide or allowing minors to drink alcohol inside the unit's walls? There are no cameras inside the units!!! And neither property owners nor their agents are the police.
The proposed ordinance focus on penalizing property owners with STLPs. Most STL units are operated by third parties (agents) so if there are negligent agents mismanaging some STL units where are the consequences for said bad agents?
And where are the severe consequences for the short term lodgers causing the problems/code violations? Even if a lodger gets a $1,500 fine if they have a large group they may divide the fine amount among them and move on with their unwanted behavior. If the STL unit they stayed at looses the STLP they just may book a different STL unit the following year and cause trouble again.
A truly severe and more impactful consequence for the short term lodgers causing trouble would be for them to be immediately evicted after, for example, getting a LUGO (in addition to the assessed fine).
That would really disrupt their vacation and they may think twice before causing trouble again. For an eviction to happen the STL unit property owner and/or agent would require the NBPD assistance to evict the people. Will the NBPD have the resources to assist during such evictions? If we want to change/curtail the misbehavior of short term lodgers staying in our city this will truly have a big impact on the bad actors.
Section 11.08.020 Use of Shade Coverings
I would like to state that, per data obtained in the internet, a personal beach umbrella with a 5'-6"~6' diameter is considered a small/solo beach umbrella. Most beach umbrellas are a standard 7'~7'-6" diameter in size and suitable for 1-3 users. Larger beach umbrellas are 8'~10' in diameter and suitable for 4+ people.
Limiting the shade coverings size to 6' (for the widest part, Page 9, Subsection A.5 of the proposed ordinance) is frankly unreasonable - are we trying to promote skin cancer (no shade at the beach)? The current Municipal Code write up of "100 square feet" (or 10' x 10') maximum size is more realistic.
Additionally, the "City of Newport Beach Website" currently states, under "Beach Information" and "Frequently Asked Beach Questions" (see attached print screen file), the following:
Two (10’x10’) EZ-ups/canopies (open on 3 sides) & two tables per group are permitted.
Groups are restricted to 50 people or less.
These statements do not line up with the changes proposed in Ordinance No. 2026-2. And if the goal is to have less problems with overcrowding and large groups it seems to me groups of 50 people are very large - should that be revised?
415
Also, please refer to the Instagram video the City posted back on 2025-08-28 (see attached 2 files with print screens of the video). The video mentions "No tents" and we can see several tents on the beach, as well as several large EZ ups. So how will people (residents and tourists alike) know they (tents, large EZ Ups, large umbrellas, an umbrella "touching" another, etc) are not allowed when they are clearly shown on the "marketing" video? Are we implementing with the subject ordinance more laws that will not be enforced and thus create more confusion?
Lastly, the "City of Newport Beach Website" states the beach closes at 10:00 pm so how will people know that after 7:00 pm shade coverings are not allowed on the beach? (Page 9, Subsection B of the proposed ordinance and already in the current Municipal Code write up). I am sure not even city residents are aware of the "7:00 pm" time sunset. I have lived on the Balboa Peninsula since 1989 and was unaware of this restriction until I read this proposed ordinance. And why 7:00 pm when the beach closes at 10:00 pm? I would like to hear the "why" from the City as it does not make sense to close the beach at 10:00 pm but require the shade coverings to be removed by 7:00 pm, especially during the summer season (with long day light).
I hope you will take my comments into consideration as part of your review/approval of the Proposed Ordinance.
Sincerely,
Carmen Rawson
416
From: Garrett, Errica
To: Dept - City Clerk
Subject: FW: Support for banning large tents
Date: February 23, 2026 11:32:42 AM
Errica Garrett
Administrative Assistant to the Mayor and City Council
City Manager’s Office
Office: 949-644-3004
100 Civic Center Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92660
-----Original Message-----
From: mike sullivan <[email protected]>
Sent: February 23, 2026 11:30 AM
To: Dept - City Council <[email protected]> Subject: Support for banning large tents
[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.
I support the ban on large tents!!! they’re already too many people out there to begin with and these tents just create unnecessary clutter and the feel that people are staying there and camping out. Enjoy the beach, but just small umbrellas is more than adequate. Thank you for your attention in this matter.
Mike Sullivan
Sent from my iPad
417
From: Garrett, Errica
To: Dept - City Clerk
Subject: FW: Umbrellas
Date: February 23, 2026 1:48:16 PM
Attachments: beach umbrellas.png
Errica Garrett
Administrative Assistant to the Mayor and City Council
City Manager’s Office
Office: 949-644-3004
100 Civic Center Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92660
-----Original Message-----
From: Cyn Hannah <[email protected]>
Sent: February 23, 2026 12:43 PM
To: Dept - City Council <[email protected]> Subject: Umbrellas
[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.
Newport Beach City Council,
Please vote yea in support of the proposed ban on large Sun Shades that have overtaken the beaches of Corona Del Mar and Newport Beach. If passed this ban will be a significant improvement to our beaches. The picture isn't even from a crowded day.
Thank you.
Cyn
Sent from my iPhone
418
From: Garrett, Errica
To: Dept - City Clerk
Subject: FW: Written Public Comment Agenda item #3 (Ordinance 2026-2) Date: February 23, 2026 1:48:18 PM
Attachments: image001.png
image002.png
image003.png
image004.png
Errica Garrett
Administrative Assistant
to the Mayor and City
Council
City Manager’s Office
Office: 949-644-3004
100 Civic Center Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92660
From: Wade Womack <[email protected]>
Sent: February 23, 2026 1:11 PM
To: Dept - City Council <[email protected]> Subject: Written Public Comment Agenda item #3 (Ordinance 2026-2)
[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.
