Agenda packet — Newport Beach City Council, March 10, 2026 (part 3 of 3)

Reflects restatement of net position due to deferred outflow adjustments related to fiscal year ended June 30, 2017.

Reflects restatement of net position due to implementation of GASB 75 in fiscal year ended June 30, 2018.

Reflects restatement of net position due to adjustments for capital assets and compensated absences liability in fiscal year ended June 30, 2019.

Fiscal Year
The City of Newport Beach implemented GASB 96 for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2023.

Governmental activities:

Total governmental activities
Total business-type activities
Total primary government
The City of Newport Beach implemented GASB 75 for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2018.

The City of Newport Beach implemented GASB 87 for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2022. 2022 data varies from trend due to receipt of revenues such as property taxes and sales taxes that were not spent or restricted by the end of the fiscal year.

Reflects restatement of net position due to unbilled receivables adjustments related to fiscal year ended June 30, 2023. 2025 data varies from trend due to receipt of revenues such as property taxes and sales taxes that were not spent or restricted by the end of the fiscal year and the decline of net pension and net OPEB liabilities.

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
Net Position by Component
Last Ten Fiscal Years
(accrual basis of accounting)
214
2021 2022 20235 2024 2025
Net investment in capital assets 2,227,572,605$ 2,223,773,786$ 2,256,305,577$ 2,275,099,514$ 2,292,549,844$ Restricted 67,189,020 78,100,496 79,152,428 123,444,563 131,011,162 Unrestricted (72,301,558) (8,183,288) 20,117,377 28,001,461 58,401,174 2,222,460,067$ 2,293,690,994$ 2,355,575,382$ 2,426,545,538$ 2,481,962,180$ Business-type activities:

Net investment in capital assets 124,775,772$ 128,244,924$ 131,015,969$ 132,331,781$ 135,138,380$ Unrestricted 27,039,499 28,559,633 25,105,814 20,202,940 22,455,779 151,815,271$ 156,804,557$ 156,121,783$ 152,534 ,721$ 157,594 ,159$ Primary government:

Net investment in capital assets 2,352,348,377$ 2,352,018,710$ 2,387,321,546$ 2,407,431,295$ 2,427,688,224$ Restricted 67,189,020 78,100,496 79,152,428 123,444,563 131,011,162 Unrestricted (45,262,059) 20,376,345 4 45,223,191 48,204,401 80,856,95 3 6 2,374,275,338$ 2,450,495,551$ 2,511,697,165$ 2,579,080,259$ 2,639,556,339$

Page 2 of 2 ends

Governmental activities:

Total governmental activities
Total business-type activities
Total primary government
Fiscal Year

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
Net Position by Component
Last Ten Fiscal Years
(accrual basis of accounting)
215
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
19,335,275$ 20,443,569$ 19,011,099$ 20,549,224$ 20,714,050$ 91,046,455 102,494,314 107,647,562 111,556,065 119,194,302 45,443,988 54,039,601 47,615,000 53,339,878 60,054,860 9,943,868 12,056,086 12,377,394 11,493,204 12,842,020 22,700,052 26,583,440 27,307,115 27,758,097 26,668,079 7,615,094 7,472,188 7,381,743 7,187,971 7,064,521 Total governmental activities expenses 196,084,732 223,089,198 221,339,913 231,884,439 246,537,832 21,605,197 22,004,013 23,724,918 26,898,075 27,387,120 3,818,165 4,218,926 4,158,155 4,222,228 4,291,755 Total business-type activities expenses 25,423,362 26,222,939 27,883,073 31,120,303 31,678,875 Total primary government expenses 221,508,094 249,312,137 249,222,986 263,004,742 278,216,707 General government 3,722,557 5,089,123 5,355,887 5,887, 265 3,846, 962 Public safety 19,108,222 19,899,242 20,733,883 21,979, 376 22,232, 248 Public works 5,319,510 5,214,426 5,789,579 5,778, 441 5,054, 694 Community development 8,419,588 10,838,114 9,956,226 9,902, 445 9,599, 848 Community services 13,964,018 13,653,466 13,974,329 13,556, 360 16,936, 285 Operating grants and contributions: 17,826,914 11,632,188 11,943,941 14,021,506 14,659,016 Capital grants and contributions: 2,717,504 27,993,317 1 1,815,464 6,638,356 7,352,407 71,078,313 94,319,876 69,569,309 77,763,749 79,681,460 Water 24,499,952 25,371,307 26,931,193 26,843, 751 27,100, 429 Wastewater 3,065,762 3,161,114 3,445,772 4,069, 265 4,110, 815 Operating grants and contributions: - - - - - 27,565,714 28,532,421 30,376,965 30,913,016 31,211,244 98,644,027 122,852,297 99,946,274 108,676,765 110,892,704 (125,006,419) (128,769,322) (151,770,604) (154,120,690) (166,856,372) 2,142,352 2,309,482 2,493,892 (207,287) (467,631) (122,864,067)$ (126,459,840)$ (149,276,712)$ (154,327,977)$ (167,324,003)$ General revenues and other changes in net position:

Property tax 91,516,611$ 96,964,060$ 101,593,290$ 108,365, 261$ 113,313, 535$ Sales tax 33,937,986 33,702,895 36,373,253 37,168, 063 36,232, 969 Sales tax in-lieu 2,870,474 - - - - Transient occupancy tax 21,083,199 22,382,361 22,857,737 24,697, 446 21,097, 384 Business license tax 4,024,386 4,149,016 4,282,935 4,428, 440 4,882, 419 Franchise tax 4,047,584 4,026,005 4,228,469 4,286, 496 4,394, 156 Other taxes 327,009 358,209 3,346,987 2,633, 720 2,592, 369 Investment income 584,259 589,001 632,808 2,644,319 2,621, 488 Net increase (decrease) in fair value of investments 376,311 - - 2,234,249 2,520, 033 Other 4,001,486 2,290,482 3,416,348 3,495, 085 2,116, 884 Transfers - (3,500,000) - - - 162,769,305 160,962,029 176,731,827 189,953,079 189,771,237 Investment income 216,576 77,752 184,906 713,970 732, 099 Net increase (decrease) in fair value of investments 148,527 - - 612,358 625,864 Other 2,375,000 - - - - Capital contributions 22,516 - - - - Transfers - 3,500,000 - - - 2,762,619 3,577,752 184,906 1,326,328 1,357,963 165,531,924 164,539,781 176,916,733 191,279,407 191,129,200 37,762,886 32,192,707 24,961,223 35,832,389 22,914,865 4,904,971 5,887,234 2,678,798 1,119,041 890,332 42,667,857$ 38,079,941$ 27,640,021$ 36,951,430$ 23,805,197$ (continued)
1 Interest on long-term debt
Expenses:

Governmental activities:

General government
Public safety
Public works
Community development
Community services
Total governmental activities program revenues
Business-type activities:

Charges for services:

Total business-type activities program revenues
Business-type activities:

Water
Wastewater
Program revenues:

Governmental activities:

Charges for services:

Total primary government
Total primary government program revenues
Net revenues (expenses):

Governmental activities
Business-type activities
Total net revenues (expenses)
Governmental activities:

Taxes:

Total governmental activities
Business-type activities:

Total business-type activities
Data varies from trend because of one-time receipt of developer contributions.

Changes in net position
Governmental activities
Business-type activities
Total primary government

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
Changes in Net Position
Last Ten Fiscal Years
(accrual basis of accounting)
Fiscal Year

Page 1 of 2 ends

216
2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
20,177,482$ 19,374,179$ 26,911,510$ 28,392,550$ 20,365,624$ 119,184,958 104,767,466 121,309,057 151,625,944 143,920,632 63,689,155 65,031,715 75,904,138 88,359,562 87,889,339 12,157,226 9,664,500 13,048,442 16,813,900 17,104,756 28,214,205 24,508,702 27,937,349 33,034,132 33,510,164 7,321,612 6,877,577 6,666,044 6,215,237 6,171,195 Total governmental activities expenses 250,744,638 230,224,139 271,776,540 324,441,325 308,961,710 28,943,243 27,117,471 30,701,834 37,322,293 36,561,497 5,223,245 4,094,448 5,343,891 6,959,273 6,282,179 Total business-type activities expenses 34,166,488 31,211,919 36,045,725 44,281,566 42,843,676 Total primary government expenses 284,911,126 261,436,058 307,822,265 368,722,891 351,805,386 General government 2,914,007 3,625,809 12,386,628 15,953, 090 8,911, 980 Public safety 22,038,904 23,156,703 26,273,944 27,903, 642 30,839, 794 Public works 5,067,478 7,538,103 8,770,525 9,397, 103 8,890, 609 Community development 10,491,970 11,119,757 11,269,905 10,849, 048 12,723, 330 Community services 17,601,288 22,302,788 15,753,446 17,370, 410 18,883, 733 Operating grants and contributions: 20,361,620 16,800,039 20,131,513 34,497,961 22,765,783 Capital grants and contributions: 7,658,387 8,693,429 5,809,562 35,646,295 5,260,117 86,133,654 93,236,628 100,395,523 151,617,549 108,275,346 Water 30,739,726 32,104,202 32,033,631 33,842, 356 40,463, 909 Wastewater 4,618,186 4,825,249 4,666,685 5,274, 889 5,980, 769 Operating grants and contributions: - 116,629 - 115,499 26,184 35,357,912 37,046,080 36,700,316 39,232,744 46,470,862 121,491,566 130,282,708 137,095,839 190,850,293 154,746,208 (164,610,984) (136,987,511) (171,381,017) (172,823,776) (200,686,364) 1,191,424 5,834,161 654,591 (5,048,823) 3,627,186 (163,419,560)$ (131,153,350)$ (170,726,426)$ (177,872,599)$ (197,059,178)$ General revenues and other changes in net position:

