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.
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
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.
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”?
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.
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.
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
.”
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).
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.
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?
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?
…
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?