Dear Newport Beach City Council,
Please do not pass Ordinance 2026-2. The proposed code changes and additions in this ordinance are being rushed and did not go through any meaningful stakeholder process. They will impact property owners, local residents and hundreds of thousands of visitors that visit our area every year.
For instance, outlawing the regular size sunshades (EZ Ups) will impact roughly 1,000,000 beach visitors that have relied on the standard size sunshade (10ft x 10ft) for years. My family and I rely on our EZ Up to shade our family during longer beach days. We have never had a problem at Orange St and other locations in terms of blocking lifeguard views because we are always out of their way and beach is plenty wide to accommodate all. It is overkill to ban the common size EZ Ups on all of our beaches based on a few areas of concern. Please consider sending this to the City Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission for some healthy public 419
engagement, problem solving and alternate solutions. There is no need to through the baby out with the bath water in terms of outlawing the most widely used EZ based a few areas of concern on a few peak summer weekends.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Wade Womack
Newport Beach, CA
420
From: Garrett, Errica
To: Dept - City Clerk
Subject: FW: Public Comment - City Council February 24th, 2026 Date: February 23, 2026 3:00:43 PM
Attachments: image001.png
image002.png
image003.png
image004.png
Errica Garrett
Administrative Assistant
to the Mayor and City
Council
City Manager’s Office
Office: 949-644-3004
100 Civic Center Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92660
From: Admin <[email protected]>
Sent: February 23, 2026 3:00 PM
To: Dept - City Council <[email protected]> Cc: City Clerk's Office <[email protected]>
Subject: Public Comment - City Council February 24th, 2026
[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.
Hello Mayor Kleiman and Councilmembers,
On behalf of the Newport Mooring Association, we appreciate the City’s efforts to move forward with a tidelands management committee. These are important issues for the harbor, and we recognize the time and attention they require.
While we would have welcomed a broader and more transparent stakeholder process from the outset, the Newport Mooring Association remains committed to working constructively with the City to ensure equitable and sustainable outcomes for all tidelands users.
421
We look forward to participating in a collaborative process that reflects the shared goal of fair access and responsible stewardship of our harbor. In that light, we are requesting monthly meetings beginning as soon as possible with the committee so we are aware of updates and can offer input from the community.
Anne Stenton
Newport Mooring Association
422
February 24, 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) Item 2. Minutes for the February 10, 2026, 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 496 , paragraph 5 from end: “Jaylee Hillcabaugh Coeli Hylkema noted that the management
of
public
tidelands
has
been
an
ongoing
issue
and
expressed
concerns
regarding
equity
.”
read
aloud
two
letters
to
the
editor
in
Stu
News
.”
bumps
in
residential
areas
affecting
fire
department
equipment
.”
Item 3. Ordinance No. 2026-2: Amending Various Sections of the Newport
Beach
Municipal
Code
to
Address
Illegal
Activity
During
High-Risk
Periods
Confusing Noticing This ordinance was introduced as Item 3 on the February 10 consent calendar under the agenda title “Safety Enhancement Zones Expansion and Enforcement During Peak Activity Periods.”
It
is,
at
best,
confusing
to
see
the
same
matter
come
back
for
possible
adoption
under
the
different
agenda
title
above,
leaving
the
public
to
wonder
if
it
is
the
same
item
they
previously
saw,
or
something
new.
That said, the new agenda title seems a bit misleading since while much of the proposed ordinance
seems
intended
solely
to
increase
penalties
for
activities
that
are
already
deemed
“illegal,”
it
would
also,
if
adopted,
make
illegal
certain
activities
that
are
currently
legal,
including
permissible
activities
on
public
beaches.
Moreover,
it
would
make
several
changes
to
the
Municipal
Code
that
would
be
in
effect
all
year,
not
just
during
“High-Risk”
or
“Peak
Activity”
periods.
In
addition
to
the
new
year-round
beach
activity
rules,
short-lodging
permits
will,
at
all
times,
now
require
the
owner
or
agent,
and
the
person
on
the
rental
agreement,
to
appear
at
the
rental
location
within
two
hours
of
receiving
verbal
notice
of
a
suspected
violation
from
a
City
officer.
Mission Creep More generally, it is likely a truism that it is easier to lose freedoms than to regain them, especially
when
a
law
primarily
impinges
on
the
freedoms
of
persons
other
than
those
with
the
power
to
enact
them.
423
February 24, 2026, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 2 of 12 In Newport Beach, the idea of creating a “Safety Enhancement Zone” with enhanced penalties, introduced by Ordinance No. 2003-5, was initially confined to a small area on a single day, the 4th of July. And although its revisions to NBMC Sec. 1.04.010 tripled fines for any violation of the
Municipal
Code
during
the
Zone’s
effective
time,
it
was
presumably
intended
to
be
selectively
enforced
to
limit
objectionable
behavior
by
visitors
and
their
hosts.
The single day and single location for enhanced remained the case for 22 years, until last year’s Ordinance No. 2025-3, which created a new Enhancement Zone consisting of the entirety of the old Corona del Mar “Village,” from Fifth Avenue to the ocean, and while retaining a single day on the
4th
of
July
(which
the
findings
said
had
been
“very
successful”),
it
extended
the
time
of
restricted
activity
to
include
three-day
Memorial
Day
and
Labor
Day
weekends,
for
a
total
of
seven
days
a
year.