Property tax 119,157,057$ 124,335,985$ 138,358,730$ 146,136, 873$ 154,182, 579$ Sales tax 38,956,275 46,164,860 46,552,459 43,444, 542 45,934, 260 Sales tax in-lieu - - - - - Transient occupancy tax 16,886,197 26,677,331 30,201,649 31,736, 961 33,174, 268 Business license tax 4,481,349 4,363,145 4,901,385 4,896, 557 5,086, 253 Franchise tax 4,204,224 4,561,278 4,996,526 5,152, 384 5,052, 778 Other taxes 4,166,549 4,333,071 181,800 203,135 246, 787 Investment income 2,603,982 1,995,214 3,208,250 5,834, 247 6,747, 045 Net increase (decrease) in fair value of investments (2,086,189) (6,856,640) (687,766) 3,534, 164 2,346, 015 Other 3,354,808 2,644,194 5,552,372 2,855, 069 3,333, 021 Transfers - - - - - 191,724,252 208,218,438 233,265,405 243,793,932 256,103,006 Investment income 525,295 345,218 520,736 893,332 1, 119,040 Net increase (decrease) in fair value of investments (469,799) (1,190,093) (262,867) 568,429 313,212 Other - - - - - Capital contributions - - - - - Transfers - - - - - 55,496 (844,875) 257,869 1,461,761 1,432,252 191,779,748 207,373,563 233,523,274 245,255,693 257,535,258 27,113,268 71,230,927 61,884,388 70,970,156 55,416,642 1,246,920 4,989,286 912,460 (3,587,062) 5,059,438 28,360,188$ 76,220,213$ 62,796,848$ 67,383,094$ 60,476,080$ Expenses:

Governmental activities:

General government
Public safety
Public works
Community development
Community services
Interest on long-term debt
Business-type activities:

Water
Wastewater
Program revenues:

Governmental activities:

Charges for services:

Total governmental activities program revenues
Business-type activities:

Charges for services:

Total business-type activities program revenues
Total primary government program revenues
Net revenues (expenses):

Business-type activities:

Total business-type activities
Total primary government
Changes in net position
Governmental activities
Business-type activities
Total net revenues (expenses)
Governmental activities:

Taxes:

Fiscal Year
Governmental activities
Business-type activities
Total primary government

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
Changes in Net Position
Last Ten Fiscal Years
(accrual basis of accounting)

Page 2 of 2 ends

Total governmental activities
217
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
General fund:

Nonspendable 15,210,896$ 14,434,017$ 14,050,930$ 13,147,221$ 11,864,115$ Restricted 3,083,133 3,797,009 4,412,302 4,757,437 5,710,434 Committed 2,726,020 10,570,638 1 13,444,487 13,335,675 2,210,811 Assigned 4,201,311 567,132 590,368 1,199,682 2,598,828 Unassigned 56,618,041 60,009,244 61,415,049 64,146,123 76,699,284 Total general fund 81,839,401$ 89,378,040$ 1 93,913,136$ 96,586,138$ 99,083,472$ All other governmental funds:

Nonspendable 4,629,781$ 4,666,256$ 4,787,243$ 4,715,545$ 4,646,529$ Restricted 33,662,859 31,950,139 38,629,419 45,958,167 53,310,518 Committed 40,248,977 49,510,047 41,731,742 40,732,124 48,032,259 Unassigned (15,422,984) (6,308,331) (376,162) (253) (50,137) Total all other governmental funds 63,118,633$ 79,818,111$ 84,772,242$ 91,405,583$ 105,939,169$ Total all governmental funds 144,958,034$ 169,196,151$ 178,685,378$ 187,991,721$ 205,022,641$ (continued)
1 2
3 4
Data varies from trend due to additional funds set aside for seawall construction and pension-related items.

Data varies from trend due to the relocation of restricted funds to special revenue funds.

Data varies from trend due to additional funds set aside mainly in the Facilities Financial Planning Reserve Fund and Unrestricted Capital Improvements Fund.

Data varies from trend due to issuance of special Assessment District bonds.

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
Fund Balances of Governmental Funds
Last Ten Fiscal Years
(modified accrual basis of accounting)
Fiscal Year

Page 1 of 2 ends

218
2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
General fund:

Nonspendable 10,637,097$ 9,407,143$ 8,239,567$ 7,052,603$ 5,982,334$ Restricted 4,876,025 - 2 - - - Committed 3,235,746 4,429,573 5,465,426 6,786,845 3,785,866 Assigned 1,489,350 - - - - Unassigned 85,715,180 83,302,665 77,737,532 82,601,740 98,379,310 Total general fund 105,953,398$ 97,139,381$ 91,442,525$ 96,441,188$ 108,147,510$ All other governmental funds:

Nonspendable 4,707,330$ 4,690,430$ 4,650,931$ 4,771,150$ 4,710,334$ Restricted 63,914,627 73,013,208 73,657,409 112,762,753 4 120,738,919 Committed 47,863,154 73,243,534 3 78,218,834 81,317,521 88,500,124 Unassigned (136,299) (119,371) (11,625) (229,781) (11) Total all other governmental funds 116,348,812$ 150,827,801$ 156,515,549$ 198,621,643$ 213,949,366$ Total all governmental funds 222,302,210$ 247,967,182$ 247,958,074$ 295,062,831$ 322,096,876$

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
Fiscal Year
Fund Balances of Governmental Funds
Last Ten Fiscal Years
(modified accrual basis of accounting)

Page 2 of 2 ends

$-
$50,000,000
$100,000,000
$150,000,000
$200,000,000
$250,000,000
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
Fund Balances
Total General Fund
Total all other Governmental Funds
219
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Revenues:

Taxes 158,386,385$ 162,184,218$ 171,982,240$ 183,455,182$ 182,983,069$ Intergovernmental 17,262,147 17,073,653 16,148,754 15,818,543 12,672,931 Licenses, permits and fees 6,571,123 9,844,908 6,405,668 6,302,603 5,783,862 Charges for services 18,827,991 19,197,065 19,828,786 19,472,866 21,125,622 Fines and forfeitures 3,684,602 3,590,700 3,181,823 3,347,714 3,509,883 Investment income 1,157,539 772,546 1,143,210 3,490,992 3,765,753 Net increase (decrease) in fair value of investments 769,460 - - 2,938,136 3,477,299 Property income 22,259,425 23,553,188 25,430,217 26,674,107 25,651,360 Donations 4,190,822 16,827,889 414,123 402,709 795,561
Special assessments - - - - - Other 2,982,924 2,277,322 2,893,770 5,173,716 5,950,279 Total revenues 236,092,418 255,321,489 247,428,591 267,076,568 265,715,619 Expenditures:

Current:

General government 14,629,672 15,086,397 16,099,310 16,769,920 15,968,085 Public safety 96,225,784 98,750,981 109,760,129 116,054,531 118,290,847 Public works 36,000,905 35,961,024 38,012,230 44,132,877 45,730,965 Community development 10,913,205 11,696,779 12,979,656 12,310,621 12,612,751 Community services 21,784,680 23,607,284 25,538,966 26,372,495 24,474,242 Capital outlay 31,934,463 30,822,972 24,054,866 26,347,312 20,376,106 Debt service:

Principal 4,272,000 4,401,000 3,335,000 3,470,000 3,576,000 Interest and fiscal charges 7,839,341 7,704,957 7,617,107 7,428,469 7,265,703 Total expenditures 223,600,050 228,031,394 237,397,264 252,886,225 248,294,699 12,492,368 27,290,
095 10,031,327 14,190,343 17,420,920
Other financing sources (uses):

Transfers in 48,523,132 45,342,446 45,308,862 54,664,532 40,373,981 Transfers out (54,185,192) (49,390,226) (45,850,962) (59,548,532) (40,763,981) Proceeds from sale - 995,802 - - - Premium on certificates of participation issued - - - - - Leases (as lessee) - - - - - Inception of subscription-based IT arrangements - - - - - (5,662,060) (3,051,978) (542,100) (4,884,000) (390,000) Net change in fund balances 6,830,308$ 24,238,117$ 9,489,227$ 9,306,343$ 17,030,920$ Debt service as a percentage of