A
significant
part
of
the
concern
regarding
CdM
was
said
(in
the
findings
to
the
ordinance)
to
stem
from
potential
disruptions
involving
short
term
lodgings,
although
it
is
unclear why there would not be a similar concern regarding Balboa Island, with its even higher concentration of STL permits. The present proposal substantially increases the size of the “West” Newport Enhancement Zone and
increases
the
length
of
enhanced
penalties
around
the
4th
of
July
from
one
day
to
(intentionally
or
not)
as
many
as
four
days,
adds
another
day
(Friday)
to
the
3-day
Memorial
Day
weekend
and
introduces
an
indefinite
number
of
additional
Spring
Break
days,
currently
two
9-day
periods
established
for
2026
by
adoption
of
Resolution
No.
2026-8
at
the
last
Council
meeting.
In other words, in a single year, we have gone from thinking we need a single day a year of enhanced
fines
in
single
area
to
thinking
we
need
seven
days
a
year
over
a
larger
area,
and
now
to
29 days
a
year
in
which
we
feel
an
ever-growing
area
of
the
city
is
so
under
siege
by
unruly
visitors
that
we
need
to
control
them,
and
their
enablers,
with
the
prospect
of
triple
fines.
We
have
gone
from
what
seemed
to
be
widely
regarded
as
a
necessary
restriction
of
freedoms
on
one
day
in
one
area
addressing
a
known
problem,
to
what
looks
like
an
ever-widening
imposition
of
pre-emptive
restrictions
addressing
times
and
in
areas
where
problems
could
develop.
Broad Sweep It might be noted that while the Council may feel this widened scope affects primarily visitors, there
is
nothing
in
the
proposed
code
that
ensures
that.
The
warning
notices
it
requires
to
be
sent
go
not
just
to
short
term
lodging
owners,
but
to
all
property
owners.
And
the
tripling
of
fines
applies
to
all
violations
of
the
Municipal
Code,
not
just
visitor-related
ones.
A
resident
of
CdM
who
may
be
considering
washing
their
car
in
their
driveway
without
ensuring
no
runoff
goes
into
the
street,
or
doing
some
minor
noise-generating
home
maintenance
on
a
Sunday
(or
a
myriad
of
other
things
that
are
violations
of
the
Municipal
Code)
needs
to
check
their
calendar
to
see
if
it
is
one
of
the
29 days.
For
if
it
is,
a
complaint
from
an
unfriendly
neighbor
will
result
in
a
triple
fine.
Incorrectly Expanded Fourth of July? As to the rationale for increasing the days of enforcement around the 4th of July, I am not sure the authors carefully considered what they are proposing. The current NBMC Subsection
424
February 24, 2026, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 3 of 12
1.04.060 defines the single day of enhanced fines as running “ from 12:01 a.m. on July 4th to 3:00 a.m. on July 5th .” The proposal is to replace this with “ from 12:01 a.m. on Friday until 11:59 p.m.
on
Monday
when
the
Fourth
of
July
falls
on
a
Friday,
Saturday,
Sunday
or
Monday;
(3)
from
12:01
a.m.
on
July
4th
to
3:00
a.m.
on
July
5th
when
the
Fourth
of
July
falls
on
a
Tuesday,
Wednesday
or
Thursday
.”
Under
federal
law,
Monday
is
a
holiday
only
when
the
4th
of
July
falls
on
a
Sunday
or
Monday.
If
it
falls
on
a
Friday
or
Saturday,
Monday
is
not
a
holiday.
So,
there
is
never
more
than
a
3-day
4th
of
July
weekend.
What
possible
rationale
could
there
be
for
including
Monday
in
the
enhancement
period
when
the
4th
of
July
falls
on
a
Friday
or
Saturday
and
the
revelers
have
presumably
cleared
out
and
returned
to
work
or
school
on
that
Monday?
It
is
similarly
unclear
why
a
Friday
before
the
4th
of
July
is
being
included
in
years
when
it
is
not
a
holiday
(and
why
Friday
is
being
included
for
the
Memorial
Day
weekend,
but
not
the
Labor
Day
one).
The public may also be interested to know if it can expect operational changes corresponding to the
newly-expanded
days
around
the
4th
of
July.
The
Police
Department
has
long
asked
for
permission
to
close
certain
streets
in
West
Newport
on
the
4th,
most
recently
in
2025,
with
the
4th falling on a Friday, with Resolution No. 2025-35, but only for one day. It has also asked for enforcement assistance from other city and county agencies. This year, with the 4th falling on a Saturday,
but
the
Enhancement
Zone
running
for
a
full
four
days,
from
Friday
through
Monday,
will
it
want
to
close
the
roads
all
four
days
(even
though
Monday
will
be
a
normal
work
day)?
And
will
the
outside
law
enforcement
agencies
be
present
all
four
days,
and
not
just
on
the
4th?
Mandatory STL Permit Revocation Regarding the controversial proposed new mandatory revocation of short term lodging permits for
selected
violations
in
active
Enhancement
Zones,
that
seems
a
rather
severe
penalty
of
some
violations
that
seem
inherently
subjective
and
likely
to
lead
to
uneven
enforcement.
For
example, violations of NBMC Chapter 10.28 (Loud and Unreasonable Noise) are inherently judgement calls on the part of the responding officer. Others involving the renter’s conduct seem difficult
for
the
permit
holder
to
control
–
such
as
amplified
sound
audible
at
the
property
line
or
operates
any
device
reproducing
sound
outside
the
lodging,
even
if
not
audible,
between
10:00
p.m. and 10:00 a.m.
1 (per NBMC Subsection 5.95.047.A.4.b) – making immediate revocation of the permit a severe penalty in the absence of a clear pattern of renting to persons ignoring the rules.
It
seems
like
the
wrong
person
is
being
penalized.
This
will
also
provide
neighbors
with
an
opportunity
to
get
STL
permits
removed
by
strategically
lodging
complaints
on
one
of
the
29 days
when
mandatory
revocation,
rather
the
possibility
of
suspension,
is
the
consequence
of
a
relatively
minor
violation
–
and
that
opportunity
will,
unfairly,
be
available
only
for
STL’s
in
selected
areas.
Shade Structures Regarding the proposed new year-round restrictions on allowable use of personal shade structures
at
the
beach,
it
is
curious
that
staff
is
asking
the
Council
to
adopt
them
without
a
recommendation from our Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission. City Charter Section 1 It is difficult to guess where the “10:00 a.m.” came from. The “quiet hours” for Newport Beach, found in NBMC
Chapter 10.26 (Community Noise Control), normally run from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.
425
February 24, 2026, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 4 of 12 709 places on that body a requirement to “ Act in an advisory capacity to the City Council in all matters pertaining to parks, beaches, recreation, parkways and street trees .” These new rules would
certainly
appear
to
be
a
matter
involving
beaches
and
recreation.
This
Charter-imposed
requirement
to
advise
the
Council
seems
even
stronger
and
less
avoidable
than
the
Council’s
self-imposed
requirement
for
proposed
Zoning
Code
amendments
to
always
come
to
Council
with
a
recommendation
from
the
Planning
Commission.
As to the substance of the new shade structure rules, the February 10 staff report said the revised
code
“
Clarifies
spacing,
height,
placement
and
visibility
requirements
to
ensure
unobstructed
emergency
access,
public
safety
visibility
and
safe
pedestrian
movement
during
periods of heavy beach use .” However, the extensive redlining indicates the revisions are not confined to clarifying existing rules, but impose new and more restrictive ones: ● For example, the existing rules allow structures, or groups of structures, providing up to 100
square
feet
of
shade.
The
proposed
code
prohibits
grouping
and
limits
the
allowed
single
structure
to
a
width,
and
its
point
of
maximum
width,
of
6 feet,
which
would
correspond
to
a
6-foot
diameter
circular
umbrella
(28
square
feet)
or
a
square
shade
with
a
6-foot
diagonal
(4..2
feet
on
a
side,
or
18 square
feet).
Those
are
both
much
smaller
than
currently
allowed.
● It requires anchoring, while simultaneously prohibiting many commonly used methods of anchoring.
● It introduces a new prohibition on anything that “ obstructs line-of-sight access from the surrounding
beach
or
shoreline
.”
I
do
not
know
what
obstructing
“line-of-sight
access”
is
intended
to
mean,
but
if
it
prohibits
anything
obstructing
any
visual
line
of
sight
that
would
exist
without
the
structure,
then
this
would
seem
to
prohibit
the
erection
of
any
opaque
structure
at
all.
If
it
means
obstructing
physical
access
(by
foot
or
vehicle)
along
any
possible
straight
line
(“sight”
is
along
straight
lines)
that,
too,
would
seem
to
prohibit
any
structures,
opaque
or
not.
Apparently small, transparent coverings will still be allowed on Newport Beach beaches, but they
would
not
seem
to
provide
much
protection
from
the
sun.
Item 4. Resolution No. 2026-13: Limiting the Parking of Vehicles on Certain
City
Streets
Curiously, the Google Street Views of the golf cart parking areas west of Marine Avenue at Balboa Avenue and Park Avenue, which are available for a number of years, do not document a problem. They do show the number of spaces increasing over the years. They do not show them
being
overutilized.
They
most
frequently
show
a
single
parked
cart
or
none
at
all.
Has something changed in the last year? Or does the problem exist at a time of day or time of year
not
represented
by
the
photos?
As to the proposed resolution, it is not clear why it refers to the “ South side of Park Avenue ” but the
“
North
curbside
of
Balboa
Avenue
.”
Is
some
distinction
intended
between
“side”
and
“curbside”?
426
February 24, 2026, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 5 of 12 Item 6. Citywide ADA Improvements - Award of Contract No. 9943-1 (26R12)
Is the funding for this contract dependent upon the Council’s approval of dedication of CDBG funds
to
ADA
improvements
in
Item
11 on
the
present
agenda?
If
so,
isn’t
it
being
voted
on
out
of
sequence?
Doesn’t
the
funding
mechanism
need
to
be
approved
before
a
contract
dependent
on
it
can
be
approved?
Item 8. Amendment to Professional Services Agreement for Video Production
and
Programming
Services
with
TV
Pro
Gear,
Inc.
(Contract
No.
9488-1)
The staff report is confusing in that the Abstract says “ The remaining contract balance is sufficient
to
complete
the
services
through
the
current
term
,”
yet
the
Discussion
says
it
is
"
insufficient
,"
and
a
$60,000
increase
in
the
not-to-exceed
amount
is
being
requested.
Is the “ sufficient ” in the Abstract a misprint for " insufficient "? Assuming that is correct, since the existing contract referred to in the item title has not previously received Council review, it would have been helpful to disclose what the “scope of work” referred to in the Discussion as “not modified” is. Although the contract appears to call only for the filming of City Council and Planning Commission
meetings,
I
believe
it
may
have
been
used
to
produce
videos
of
the
General
Plan
Advisory
and
Update
Steering
Committee
meetings,
as
well.
Is
that
the
reason
for
the
cost
overrun?
If
that
is
not
the
reason,
what
is?