7.2% 6.0% 5.3% 4.8% 4.8%
(continued)
1 Data varies from trend due to implementation of GASB 96 for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2023. noncapital expenditures
Excess (deficiency) of revenues over (under)
expenditures
Total other financing sources (uses)

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
Changes in Fund Balances of Governmental Funds
Last Ten Fiscal Years
(modified accrual basis of accounting)
Fiscal Year

Page 1 of 2 ends

220
2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
Revenues:

Taxes 188,351,057$ 211,259,402$ 226,067,296$ 232,533,623$ 244,698,368$ Intergovernmental 22,233,872 19,683,307 21,080,285 27,715,232 18,174,489 Licenses, permits and fees 6,566,555 6,995,700 6,719,969 6,688,111 7,312,477 Charges for services 18,434,439 22,897,475 25,214,184 25,217,364 27,124,189 Fines and forfeitures 3,923,726 4,191,518 3,892,875 4,195,196 4,382,650 Investment income 3,201,376 2,756,712 4,525,340 9,386,746 11,685,818 Net increase (decrease) in fair value of investments (2,634,682) (8,900,762) (465,873) 4,584,645 3,254,274 Property income 28,842,374 33,770,750 35,830,362 41,198,758 43,984,960 Donations 5,491,871 1,805,249 717,157 6,070,830 5,590,173 Special assessments - 8,086,594 4,948,430 26,843,142 - Other 3,504,103 1,441,813 3,412,302 1,175,255 1,323,117 Total revenues 277,914,691 303,987,758 331,942,327 385,608,902 367,530,515 Expenditures:

Current:

General government 17,154,507 17,397,786 20,680,878 22,007,758 22,497,676 Public safety 126,006,313 127,590,486 132,441,032 140,132,544 146,585,112 Public works 46,817,293 54,293,534 56,046,234 65,532,190 67,522,613 Community development 12,996,840 13,021,562 14,735,582 15,734,543 16,761,680 Community services 26,745,189 26,421,141 27,558,760 30,060,134 31,402,329 Capital outlay 33,728,085 28,603,393 68,434,127 50,776,034 43,743,239 Debt service:

Principal 3,247,000 5,138,250 5,296,166 5,335,081 5,518,576 Interest and fiscal charges 7,306,143 7,141,264 6,908,693 6,698,344 6,443,356 Total expenditures 274,001,370 279,607,416 332,101,472 336,276,628 340,474,581 3,913,321 24,380,
342 (159,145) 49,332,274 27,055,934
Other financing sources (uses):

Transfers in 70,379,824 76,061,564 128,499,591 97,432,054 84,443,642 Transfers out (65,965,012) (74,776,934) (128,879,043) (103,234,554) (84,465,531) Proceeds from sale - - - - - Premium on certificates of participation issued 1,373,936 - - - - Leases (as lessee) - - - 3,259,414 - Inception of subscription-based IT arrangements - - 529,489 1 315,569 - 5,788,748 1,284,630 150,037 (2,227,517) (21,889)
Net change in fund balances 9,702,069$ 25,664,972$ (9,108)$ 47,104,757$ 27,034,045$ Debt service as a percentage of

4.2% 4.8% 4.5% 4.2% 4.0%
Fiscal Year

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
Excess (deficiency) of revenues over (under)
expenditures
Total other financing sources (uses)
noncapital expenditures
Changes in Fund Balances of Governmental Funds
Last Ten Fiscal Years
(modified accrual basis of accounting)

Page 2 of 2 ends

221

This page left blank intentionally.
222

REVENUE CAPACITY

This section of the City of Newport Beach’s Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (ACFR) presents detailed information as a context for understanding what the information in the financial statements, note disclosures, and required supplementary information says about the City’s overall financial health. The statistical information presented herein is un-audited.

The following schedules present factors affecting the City’s ability to generate its own revenue and its most significant local revenue source, the property tax:
• Assessed Value and Estimated Actual Value of Taxable Property • Direct and Overlapping Property Tax Rates
• Principal Property Tax Payers
• Property Tax Levies and Collections

Sources: Unless otherwise noted, the information in these schedules is derived from the Annual Comprehensive Financial Reports and underlying accounting records for the relevant years.

223
Fiscal Year
Ended
June 30 Residential Commercial Other Unsecured
Total Taxable
Assessed Value Change
Total Direct
Tax Rate
2016 39,263,791,190 5,264,898,550 1,394,764,145 1,465,016,213 47,388,470,098 5.89% 1.000% 2017 41,834,060,284 5,539,551,197 1,398,481,252 1,569,593,832 50,341,686,565 6.23% 1.000% 2018 44,862,969,434 5,953,148,011 1,499,414,812 1,464,683,763 53,780,216,020 6.83% 1.000% 2019 48,246,937,786 6,466,645,074 1,474,416,367 1,513,162,553 57,701,161,781 7.29% 1.000% 2020 50,791,887,238 6,807,750,346 1,552,189,492 1,592,979,478 60,744,806,554 5.27% 1.000% 2021 53,636,707,086 6,979,031,018 1,428,005,141 1,645,923,436 63,689,666,681 4.85% 1.000% 2022 56,171,689,696 7,152,717,180 1,745,857,017 1,509,466,705 66,579,730,598 4.54% 1.000% 2023 60,461,442,254 7,647,078,297 1,489,884,026 1,731,351,434 71,329,756,011 7.13% 1.000% 2024 64,292,506,871 8,048,003,322 1,681,329,931 1,908,193,032 75,930,033,156 6.45% 1.000% 2025 68,275,551,951 8,131,924,877 1,609,850,784 1,947,105,447 79,964,433,059 5.31% 1.000% NOTE:

Source: HdL, Coren & Cone

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
Assessed Value and Estimated Actual Value of Taxable Property Last Ten Fiscal Years
In 1978, the voters of the State of California passed Proposition 13 which limited property taxes to a total maximum rate of 1% based upon the assessed value of the property being taxed. Each year, the assessed value of property may be increased by an "inflation factor" (limited to a maximum increase of 2%). With few exceptions, property is only re-assessed as a result of new construction activity or at the time it is sold to a new owner. At that point, the property is reassessed based upon the added value of the construction or at the purchase price or economic value of the property sold. The assessed valuation data shown above represents the only data currently available with respect to the actual market value of taxable property and is subject to the limitations described above.

Secured
224
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025

1.000$ 1.000$ 1.000$ 1.000$ 1.000$ 1.000$ 1.000$ 1.000$ 1.000$ 1.000$ Total City Direct Rate 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Overlapping Rates:

Water districts 0.047 0.047 0.047 0.047 0.032 0.047 0.047 0.047 0.051 0.055

0.183 0.173 0.176 0.161 0.173 0.186 0.170 0.175 0.158 0.160 Total Overlapping Rate 0.230 0.220 0.223 0.208 0.205 0.233 0.217 0.222 0.209 0.214 Total Direct & Overlapping Rate 1.230$ 1.220$ 1.223$ 1.208$ 1.205$ 1.233$ 1.217$ 1.222$ 1.209$ 1.214$ NOTE:

Source: HdL, Coren & Cone
In 1978, California voters passed Proposition 13 which sets the property tax rate at a 1.00% fixed amount. This 1.00% is shared by all taxing agencies for which the subject property resides within. In addition to the 1.00% fixed amount, property owners are charged taxes as a percentage of assessed property values for the payment of other debt obligations.

School districts
City Direct Rates:

City basic rate

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
Direct and Overlapping Property Tax Rates
(Rate per $100 of assessed value)
Last Ten Fiscal Years
Fiscal Year
225
Taxpayer
Taxable Assessed
Value Rank
Percent of Total
City Taxable
Assessed Value
Taxable Assessed
Value Rank
Percent of Total
City Taxable
Assessed Value
The Irvine Company 744,453,388$ 1 0.93% 1,652,910,320$ 1 4.11% Fashion Island Retail LLC 620,154,002 2 0.78% N/A - 0.00% PH Finance LLC 352,137,130 3 0.44% N/A - 0.00%
Newport Center Hotel LLC 237,276,108 4 0.30% N/A - 0.00% 520 Newport Center Drive LLC 196,982,672 5 0.25% N/A - 0.00% HG Newport Owner LLC 192,171,697 6 0.24% N/A - 0.00% Newport Bluffs LLC 177,028,000 7 0.22% 149,368,474 3 0.37% 650 Newport Center Drive LLC 176,061,294 8 0.22% N/A - 0.00% Bay Island Club 166,670,502 9 0.21% 98,384,212 7 0.24% Balboa Bay Club Ventures 161,082,009 10 0.20% 132,740,207 4 0.33% 3,024,016,802$ 3.79% 2,033,403,213$ 5.05%
Source: HdL, Coren & Cone

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
Principal Property Taxpayers
Current Year and Nine Years Ago
2025 2016
226

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
Property Tax Levies and Collections
Last Ten Fiscal Years
Fiscal Year
Ended
June 30
Taxes Levied for
the Fiscal Year Amount 1
Percent of
Levy
Collections in
Subsequent
Years 2 Amount
Percent of
Levy
2016 84,166,940 81,762,526 97.14% 612,863 82,375,389 97.87% 2017 86,264,321 84,019,053 97.40% 574,124 84,593,177 98.06% 2018 92,139,181 90,279,099 97.98% 581,969 90,861,068 98.61% 2019 98,471,700 96,356,203 97.85% 646,203 97,002,406 98.51% 2020 102,636,451 100,701,002 98.11% 886,688 101,587,690 98.98% 2021 107,647,017 105,781,072 98.27% 862,772 106,643,844 99.07% 2022 113,318,692 110,354,271 97.38% 789,969 111,144,240 98.08% 2023 123,844,578 121,011,910 97.71% 1,020,161 122,032,071 98.54% 2024 129,506,001 126,637,893 97.79% 1,087,720 127,725,613 98.63% 2025 136,129,648 133,012,676 97.71% - 3 133,012,676 97.71% 1 2
3 Source: Orange County Auditor Controller's Office
The total amount of Fiscal Year 2025 delinquent taxes collected in subsequent years was not available as of the date the information was collected for the City's Annual Comprehensive Financial Report.