That said, if the City was truly interested in improving communication with the public it might consider
creating
and
posting
videos
of
additional
City
meetings,
possibly
using
a
lower
cost
method,
such
as
a
fixed
camera
position
that
would
not
require
manual
operation
and
editing.
As an example to consider, since 2020, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes (with a population about half that of Newport Beach), appears to stream and post timely videos of essentially all its public meetings. The City of Stockton (about four times the population of Newport Beach) appears, since 2021, to use two fixed cameras to record and post videos of all its board, commission and committee meetings. The City of Pasadena (with a population about 50% larger than Newport Beach) has, since 2021, often posted videos, but at least audio recordings, of all its board, commission and committee meetings. In Newport Beach, by contrast, short of submitting a Public Records Act request, the public who were
unable
to
attend
in
person
have
to
wait,
as
an
extreme
example,
three
months
(sometimes
six,
if
the
next
meeting
was
cancelled)
to
see
a
written
record
of
what
happened
at
the
last
Aviation
Committee
meeting
(and
a
month
or
more
for
other
commissions
and
committees).
Frustrated
parties,
such
as
the
Newport
Mooring
Association,
appear
to
be
filming,
at
their
own
expense,
meetings
of
the
Harbor
Commission
to
have
a
complete
and
accurate
record.
427
February 24, 2026, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 6 of 12 Item 10. Cultural Arts Grants Fiscal Year 2025-26 Comparison with the recommendations from last year, Item 12 at the March 11, 2025, meeting, indicates a great deal of similarity. Grants were recommended to be awarded to eight organizations
each
year.
The
only
difference
is
the
Balboa
Island
Improvement
Association
and
the
Newport
Theatre
Arts
Center
have
dropped
off
the
list,
while
the
Choral
Arts
Initiative
and
Wildlife
Jewels
have
been
added.
Item 11. Resolution No. 2026-14: Substantial Amendment to the 2025-2026
Annual
Action
Plan
for
the
Federal
Community
Development
Block
Grant
Program
Table 1 of the staff report indicates the $750,000 recommended to be dedicated to ADA improvements
would
come
from
the
unallocated
balance
in
the
current
fiscal
year
plus
balances
from
two
previous
years.
It would have seemed helpful to put these numbers in the context of the total funding received in each
year
that
could
be
used
for
this
purpose.
Will
this
proposal
be
using
all
the
funding
that
was
received
and
could
be
used
for
physical
improvements?
Or
only
a
part
of
it?
Item 12. Approval of Proposed Revisions to Various Council Policies Overview As the staff report indicates, on January 14, 2025, (as consent calendar Item 6) the City Council appointed a three-member subcommittee which was allowed to meet privately to review the City Council Policy Manual and was asked to report back any recommended changes to the full Council before the end of 2025. The committee failed to report back, but the present item purports
to
reflect
the
changes
they
would
have
recommended
if
they
had
recommended
changes.
It is good to see City staff has placed the recommendations on the regular agenda for discussion,
as
opposed
to
the
consent
calendar,
and
that
a
redline
of
the
proposed
changes
has
been
provided.
It is much less good that staff has provided no table indicating which of the proposed changes are
substantive,
and
for
the
policies
affected
by
those,
why
they
are
being
changed
and
how
their
interpretation
would,
after
each
proposed
change,
differ
from
how
they
operate
today.
It is also problematic that the redlining cannot be trusted to be accurate. For example, the redline
of
the
proposed
Council
Policy
A-17
(Newport
Beach
City
Council
Airport
Policy)
suggests
that
the
only
changes
to
the
existing
policy
are
a
new
paragraph
added
on
page
1 and
a
minor
change
to
one
sentence
within
a
paragraph
on
page
3. Yet
the
entire
existing
policy
has
been
rearranged
(and
even
the
name
changed),
condensing
eleven
pages
of
existing
text
(plus
many
pages
of
attachments)
down
to
slightly
over
three.
428
February 24, 2026, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 7 of 12 Missing Review by Boards, Commissions and Committees According to the staff report, one purpose of the review was to ensure the policies are consistent
with
our
City
Charter.
Yet,
even
though
the
Charter
requires
certain
boards
and
commissions
to
advise
the
Council
on
policy
matters,
only
two
of
the
proposed
policies,
to
the
best
of
my
knowledge,
have
been
shown
to
any
other
body
before
asking
the
Council
to
adopt
them.
One of those is the new Council Policy A-17 (Newport Beach City Council Airport Policy), a version of which was seen by the City’s recently-restructured Aviation Committee at its January 26 meeting. While the City Charter does not require the Council to seek their advice, the meagre redlining noted above may represent some of the committee members’ suggested additions
to
the
draft
changes
they
saw
–
although
for
the
reasons
stated
in
my
comments
on
Item
8,
above,
it
is
difficult
to
tell
because
a
written
record
of
what
happened
at
the
January
26 meeting
will
not
be
available
until
the
Aviation
Committee
meets
again,
which
will
be
no
sooner
than
April
27. One body that is , in the City Charter scheme of government, expected to advise the Council is our Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission, established by Charter Section 709. Of the five revised policies relevant to them (B-1, B-9, B-13, G-1 and G-6), the only one they were shown
was
Policy
G-1
(Retention,
Removal,
and
Maintenance
of
City
Trees),
which
they
saw
at
their February 3, 2026, meeting. Again, we do not yet have a written record of their discussion, but my recollection they found the proposed changes so extensive that they requested more time
to
consider
them
before
making
any
recommendations,
and
also
asked
to
communicate
with
the
Council
reviewing
committee
(which
they
assumed
was
still
reviewing
its
own
recommendations,
unaware
it
had
ceased
to
exist).
One of the features of PB&R meetings, for many years, has been that when public hearings end,
the
chair
tells
the
audience
“I
f
anyone
is
not
happy
with
our
decision,
you
can
appeal
to
the
City
Council
.”
Under
the
proposed
revisions
to
Policy
G-1,
that
will
need
to
be
changed
(at
least
for
trees)
to
“
If
anyone
is
not
happy
with
our
decision,
it
is
final,
but
you
can
always
sue
us
.”
Why would PB&R’s request for more time to review Policy G-1 be denied? And do any of the
Council
members
really
want
to
deny
their
constituents
the
ability
to
appeal
commission
decisions
to
them?
Are
they
even
aware
this
change
is
being
proposed?
None of the other revised policies relevant to PB&R were even seen by them. Similarly, I am doubtful
that
most
of
(or
even
any?)
of
the
revisions
relevant
to
the
Planning
Commission
or
the
Finance
Committee
were
seen
by
them.
Deletion of Policy D-4 (Innovation/Improvement Incentive Program) The only proposal for which the staff report provides any specific reason is the proposed deletion
of
Policy
D-4,
for
which
it
says
the
committee
“
concluded
that
it
functions
better
as
an
administrative
policy
than
a
formal
Council
policy.
Rescinding
Policy
D-4
will
help
keep
the
Council
Policy
Manual
focused
on
governance
matters
while
allowing
staff
to
manage
innovation
initiatives
administratively
.”
429
February 24, 2026, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 8 of 12 There are at least two problems with that reasoning: (1) nearly all the Council policies exist to establish
rules
determining
how
the
City
is
expected
to
be
administered
(so
why
shouldn’t
they
all
be
deleted?);
and
(2)
the
internal
administrative
policies
promulgated
by
the
City
Manager
and
department
directors
are
not
publicly
posted,
nor
are
they
(at
least
in
recent
years)
reviewed
by,
let
alone
approved
by,
the
Council.
In the present case, while the details of the “Innovation/Improvement Incentive Program” 2 might
be
left
to
City
staff
to
work
out,
I
would
think
the
Council
would
want
to
set
the
policy
as
to
whether
such
a
program
should
exist,
who
should
be
eligible
for
the
incentives,
and
how
much
of
the
City’s
money
can
be
spent
on
it.
The
latter,
in
particular,
is
a
budget
matter
which
is
a
quintessential
Council
oversight
function,
and
should
not
be
left
to
those
spending
the
money
on
themselves.
Comments on Specific Policies I am unlikely to be able to review all the changes before these comments are due, but here are a
few
thoughts
about
a
few
of
the
proposed
revisions.
Proposed
policy
revisions
that
I
have
not
had
a
chance
to
review
are
indicated
by
ellipsis
(“
…
“).
Policy A-1 (City Council) One might wonder why continue to start Council meetings at 4:00 p.m., an hour at which many working
residents
will
be
unable
to
attend.
That
hour
was
originally
intended
for
non-action
study
sessions,
followed
by
the
closed
session,
with
the
regular
meeting
starting
at
a
later
hour.
Placing public comments on non-agenda items at the beginning of the meeting is a welcome innovation,
allowing
persons
wanting
to
make
them
to
not
have
to
wait
hours
to
do
so.
Allowing public comment on agenda items before the matters are heard is also welcome, but only
if
the
comment
can
be
continued
when
the
item
comes
up
for
discussion.
At
the
very
least,
a
person
using
only
a
small
part
of
their
3 minutes
to
comment
at
the
beginning
of
the
meeting
about
an
agendized
item
should
be
allowed
to
use
the
remainder
of
their
3 minutes
3 to
finish
their
comments
about
the
item
when
the
Council
discusses
it
later
in
the
meeting.
But
that
does
not
appear
to
be
spelled
out
in
the
proposed
policy.
The proposed restriction on advocating for or against a ballot measure during non-agenda public
comments,
especially
if
it
is
a
city
ballot
measure,
is
highly
problematic.
A
city
ballot
3 Only a few of those participating in today’s meetings may recall that during most of the City’s history, the time
allowed
for
public
comments,
if
there
was
any
limit,
was
5 minutes.
Why
it
went
to
“3”
and
why
“4”
was
never
considered
is
unclear.
As
to
the
value
of
having
two
opportunities
to
speak,
even
fewer
may
recall
that
in
2014,
AB-194
,
which
would
have
required
all
Brown
Act
bodies
to
provide
an
opportunity
for
public
comment
both
before
and
during
the
consideration
of
every
agenda
item,
overwhelmingly
passed
the
California
legislature
but
was
vetoed
by
Governor
Jerry
Brown.
2 If I ever knew of it, I did not remember the City had an “Innovation/Improvement Incentive Program” offering
cash
to
its
employees,
and
I
do
not
know
if
it
is
currently
active.
As
best
I
can
tell
there
is
no
line
item
in
the
currently-approved
budget detail indicating any funds allocated to be spent on “Innovation” or “Improvement”
“Incentives”
or
rewards.
I
am
aware
of
a
“Rewarding Ideas Program” at the Costa Mesa
Sanitary
District (from whom I receive sewer service). But it is part of board-approved Administrative Policies
and
the
actual
award
to
an
employee
requires
board
approval
(which
not
only
provides
oversight,
but
public
recognition
of
the
employee’s
innovations).
430
February 24, 2026, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 9 of 12 measure is indisputably a matter within the subject matter jurisdiction of the City Council, and Government Code Section 54954.3(a)(1) of the Brown Act requires the Council to “ provide an opportunity for members of the public to directly address the legislative body on any item of interest
to
the
public
…
that
is
within
the
subject
matter
jurisdiction
of
the
legislative
body
.”