Collected within the Fiscal
Year of Levy Total Collections to Date
Exclusive of penalty charges.

Net collections reflect deductions for refunds and impoundments. 227

This page left blank intentionally.
228

DEBT CAPACITY

The following schedules exhibit the City’s levels of outstanding debt over time, to help readers assess the affordability of the current level of outstanding debt, and the City’s ability to issue additional debt:
• Ratios of Outstanding Debt by Type
• Ratios of General Bonded Debt Outstanding
• Direct and Overlapping Debt
• Legal Debt Margin Information

Sources: Unless otherwise noted, the information in these schedules is derived from the Annual Comprehensive Financial Reports and underlying accounting records for the relevant years.

229
Fiscal
Year
Ended
June 30
Certificates of
Participation 1
Pre-
Annexation
Agreement CDBG Loan Leases 3
Subscription-
based
Information
Technology
Arrangements 3
Total
Governmental
Activities
2016 114,137,212 1,200,000 1,207,000 - - 116,544,212 2017 110,956,659 - 1,066,000 - - 112,022,659 2018 107,651,106 - 916,000 - - 108,567,106 2019 104,220,553 - 756,000 - - 104,976,553 2020 100,695,000 - 585,000 - - 101,280,000 2021 106,781,026 - 403,000 - - 107,184,026 2022 102,698,895 - 208,000 13,321,040 - 116,227,935 2023 98,616,764 - - 12,274,149 2,235,132 113,126,045 2024 94,389,633 - - 14,339,382 1,832,755 110,561,770 2025 90,012,502 - - 13,066,931 1,543,723 104,623,156 (continued)
NOTE:

1 Amounts include any applicable bond premium.
2 3
The GASB 87 and GASB 96 debts on this schedule are not money borrowed by the City, but are present-value calculations of estimated future payments by the City based on assumptions specified in GASB 87 and GASB 96.

The City of Newport Beach implemented GASB 87 for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2022. The City of Newport Beach implemented GASB 96 for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2023.

These ratios are calculated using personal income and population for the prior calendar year.

This schedule excludes claims and judgments, employee compensated absence, pension, OPEB, and Early Retirement Incentive Plan liabilities. Details regarding the City's outstanding debt can be found in the notes to the financial statements.

Page 1 of 2 ends

Governmental Activities

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
Ratios of Outstanding Debt by Type
Last Ten Fiscal Years
230
Fiscal
Year
Ended
June 30 Leases 3
Subscription-
based
Information
Technology
Arrangements 3
Total Business-type
Activities
Total Primary
Government
Percentage of
Personal
Income 2
Debt Per
Capita 2
2016 - - - 116,544,212 1.77% 1,383 2017 - - - 112,022,659 1.66% 1,319 2018 - - - 108,567,106 1.48% 1,245 2019 - - - 104,976,553 1.36% 1,204 2020 - - - 101,280,000 1.24% 1,181 2021 - - - 107,184,026 1.31% 1,248 2022 1,512,574 - 1,512,574 117,740,509 1.34% 1,406 2023 3,820,774 - 3,820,774 116,946,819 1.27% 1,402 2024 3,776,654 - 3,776,654 114,338,424 1.22% 1,387 2025 3,732,290 110,383 3,842,673 108,465,829 1.32% 1,312

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
Ratios of Outstanding Debt by Type
Last Ten Fiscal Years

Page 2 of 2 ends

Business-type Activities
231
Fiscal Year
Ended
June 30
Certificates of
Participation1
Amounts
Restricted for
Debt Service Total
Percent of
Assessed
Value2
General
Bonded Debt
Per Capita
2016 114,137,212 (2,362,904) 111,774,308 0.24% 1,326 2017 110,956,659 (2,364,034) 108,592,625 0.22% 1,279 2018 107,651,106 (2,384,338) 105,266,768 0.20% 1,207 2019 104,220,553 (2,362,228) 101,858,325 0.18% 1,168 2020 100,695,000 (1,159,389) 99,535,611 0.16% 1,160 2021 106,781,026 (2,255,795) 104,525,231 0.16% 1,217 2022 102,698,895 (2,199,363) 100,499,532 0.15% 1,200 2023 98,616,764 (2,183,979) 96,432,785 0.14% 1,156 2024 94,389,633 (2,323,115) 92,066,518 0.12% 1,117 2025 90,012,502 (2,024,393) 87,988,109 0.11% 1,065 1 2

Assessed value was used because the actual value of taxable property is not readily available in the State of California.

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
Ratios of General Bonded Debt
Last Ten Fiscal Years
Amounts include any applicable bond premium.
232
City Net Assessed Valuation: 79,964,433,058$
Percentage
Applicable (1)
Outstanding Debt
6/30/25
Estimated Share of
Overlapping Debt
OVERLAPPING DEBT:

Metropolitan Water District 1.964% 17,155,000$ 336,924$ Coast Community College District 35.427% 854,816,084 302,835,694 Rancho Santiago Community College District 2.508% 132,145,756 3,314,216 Rancho Santiago Community College District School Facilities Improvement District No. 1 4.720% 138,730,000 6,548,056 Laguna Beach Unified School District 14.573% 7,690,000 1,120,664 Laguna Beach Unified School District Community Facilities District No. 98-1 100.000% 6,005,000 6,005,000 Newport Mesa Unified School District 73.688% 206,519,744 152,180,269 Santa Ana Unified School District 5.819% 401,142,561 23,342,486 Irvine Ranch Water District Improvement Districts 2.658% - 100.000% 384,477,033 41,027,239
100.000% 10,390,000 10,390,000
100.000% 8,110,000 8,110,000
City of Newport Beach 1915 Act Bonds 100.000% 35,124,813 35,124,813 Orange County Newport Coast Assessment District No. 01-1 100.000% 2,944,000 2,944,000 Orange County Newport Coast Reassessment District No. 17-1R 100.000% 17,680,000 17,680,000 Orange County General Fund Obligations 9.863% 429,065,000 42,318,681 Orange County Board of Education General Fund Obligations 9.863% 9,120,000 899,506 Coast Community College District General Fund Obligations 35.427% 660,000 233,818 Coast Community College District Pension Obligation Bonds 35.427% 465,000 164,736 Santa Ana Unified School District General Fund Obligations 5.819% 38,301,736 2,228,778 TOTAL OVERLAPPING DEBT 2,700,541,727$ 656,804,879$ DIRECT DEBT:

City of Newport Beach Certificates of Participation 100.000% 90,012,502$ 90,012,502$ Leases (3) 100.000% 13,066,931 13,066,931 Subscription-based Information Technology Arrangements (3) 100.000% 1,543,723 1,543,723 TOTAL DIRECT DEBT 104,623,156$ 104,623,156$ TOTAL DIRECT AND OVERLAPPING DEBT 761,428,035$
GROSS COMBINED TOTAL DEBT (2) 761,428,035$
(1)
(2)
(3)
Ratios to 2024-25 Net Assessed Valuation:

Total Overlapping Debt 0.82%
Total Direct Debt ($104,623,156) 0.13%
Gross Combined Total Debt 0.95%
Source: California Municipal Statistics, Inc.

The GASB 87 and GASB 96 debts on this schedule are not money borrowed by the City, but are present-value calculations of estimated future payments by the City based on assumptions specified in GASB 87 and GASB 96. The City of Newport Beach implemented GASB 87 for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2022.

The City of Newport Beach implemented GASB 96 for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2023.

The percentage of overlapping debt applicable to the city is estimated using taxable assessed property value. Applicable percentages were estimated by determining the portion of the overlapping district's assessed value that is within the boundaries of the city divided by the district's total taxable assessed value.

Excludes tax and revenue anticipation notes, enterprise revenue, mortgage revenue and tax allocation bonds and non-bonded capital lease obligations.