In the proposed new rule for selecting the Presiding Officer in the absence of the Mayor and Mayor
Pro
Tem,
if
the
most
senior
member
is
to
be
chosen,
it
is
quite
likely
there
could
be
more
than
one
“most
senior”
member.
The
rule
should
be
refined
to
defer
to
the
one
who
received
the
most
votes
at
the
their
most
recent
election.
The requirement for the Presiding Officer or (now) City Clerk to state the question before a vote is
taken
on
any
Council
motion
(other
than
to
approve
the
staff
recommendation
found
in
the
agenda)
is
also
most
welcome,
although
the
existing
provision
to
that
effect
has
almost
never
been
enforced.
Will
the
revised
one
be
honored?
The rule that a “ motion is a proposal in that it sets forth something the person making the motion favors
”
is
proposed
to
be
deleted.
I
do
not
understand
why.
It is not clear why the rules allowing extra time for spokespersons for a group have been deleted,
or
the
“Limitation
on
Debate”
rule
requiring
rotation
between
speakers
on
the
dais
when
some
are
waiting
a
turn
to
speak.
The new requirement to disclose ex parte communications is welcome, provided it is understood the
disclosure
is
supposed
to
summarize
the
information
received,
not
just
that
a
communication
took
place.
Without
a
summary,
there
is
no
chance
to
challenge
the
misinformation
that
may
influence
a
decision.
It is strange the “Voting Procedure” paragraph does not seem to mention the electronic system that
is
most
often
used,
but
only
oral
and
hand-raising
votes.
It is unclear why a new limit of a single substitute motion has been introduced. Under “Ordinances, Resolutions and Contract,” why is the Planning Commission being stripped of
its
authority
to
initiate
Zoning
Code
amendments?
That
authority
is
found
in
Municipal
Code
Section 20.66.020, and one of the stated goals of the present exercise is to improve consistency of the policies with the NBMC, not to create new inconsistencies. Why is the entire section on “City Council Member Requests for Research or Information” proposed
to
be
deleted?
This
is
an
important
issue
which
must
be
dealt
with
consistent
with
the
restrictions imposed by City Charter Section 406. It is hard to see how deletion of the rules helps ensure actions will be consistent with the Charter.
Policy A-2 (Boards, Commissions, and Committees) Under “Boards and Commissions (Permanent),” it is unclear why “ or resolution ” is proposed to be deleted. City Charter Section 700 was amended in 2012 to allow new boards and commissions to be created by resolution. Unless the Council does not want to exercise that power,
this
change
seems
to
be
a
reversion
to
a
now
obsolete
rule.
431
February 24, 2026, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 10 of 12 Under “City Council/Citizens’ Committees (Standing or Ad Hoc)” the word “Annually” has been moved
without
deleting
the
original
occurrence
of
it,
resulting
in
it
appearing
twice
in
the
second
sentence.
As a general comment, the intended distinction between the various kinds of committees does not seem universally followed. For example, under Boards, Commissions and Committees on the City’s website, the City Clerk lists four committees under “Citizens Advisory Committees” even
though
all
four
are
chaired
by
Council
members,
which
would
seem
to
make
them
“Council/Citizens
Ad
Hoc
Committees”
under
the
Policy
A-2
definitions.
It
has
been
a
number
of
years
since
Newport
Beach
has
had
a
true
Citizens
Advisory
Committee,
consisting
solely
of
ordinary
citizens.
Under “New Boards, Commissions, or Committees – Citizen Appointment,” why is the “ enabling ” ordinance
or
resolution
here
called
a
“
formation
”
one?
Under “Annual Appointment List,” if by “posting” at the Central Library, that means on the bulletin
board,
I
don’t
think
that
happens.
It
may
be
in
some
binder
at
the
Reference
Desk,
but
I
don’t
know.
Under “Qualifications,” there should be a requirement for the City Clerk to notify applicants when their
application
has
been
destroyed.
Otherwise
people,
unaware
of
this
policy,
will
imagine
they
have
an
application
on
file
when
they
don’t
and
need
to
re-file.
The “Limit on Service” provisions may be outdated. I believe the Council has established committees
with
terms
other
than
four
years.
I am very concerned about the proposed changes under “Optional Ad Hoc Appointments Committee.”
If
I
understand
the
revisions,
it
looks
like
there
will
no
longer
be
a
confirmation
of
recommendations
at
the
meeting
prior
to
the
one
at
which
appointments
are
made,
and
that
on
the
night
of
appointment,
there
may
be
only
a
single
nominee
to
consider
for
each
position.
Compared
to
other
cities,
we
already
have
a
very
opaque
system
in
which
applicants
are
not
publicly
interviewed.
It
looks
like
these
revisions,
if
adopted,
will
take
the
Council
members
not
on
the
Ad
Hoc
Appointments
Committee
completely
out
of
the
process,
expecting
them
to
rubberstamp
the
selections
made
privately
by
the
Committee.
The provisions under “Business Improvement District Appointments” have always been problematic.
They
defer
to
the
California
Streets
and
Highways
Code,
but
if
I
recall
correctly,
that
code
defers
to
the
city’s
appointments
policy.
Under “Recording of Open Meetings,” I have never understood why we are so anxious to destroy
recordings
after
one
year.
That
seems
far
too
short,
and
I
don’t
think
electronic
storage
costs
make
it
necessary.