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
Direct and Overlapping Debt Related to Governmental Activities June 30, 2025
Bonita Canyon Public Facilities Financing Authority Community Facilities District No. 98-1 California Statewide Community Development Authority Community Facilities District No. 2018-3
233
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
47,388,470,098$ 50,341,686,565$ 53,780,216,020$ 57,701,161,781$ 60,744,806,554$ 25% 25% 25% 25% 25%
11,847,117,525 12,585,421,641 13,445,054,005 14,425,290,445 15,186,201,639 15% 15% 15% 15% 15%
1,777,067,629 1,887,813,246 2,016,758,101 2,163,793,567 2,277,930,246 General obligation bonds - - - - - 1,777,067,629$ 1,887,813,246$ 2,016,758,101$ 2,163,793,567$ 2,277,930,246$ as a percentage of debt limit 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
(continued)
NOTE:

Source: City Administrative Services Department
Debt limit
Conversion percentage

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
Legal Debt Margin Information
Last Ten Fiscal Years

Page 1 of 2 ends

The State of California Government Code Section 43605 provides for a legal debt limit of 15% of gross assessed valuation. Howe ver, this provision was enacted when assessed valuation was based upon 25% of market value. Effective with the 1981-82 fiscal year, each parcel is now assessed at 100% of market value (as of the most recent change in ownership for that parcel). The computations shown above refl ect a conversion of assessed valuation data for each fiscal year from the current full valuation perspective to the 25% level that wa s in effect at the time that the legal debt margin was enacted by the State of California for local governments located within the state.

Fiscal Year
Assessed valuation
Total debt applicable to the limit
Debt limit percentage
Adjusted assessed valuation
Total net debt applicable to limit:

Legal debt margin
234
2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
63,689,666,681$ 66,579,730,598$ 71,329,756,011$ 75,930,033,156$ 79,964,433,059$ 25% 25% 25% 25% 25%
15,922,416,670 16,644,932,650 17,832,439,003 18,982,508,289 19,991,108,265 15% 15% 15% 15% 15%
2,388,362,501 2,496,739,897 2,674,865,850 2,847,376,243 2,998,666,240 General obligation bonds - - - - - 2,388,362,501$ 2,496,739,897$ 2,674,865,850$ 2,847,376,243$ 2,998,666,240$ as a percentage of debt limit 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Source: City Administrative Services Department

Page 2 of 2 ends

Fiscal Year

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
Legal Debt Margin Information
Last Ten Fiscal Years
Total net debt applicable to limit:

Legal debt margin
Total debt applicable to the limit
Assessed valuation
Conversion percentage
Adjusted assessed valuation
Debt limit percentage
Debt limit
235
This page left blank intentionally.
236

DEMOGRAPHIC AND ECONOMIC INFORMATION
This
section of the City of Newport Beach’s Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (ACFR) presents detailed information as a context for understanding what the information in the financial statements, note disclosures, and required supplementary information says about the City’s overall financial health. The statistical information presented herein is un-audited.

The fol
lowing schedules depict demographic and economic indicators to assist the reader in understanding the socio- economic environment in which the City’s financial activities take place:
• Demographic and Economic Statistics
• Principal Employers
Sourc
es: Unless otherwise noted, the information in these schedules is derived from the Annual Comprehensive Financial Reports and underlying accounting records for the relevant years. 237
Fiscal Year Population1(1) Personal Income
(in thousands)
Per Capita
Income(2)
Unemployment
Rate2(3)
2016 84,270 6,574,071 78,012 3.4%
2017 84,915 6,736,392 79,331 3.1%
2018 87,182 7,334,970 84,134 2.9%
2019 87,180 7,704,445 88,374 2.6%
2020 85,780 8,183,755 95,404 4.6%
2021 85,865 8,175,464 95,213 (4) 6.0%
2022 83,727 8,791,502 105,002 3.0%
2023 83,411 9,219,835 110,535 3.0%
2024 82,419 9,389,008 113,918 3.5%
2025 82,654 9,308,659 112,622 3.
7%
1 2
Sources:

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
Demographic and Economic Statistics
Last Ten Fiscal Years
(4) HdL, Coren & Cone
(2) U.S. Census Bureau - American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates (3) State of California, Employment Development Department (1) California State Department of Finance, E-4 Population Estimates for Cities, Counties and State and E-
1 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties and the State.

Population estimates are as of January 1 of the year shown and do not reflect revised estimates made available after the date the information was collected for the City's Annual Comprehensive Financial Report.

Unemployment rate represents an average of all monthly unemployment rates within a fiscal year.
238
Employer
Number of
Employees Rank
Percent of Total
Employment
Number of
Employees Rank
Percent of Total
Employment
Hoag Memorial Hospital 5,690 1 7.15% 4,800 1 5.90% Pacific Life Insurance 1,734 2 2.18% 1,274 2 1.57% Irvine Management Company 1,483 3 1.86% N/A 2 - N/A
PIMCO 1,103 4 1.39% 1,072 3 1.32%
Newport-Mesa Unified School District 810 5 1.02% 988 5 1.21% City of Newport Beach 775 6 0.97% 730 8 0.90%
Balboa Bay Club and Resort 710 7 0.89% 650 9 0.80% Resort at Pelican Hill 650 8 0.82% 756 7 0.93% Glidewell Dental 635 9 0.80% 1,043 4 1.28%
Tower Semiconductor 411 10 0.52% 822 3 6 1.01% Marriott Newport Coast Villas 375 11 0.47% N/A 2 - N/A
CBRE Inc. 347 12 0.44% N/A 2 - N/A
1 2
3 Source: Data obtained from companies listed and compiled by City Administrative Services Department.

Figures reflect number of employees of employer at the time the information was collected.

Company listed was unable to provide employee data for 2016.

Tower Semiconductor was formerly Jazz Semiconductor.

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
Principal Employers1
Current Year and 9 years ago
2025 2016
239
This page left blank intentionally.
240

OPERATING INFORMATION

The following schedules present information on the City’s operations and resources including service and infrastructure data to facilitate the readers’ understanding of how financial statement information relates to the services the City provides and the activities it performs:
• Full Time City Employees by Functions
• Operating Indicators by Function
• Capital Asset Statistics by Function
• Water Sold by Customer Type
• Utility Rates
• Major Water Customers

Sources: Unless otherwise noted, the information in these schedules is derived from the Annual Comprehensive Financial Reports and underlying accounting records for the relevant years.

241
This page left blank intentionally.
242
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
General government 77 77 79 80 78 80 81 85 94 95 Public safety 374 371 372 375 375 376 376 377 385 389 Community development 52 52 53 53 53 52 53 56 59 64 Public works 104 99 98 96 99 98 98 102 104 104 Community services 79 81 79 78 78 78 78 79 80 80 Water 32 31 33 33 33 33 33 32 34 33 Wastewater 12 13 11 11 11 11 11 11 10 11 Total 730 724 725 726 727 728 730 741 766 775 Source: City Administrative Services Department
Function
Fiscal Year

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
Full-time City Employees by Function
Last Ten Fiscal Years
243
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Police:
3,158 3,178 3,266 3,520 3,093 64,762 69,246 56,685 67,048 73,372 Fire:
300 247 248 209 11,913 1 1,201 1,216 1,307 1,033 2,842 General Services:
1,890 1,439 1,403 1,402 913 27,000 20,490 22,925 14,840 11,729 Recreation & Senior Services:
305,000 425,000 437,751 469,959 439,954 14,000 13,500 13,071 13,386 9,300 Water:
194 229 210 210 256

11.66 13.80 14.07 13.75 13.44 Sewer:
17 41 137 46 10 250 202 211 196 221 Library Services:
1,575,000 1,464,640 1,424,594 1,376,041 1,084,206
(continued)
1 2
3 Source: City of Newport Beach
Adult Arrests
Parking Citations Issued
Fire Responses
Fire Inspections
Street Patching (tons of mix)
Sidewalk Repair (square feet)
Co-Sponsored Youth Organization Attendance
Senior Transportation Services
New Connections
Average Daily Consumption (hundred cubic feet)
New Connections
Miles of Pipe Cleaned
Library Circulation of Materials
Data varies with trend due to inclusion of responses to fires, hazardous materials, medical and other emergencies.

Data varies with trend due to COVID-19 restrictions in 2021.

Data varies with trend due to COVID-19 restrictions being lifted in 2022.