In the title to “Use of City Stationary,” the misspelling of “Stationery” was noticed and corrected for
Policy
A-1.
Why
is
it
not
being
corrected
here?
Policy A-12 (Discretionary Grants) Why is the provision allowing an audit of the use of granted funds being deleted?
432
February 24, 2026, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 11 of 12 Policy A-17 (Newport Beach City Council Airport Policy) As noted in the “Overview” above, the redlining is deceptive. This policy has been completely rearranged,
rewritten
and
even
retitled.
The
small
bits
of
redlining
may
represent
further
additions
suggested
by
members
of
the
Aviation
Committee.
Policy B-1 (Park Fee Policy) This policy was not reviewed by PB&R. In the last sentence of the first paragraph under “Service Criteria,” was “ as those trails ” intended to
read
“
and
those
trails
”?
Where and how is the extent of the listed trails defined? … Policy G-1 (Retention, Removal, and Maintenance of City Trees) This policy is the subject of extensive redlining, which may or may not be comprehensive or accurate.
As noted above under “Missing Review by Boards, Commissions and Committees,” it was presented
to
the
Parks,
Beaches
and
Recreation
Commission
at
their
February
meeting,
but
they
did
not
have
time
to
make
recommendations
about
it.
Why would the Council rush to adopt it prior to PB&R’s review? Personally, I am concerned about the deletion of the existing ability to appeal PB&R tree decisions
to
the
City
Council.
I
would
think
at
least
some
of
the
Council
members
would
be
concerned
about
that
as
well.
Without having time to adequately review any of the other provisions, but should it be adopted, I would
simply
note
the
proposed
new
policy
title
(“RETENTION,
REMOVAL
OF
CITY
TREES”)
seems
ungrammatical.
For
consistency
with
the
titling
of
other
policies,
shouldn’t
it
at
least
be
“Retention
and
Removal
of
City
Trees”?
Policy G-6 (Maintenance and Planting of Parkway Trees) This policy was not reviewed by PB&R, although their providing the Council with advice regarding
park
and
parkway
trees
is
arguably
required
by
the
City
Charter.
The changes may be primarily a moving of tree maintenance rules from Policy G-1 to Policy G-6,
but
why
was
“Parkway”
removed
from
the
section
title
of
“STANDARDS
AND
SPECIFICATIONS
FOR
PLANTING
PARKWAY
TREES.”
Isn’t
that
section
still
exclusively
about
parkway
trees?
…
433
February 24, 2026, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 12 of 12 Policy L-23 (The Siting of Wireless Telecommunications Equipment on City-Owned
Property)
This policy is of particular interest to me since it resulted, in 2009, in City staff approving, without any
public
notice,
the
placement
of
cell
antennas
at
eye
level
atop
a
City
streetlight
pole
in
front
of
my
home’s
Upper
Back
Bay
view
windows,
resulting
in
my
involvement
in
City
policy
issues.
Since I understand the City is currently in the process of comprehensively reviewing its cell siting
regulations,
I
have
trouble
understanding
why
this
part
of
that
is
coming
forward
separately,
and
even
if
there
were
a
reason
for
that,
why
it
is
being
wrapped
together
with
revisions
to
15 unrelated
policies,
and,
like
those
other
15,
being
presented
for
approval
with
no
explanation
of
how
it
is
being
changed,
or
why.
That sounds like poor policy making to me. For starters, while I gather that “personal wireless service facilities” may be a term defined in federal
law,
I
think
the
inclusion
of
the
word
“personal”
in
this
City
policy
is
confusing.
Most
readers
will
assume
it
regulates
things
like
a
home
WiFi
connection,
which
I
don’t
think
is
its
intent.
In addition, the proposed new title (“REDUCING BARRIERS TO WIRELESS SERVICE
FACILITIES
ON
PRIVATELY
OWNED
PROPERTY,
ON
CITY-OWNED
AND
CITY-HELD
TRUST
PROPERTY,
AND
THE
PUBLIC
RIGHT-OF-WAY”
–
20 or
24 words
depending
on
how
one
counts
hyphens)
seems
inconsistent
with
the
other
Council
Policy
titles,
both
as
to
length
(many
of
which
are
just
2 or
3 words,
and
longest
is
15)
and
to
tenor.
Something
as
simple
as
“WIRELESS
SERVICE
FACILITIES”
(3
words)
would
be
more
in
keeping
with
the
other
titles.
The new inclusion of “private property” in the title and first two paragraphs is particularly confusing
since
the
third
paragraph
under
“Policy”
on
page
1 seems
to
say
the
policy
does
not
apply
to
private
property.
Why
is
it
being
added
if
the
policy
continues
to
be
only
about
City
property?
Next, without explanation, I do not understand how the City can exclude installations on City property
and
trust
lands
from
any
permit
requirements,
including
coastal
development
permits.
I
don’t
believe
the
City
has
the
latter
power.
I continue to not understand the prohibition on adding cell service antennas to traffic signal poles.
They
seem
to
me,
in
many
cases,
the
most
logical
and
unobtrusive
option.
Doesn’t
the
basis
for
this
restriction
need
to
be
reevaluated?
It seems irresponsible to me to adopt the proposed changes to the rent structure without any explanation
of
where
this
proposal
came
from
and
what,
if
any,
other
options
are
available.
I do not understand why there would be no notification or opportunity for appeal. I do not understand why encroachment permits would not still be required. Is the City completely abandoning
any
control
over
use
of
our
public
rights-of-way?
What
happened
to
our
interest
in
“maintaining
local
control”?
Do
we
assume
all
telecom
companies
have
our
best
interests
at
heart?
434