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
Operating Indicators by Function
Last Ten Fiscal Years

Page 1 of 2 ends

Fiscal Year
244
2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
Police:
2,872 2,650 2,800 2,615 3,259 86,439 83,307 85,003 86,002 76,012 Fire:
12,204 13,251 13,486 13,493 13,994 475 2 3,015 3 2,807 2,824 3,312 General Services:
920 901 903 739 1,016 7,805 13,590 12,885 16,069 12,368 Recreation & Senior Services:
455,442 392,605 454,418 527,754 502,722 6,287 8,805 10,048 10,190 10,599 Water:
160 252 184 176 160

14.87 14.28 11.06 10.77 11.89 Sewer:
25 3 12 9 13 240 209 178 192 230 Library Services:
1,043,629 1,195,151 1,172,951 1,213,486 1,213,252
Source: City of Newport Beach
Adult Arrests
Parking Citations Issued
Fire Responses
Fire Inspections
New Connections
Miles of Pipe Cleaned
Library Circulation of Materials
New Connections
Average Daily Consumption (hundred cubic feet)
Fiscal Year

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
Operating Indicators by Function
Last Ten Fiscal Years

Page 2 of 2 ends

Street Patching (tons of mix)
Sidewalk Repair (square feet)
Co-Sponsored Youth Organization Attendance
Senior Transportation Services
245
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Police:

Stations 1 1 1 1 1
Fire:

Fire Stations 8 8 8 8 8
Lifeguard Headquarters 1 1 1 1 1
Public works:

Streets (miles) 399 400 400 400 400 Streetlights 5,978 5,978 5,978 5,971 5,972 Traffic Signals 808 808 808 808 808 Recreation & Senior Services:

Parks 64 64 64 65 65 Community Centers (includes leased property) 15 15 15 15 15 Aquatic Center 1 1 1 1 1 Water:

Water Mains (miles) 299.77 300.64 300.30 300.88 300.82 Maximum Daily Capacity (thousands of gallons) 27,800 27,800 27,800 27,800 27,800 Wastewater:

Sanitary Sewers (miles) 202.75 202.72 203.56 203.99 204.10 Storm Sewers (miles) 92.08 94.74 95.12 95.35 95.89 Library Services:

Libraries 4 4 4 4 4 (continued)
Source: City of Newport Beach

Page 1 of 2 ends

Fiscal Year

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
Capital Asset Statistics by Function
Last Ten Fiscal Years
246
2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
Police:

Stations 1 1 1 1 1
Fire:

Fire Stations 8 8 8 8 8
Lifeguard Headquarters 1 1 1 1 1
Public works:

Streets (miles) 400 400 401 399 399 Streetlights 5,973 5,974 5,974 5,974 5,974 Traffic Signals 808 808 808 808 808 Recreation & Senior Services:

Parks 65 66 66 66 66 Community Centers (includes leased property) 15 14 14 15 15 Aquatic Center 1 1 1 1 1 Water:

Water Mains (miles) 301.23 301.13 301.48 301.39 301.01 Maximum Daily Capacity (thousands of gallons) 27,800 27,800 27,800 27,800 27,800 Wastewater:

Sanitary Sewers (miles) 204.13 204.30 204.72 204.81 204.81 Storm Sewers (miles) 96.18 97.37 97.81 104.28 105.81 Library Services:

Libraries 4 4 4 4 4 Source: City of Newport Beach

Page 2 of 2 ends

Fiscal Year

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
Capital Asset Statistics by Function
Last Ten Fiscal Years
247
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Type of Customer:

Residential 3,072,589 3,564,203 3,603,927 3,439,655 3,747,408 Commercial 1,847,372 2,142,952 2,201,254 2,075,812 2,081,860 Government 263,116 305,214 289,738 256,398 270,638
Total 5,183,077 6,012,369 6,094,919 5,771,865 6,099,906 Total direct rate
per 100 cubic ft. 3.08$ 3.08$ 3.08$ 3.08$ 3.11$ 1 (continued)
1 Reflects increase in commodity rate effective January 1, 2020 2 Reflects increase in commodity rate effective January 1, 2021 3 Reflects increase in commodity rate effective January 1, 2022 4 Reflects increase in commodity rate effective January 1, 2023 5 Reflects increase in commodity rate effective January 1, 2024 6 Reflects increase in commodity rate effective January 1, 2025 Source: City Utilities Department

Page 1 of 2 ends

Fiscal Year

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
Water Sold by Type of Customer
Last Ten Fiscal Years
(in hundred cubic feet)
248
2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
Type of Customer:

Residential 3,811,231 3,714,134 3,242,477 3,154,529 3,294,352 Commercial 2,231,809 2,078,199 1,728,975 1,698,963 1,868,134 Government 299,442 314,128 256,850 224,058 280,676
Total 6,342,482 6,106,461 5,228,302 5,077,550 5,443,162 Total direct rate
per 100 cubic ft. 3.35$ 2 3.60$ 3 3.87$ 4 4.16$ 5 4.26$ 6 Source: City Utilities Department

Page 2 of 2 ends

Fiscal Year

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
Water Sold by Type of Customer
Last Ten Fiscal Years
(in hundred cubic feet)
249
Fiscal Year
Ended June
30 Monthly
Base Rate
Rate per
100 cubic ft
2016 21.77 3.43
2017 21.77 3.43
2018 23.73 3.46
2019 24.34 3.50
2020 28.09 3.57
2021 30.25 3.85
2022 32.03 4.14
2023 33.77 4.41
2024 37.64 4.69
2025 44.44 4.81
1 Source: City Revenue Division

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
Utility Rates1
Last Ten Fiscal Years
Rates are based on 5/8" or 3/4" meter,
which are the standard household meter
sizes. Rates include sewer service. The
City charges an excess-use rate above
normal demand.
250
Water Customer Water Charges Rank
Percent of Total
Water Revenues Water Charges Rank
Percent of Total
Water Revenues
Irvine Company Apartment 878,950$ 1 2.11% 320,311$ 1 1 1.29% Irvine Company Office 731,541 2 1.75% 356,057 1 1 1.43% Hoag Memorial Hospital 525,140 3 1.26% 285,276 2 1.15% Newport Beach Country Club 472,025 4 1.13% 168,306 6 0.68% Big Canyon Country Club 429,437 5 1.03% 217,509 5 0.88% UDR Newport Beach 364,956 6 0.87% 243,261 3 0.98%
Bluffs Homeowners Association 363,672 9 0.87% 156,211 8 0.63% Newport-Mesa Unified School District 347,777 7 0.83% 152,434 9 0.61% Park Newport Ltd 324,952 11 0.78% 230,698 4 0.93%
Irvine Company LLC 294,126 8 0.70% 140,771 10 0.57%
Newport Dunes Resort 195,847 12 0.47% 88,257 20 0.36% Jasmine Creek Community Association 176,743 10 0.42% 95,766 16 0.39% Spyglass Hill Community Association 170,418 13 0.41% 112,756 11 0.45% Villa Balboa Community Association 164,010 14 0.39% 111,351 12 0.45% One Ford Road Community Association 162,498 15 0.39% 94,645 17 0.38% 5,602,092$ 13.42% 2,773,609$ 11.18%
1 Source: City Revenue Division

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
Major Water Customers
Current Year and Nine Years Ago
2025 2016
Company listed operated under The Irvine Company in 2016. 251
This page left blank intentionally.

City of Newport Beach
100 Civic Center Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92660
(949) 644-3123
www.newportbeachca.gov/acfr

Attachment B
Auditors’ Required Communications with the Audit Committee 1 REQUIRED AUDIT COMMUNICATIONS

The Honorable Mayor and

Members of the
City Council

City of Newport Beach

Newport Beach
, California

We have audited the financial statements
of the governmental activities, the business
-
type
activities, each major fund, and the aggregate remaining fund information of the

City of
Newport Beach
(City) as of and for the year ended June 30, 202
5 , and have issued our report
thereon dated
January 28, 2026
.

Professional standards require that we
advise you of the
following matters during our audit.

Our Responsibility in Relation to the Financial Statement Audit

As communicated in our engagement letter dated
Ju
ne 12
, 202
5 , our responsibility, as
described by professional standards, is to form and express opinions about whether the financial statements that have been prepared by management with your oversight are presented fairly, in all material respects, in accordance wit h accounting principles generally
accepted in

the
United States of America.

Our audit of the financial statements does not
relieve you or management of your respective responsibilities.

Our responsibility, as prescribed by professional standards, is to plan and perform our audit to obtain reasonable, rather than absolute, assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement.

An audit of financial statements includes consideration of internal control over financial reporting as a basis for designing audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness

of the entity’s internal control
over financial reporting. Accordingly, as part of
our audit, we considered the internal control of the City solely for the purpose of determining our audit procedures and not to provide any assurance concerning such internal control.

We are also responsible for communicating significant matters related to the audit that are, in our professional judgment, relevant to your responsibilities in overseeing the financial reporting process.

However, we are not required to design procedures for the purpose of identifying other matters to communicate to you.

Planned Scope and Timing of the Audit

We conducted our audit consistent with the planned scope and timing we previously communicated to you.

Compliance with All Ethics Requirements Regarding Independence

The engagement team, others in our firm, as appropriate, and
our firm have complied with
all relevant ethical requirements regarding independence.

We identified self
-
review threats to independence as a result of non
-
attest services provided.

Those non
-
attest services included
assisting in preparation of the financial statements,
recording journal entries detected during the audit process , assisting in updating
The Honorable Mayor and

Members of the
City Council

City of Newport Beach

Newport Beach, California

2 infrastructure
records
,
assisting in preparation of the State Controller’s Report , and
assisting
in
entering City leases into the City’s

software
. To

mitigate the risk, management has
reviewed
the financial statements and compared amounts to the accounting records, reviewed proposed
journal entries to supporting documentation and posted the journal entries to the accounting records.

M
anagement has reviewed the updates to infrastructure records and compared amounts to underlying supporting documentation.

In addition, management has
reviewed the information generated from the lease software, compared amounts to underlying documentation and reviewed and posted the journal entries generated by the software
.

Furthermore, management has reviewed the State Controller’s Report and agreed the amounts to its accounting records.

Significant Risks Identified

We have identified the following significant risks:



The new compensated absences accounting standard, Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) Statement No. 101. As a result, we reviewed the City
’s
calculations and ensured the financial statements and footnotes are accurate and complete.



Compliance with federal grant requirements. We
plan to
review the City’s
S
chedule of
Expenditure of Federal Awards
and select major programs to test for compliance with
federal grant
requirements. This work is
scheduled to begin
in

January
.

Qualitative Aspects of
the City’s Significant
Accounting Practices

Significant Accounting Policies

Management has the responsibility to select and use appropriate accounting policies. A summary of the significant accounting policies adopted by the City

is included in
Note 1

to
the financial statements. As described in Note 7 to the financial statements, during the year, the
City

changed its method of accounting for compensated absences by adopting Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) Statement No. 101, Compensated
Absences
.

Additionally, the City changed accounting policies regarding risk disclosures related to government vulnerabilities due to concentrations and constraints by adopting Statement of Governmental Accounting Standards (GASB Statement) No. 102, Certain

Risk
Disclosures
.

No
matters have come to our attention that would require us, under professional standards, to inform you about (1) the methods used to account for significant unusual transactions and (2) the effect of significant accounting policies in controversial or emerg ing
areas for which there is a lack of authoritative guidance or consensus.

Significant Accounting
Estimates

Accounting estimates are an integral part of the financial statements prepared by management and are based on management’s current judgments.

Those judgments are normally based on
knowledge and experience about past and current events and assumptions about future events.

Certain accounting estimates are particularly sensitive because of their significance to the financial statements and because of the possibility that future events affecting them may differ markedly from management’s current judgments.

T
he most sensitive accounting
estimates affecting the financial statements are:

The Honorable Mayor and

Members of the
City Council

City of Newport Beach

Newport Beach, California

3 

Management’s estimate
of the net
pension liability
.



Management’s estimate

of the
net

OPEB liability.



Management’s

estimates of the claims payable liabilities related to general liability and workers’ compensation claims.

Management’s estimate of the
pension liability, OPEB liability and claims payable liabilit ies

are based on actuarial valuation reports
.

We evaluated the key factors and assumptions
used to
develop the

pension liability, OPEB liability
,

and
claims payable liabilit
ies

a
nd
determined they are
reasonable in relation to the
basic
financial statements taken as a whole

and in relation to the applicable opinion units
.

Financial Statement Disclosures

Certain financial statement disclosures involve significant judgment and are particularly sensitive because of their significance to financial statement users.

The most sensitive
disclosures affecting
the City
’s financial statements relate to

pensions in Note 1
1 and
OPEB

in
Note 12
.

The financial statement disclosures are neutral, consistent, and clear.

Significant Unusual Transactions

For purposes of this communication, professional standards require us to communicate to you

significant unusual transactions identified during our audit.

There were no significant unusual

transactions identified as a result of our audit procedures.

Significant
Difficulties Encountered
During

the Audit

We encountered no significant difficulties in dealing with management relating to the
performance of the
audit.

Unc
orrected and
C
orrected Misstatements

For purposes of this communication, professional standards also require us to accumulate all known and likely misstatements identified during the audit, other than those that we believe are trivial, and communicate them to the appropriate level of manageme nt. Further,
professional standards require us to also communicate the effect of uncorrected misstatements related to prior periods on the relevant classes of transactions, account balances or disclosures, and the financial statements as a whole and each applicable opinion
unit.

There were no uncorrected misstatements
.

Uncorrected misstatements or matters
underlying those uncorrected misstatements could potentially cause future -
period financial
statements to be materially misstated, even though the uncorrected misstatements are immaterial to the financial statements curr
ently under audit.

In addition, professional standards require us to communicate to you all material, corrected misstatements that were brought to the attention of management as a result of our audit procedures.

There were

no material misstatements recorded as a result of our audit procedures.

The Honorable Mayor and

Members of the
City Council

City of Newport Beach

Newport Beach, California

4 D
isagreements with Management

For purposes of this letter, professional standards define a disagreement with management as a matter, whether or not resolved to our satisfaction, concerning a financial accounting, reporting, or auditing matter, which could be significant to the City
’s financial statements or
the auditor’s report.

No such disagreements arose during the course of the audit.

Representations

Requested from Management

We have requested
and received
certain
written
representations from management
, which
are included in
a separate
letter dated

January

28 , 202
6 .

Management Consultations with Other Accountants

In some cases, management may decide to consult with other accountants about auditing and accounting matters.

Management informed us that, and to our knowledge, there were no consultations with other accountants regarding auditing and accounting matters.

Other
Significant Matters Findings, or Issues

In the normal course of our professional association with the City, we generally discuss a variety of matters, including the application of accounting principles and auditing standards, significant events or transactions that occurred during the year, oper ating and regulatory
conditions affecting the entity, and operational plans and strategies that may affect the risks of material misstatement.

None of the matters discussed resulted in a condition to our retention as the City’s auditors.

Other
Information Included in the Annual Comprehensive Financial Report

Pursuant to professional standards, our responsibility as auditors for other information, whether financial or nonfinancial, included in the City’s annual report, does not extend beyond the information identified in the audit report, and we are not require d to perform any
procedures to corroborate such other information.

However, in accordance with such
standards, we have read the information and considered whether such information, or the manner of its presentation, was materially inconsistent with its pr esentation in the financial
statements.

Our responsibility also includes communicating to you any information which we believe is a material misstatement of fact.

Nothing came to our attention that caused us to believe that such information, or its manner of presentation, is materially inconsistent with the information, or manner of its presentation, appearing in the financial statements.

This
report

is intended solely for the information and use of
City Council
and management of
the City

and is not intended to be, and should not be, used by anyone other than these specified parties.

Irvine, California

January 28, 2026

Attachment C
Auditors’ Required on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting and on Compliance Matters
1 Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting

and on

Compliance and Other Matters Based on an Audit of Financial Statements Performed in Accordance with
Government Auditing Standards

The Honorable Mayor and

Members of the
City Council

City of Newport Beach

Newport Beach
, California

We have audited, in accordance with the auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America and the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government
Auditing Standards
issued by the Comptroller General of the United States

(
Government
Auditing Standards
)
, the financial statements

of the governmental activities, the business
-
type activities, each major fund, and the aggregate remaining fund information of the City of
Newport Beach (City)
, as of and for the year ended June 30
, 20
2 5
, and the related notes to
the financial statements, which collectively comprise
the City’s

basic financial statements, and
have issued our report thereon dated

January 28, 2026.

Report on
Internal Control Over Financial Reporting

In planning and performing our audit of the financial statements, we considered the City’s

internal control over financial reporting (internal control) as a basis for designing

audit
procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances for the purpose of expressing our opinions on the financial statements, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of
the City’s
internal control.

Accordingly, we do not express an opinion on the
effectiveness of
the City’s
internal control.

A
deficiency in internal control

exists when the design or operation of a control does not allow management or employees, in the normal course of performing their assigned functions, to prevent, or detect and correct, misstatements on a timely basis.

A
material weakness

is a
deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal control, such that there is a reasonable possibility that a material misstatement of the entity’s financial statements will not be prevented or detected and corrected on a timel
y basis. A
significant deficiency

is a deficiency,
or a combination of deficiencies, in internal control that is less severe than a material weakness, yet important enough to merit attention by those charged with governance.

Our consideration of internal control was for the limited purpose described in the first paragraph of this section and was not designed to identify all deficiencies in internal control that might be material weaknesses or significant deficiencies.

Given these limitations, during
our audit we did not identify any deficiencies in internal control that we consider to be material weaknesses.

However, material weaknesses
or significant deficiencies
may exist that
were
not identified.

The Honorable Mayor and

Members of the
City Council

City of Newport Beach

Newport Beach, California

2 Report on
Compliance and Other Matters

As part of obtaining reasonable assurance about whether the City’s
financial statements are
free from material misstatement, we performed tests of its compliance with certain provisions of laws, regulations, contracts, and grant agreements, noncompliance with which could have a direct and material effect on the determinat
ion of financial statement amounts.

However,
providing an opinion on compliance with those provisions was not an objective of our audit, and accordingly, we do not express such an opinion.

The results of our tests disclosed no
instances of noncompliance or other matters that are required to be reported under Government Auditing Standards
.

Purpose of this Report

The purpose of this report is solely to describe the scope of our testing of internal control and compliance and the results of that testing, and not to provide an opinion on the effectiveness of the entity’s internal control or on compliance.

This report is an integral part of an audit
performed in accordance with
Government Auditing Standards

in considering the entity’s
internal control and compliance.

Accordingly, this communication is not suitable for any other purpose.

Irvine, California

January 28, 2026

2 of 5
March 10, 2026
Agenda Item No. 11

NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS – 100 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE
THURSDAY, MARCH 05, 2026
REGULAR MEETING – 6:00 P.M.

I. CALL TO ORDER
II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
III. ROLL CALL
IV. PUBLIC COMMENTS
Public comments are invited on non-agenda items generally considered to be within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Planning Commission. Speakers must limit comments to three (3) minutes. Before speaking, please state your name for the record and print your name on the blue forms provided at the podium.

V. REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCES
VI. CONSENT ITEMS
ITEM NO. 1 MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 5, 2026
Recommended Action: Approve and file
VII. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
ITEM NO. 2 300 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE CONDOMINIUMS (PA2025-0102) Site Location: 210 and 300 Newport Center Drive and Unaddressed Parcels Identified as Accessor Parcel Numbers 442-091-12 and 442-161-16 Summary:

A request to demolish all improvements on a 4.17-acre site, including an existing movie theater (Regal Edwards Big Newport) and a health/fitness facility (Body Design), to allow for the construction of two, 22-story residential buildings (approximately 270 feet high) consisting of a total of 150 condominium units, on-site amenities, for-sale home offices, retail/café space, and 343 parking spaces. Each residential building is nearly identical and is connected through a podium that contains the home offices, retail/café, amenities, parking, and building support facilities. The project includes private residential amenities such as pools, exercise facilities, and entertainment spaces. Vehicular access to the Property is through a driveway on Newport Center Drive, which leads to a guardhouse and motorized gate restricting access to the motor court and valet drop off. The requested project requires the following approvals:
• Major Site Development Review to allow a new residential development with five or more units and a tentative tract map, and to waive 5 of the 52 Multi -Unit Objective Design Standards;
3 of 5

• Conditional Use Permit to waive 58 required off -street parking spaces for the proposed home offices and retail/café component; and

• Vesting Tentative Tract Map to consolidate four lots into one parcel and to allow for an airspace subdivision of the individual residential units and nonresidential units for condominium purposes.

Recommended Actions:

1. Conduct a public hearing;

2. Find that this project is not subject to further environmental review pursuant to Section 21083.3 of the California Public Resources Code (PRC) and Section 15183 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines because the project is consistent with the previously certified Program Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2023060699); and

3. Adopt Resolution No. PC2026 -004 approving the Major Site Development Review, Conditional Use Permit, and Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 19407, collectively filed as PA2025-0102.

ITEM NO. 3 THE NICE GUY RESTAURANT (PA2025-0252)
Site Location: 2607 West Coast Highway

Summary:

A request for a conditional use permit (CUP) to renovate an existing 5,260 -square-foot restaurant space on the waterfront, formerly occupied by GuacAmigos, and operate a restaurant known as The Nice Guy with a Type 47 (On-Sale General – Eating Place) Alcoholic Beverage Control license, late hour operations, and live entertainment. Proposed hours of operation are 11 a.m. to 12 a.m., Monday through Saturday, and 9:30 a.m. to 12 a.m. on Sunday. A CUP is required to authorize a restaurant with alcohol service and late hour operations (defined by the Newport Beach Municipal Code as service provided after 11 p.m.). If this CUP is approved, the restaurant operator will be required to obtain an operator license from the Newport Beach Police Department, as they intend to offer alcoholic beverages for on-site consumption in conjunction with late hour operations and live entertainment. No dancing is proposed. Approval of the project will also supersede the Minor Use Permit filed as PA2023-0119 and Staff Approval No. SA2018- 010.

Recommended Actions:

1. Conduct a public hearing;

2. Find this project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15301 under Class 1 (Existing Facilities) of the CEQA Guidelines, because it has no potential to have a significant effect on the environment and the exceptio ns to this Exemption do not apply; and

3. Adopt Resolution No. PC2026-005 approving the Conditional Use Permit filed as PA2025- 0252.

ITEM NO. 4 WIRELESS SERVICE FACILITIES CODE AMENDMENTS (PA2021-103) Site Location: Citywide

Summary:
4 of 5

Consistent with the City Council’s initiation on May 25, 2021, and the more recent guidance provided at the City Council Study Session on January 13, 2026, the proposed amendments to Title 13 (Streets, Sidewalks and Public Property), Title 20 (Planning and Zoning), and Title 21 (Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code serve to simplify and modernize some of the City of Newport Beach’s (City) regulations related to the permitting, installation, modification, operation, and maintenance of wireless service facilities on both private and public property, including within the public right-of-way. Although Title 13 does not fall within the purview of the Planning Commission, it is included for reference

Recommended Actions:

1. Conduct a public hearing;

2. Find this action is not a project subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in accordance with Section 20165 of the California Public Resources Code and Sections 15060(c)(2), 15060(c)(3), and 15378 of the California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3 (CEQA Guidelines). Further find this action is also exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects, which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment;

3. Adopt Resolution No. PC2026-006 recommending the City Council approve the Zoning Code Amendment modifying regulations pertaining to wireless service facilities on private and public property; and

4. Adopt Resolution No. PC2026 -007 recommending the City Council authorize staff to submit the Local Coastal Program Amendment to the California Coastal Commission.

VIII. DISCUSSION ITEMS

ITEM NO. 5 ANNUAL GENERAL PLAN AND HOUSING PROGRESS REPORTS (PA2026- 0004)
Site Location: Citywide

Summary:

The General Plan and Housing Element Annual Progress Reports (Reports) are prepared by City of Newport Beach staff each year and reviewed by the Planning Commission and City Council. The Reports summarize the City’s progress with implementing the goals, policies, and programs of the General Plan and specifically, the Housing Element. The current Reports are presented for the Planning Commissions’ review and expansively cover the City’s activities in calendar year 2025

Recommended Actions:

1. Find the review of the 2025 General Plan and Housing Element Annual Progress Report is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15060(b)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, because it has no potential for resulting in physical change to the environment, directly or indirectly;

2. Review and comment on the 2025 General Plan and Housing Element Annual Progress Reports; and
5 of 5

3. Recommend the City Council review and authorize the submittal of the 2025 General Plan and Housing Element Annual Progress Reports to the California Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation (LCI) and the submittal of the Housing Element portion to the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD)

IX. STAFF AND COMMISSIONER ITEMS

ITEM NO. 6 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

ITEM NO. 7 REPORT BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR OR REQUEST FOR

MATTERS WHICH A PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBER WOULD LIKE PLACED

ON A FUTURE AGENDA

ITEM NO. 8 REQUESTS FOR EXCUSED ABSENCES

X. ADJOURNMENT

_-1

NEWPORT BEACH

City Council Staff Report

CITY OF

March 10, 2026
Agenda Item No. __

CONSENT ITEMS:

ITEM NO. 1 MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 5, 2026

SUMMARY: Draft minutes from February 5, 2026, meeting of the Planning Commission.

The Planning Commission approved the minutes by the following vote:

AYES: Harris, Langford, Ellmore, Gazzano, Rosene and Salene NOES: None
ABSENT: Reed
ABSTAIN: None

ACTION: Approved

PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS:

ITEM NO. 2 300 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE CONDOMINIUMS (PA2025-0102) Site Location: 210 and 300 Newport Center Drive and Unaddressed Parcels Identified as Assessor Parcel Numbers 442-091-12 and 442-161- 16 SUMMARY: A request to demolish all improvements on a 4.17 -acre site, including an existing movie theater (Regal Edwards Big Newport) and a health/fitness facility (Body Design), to allow for the construction of two, 22-story residential buildings (approximately 270 feet high) consisting of a total of 150 condominium units, on -site amenities, for -sale home offices, retail/café space, and 343 parking spaces. Each residential building is nearly identical and is connected through a podium that contains the home offices, retail/café, amenities, parking, and building support facilities. The project includes private residential amenities such as pools, exercise facilities, and entertainment TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: Jaime Murillo, Community Development Director - 949-644-3209, [email protected]
PREPARED BY: Benjamin M. Zdeba, AICP, Acting Deputy Community Development Director – [email protected]
PHONE: 949-644-3253
TITLE: Planning Commission Agenda Report for March 5, 2026 Planning Commission Agenda Report for March 5, 2026
March 10, 2026

Page 2 ends

_-2
spaces. Vehicular access to the property is through a driveway on Newport Center Drive, which leads to a guardhouse and motorized gate restricting access to the motor court and valet drop off. The requested project requires the following approvals:

• Major Site Development Review to allow a new residential development with five or more units and a tentative tract map, and to waive 5 of the 52 Multi-Unit Objective Design Standards;

• Conditional Use Permit to waive 58 required off -street parking spaces for the proposed home offices and retail/café component; and

The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing, considered public input, and approved the project with amendments from staff by the following vote:

AYES: Harris, Langford, Ellmore, Gazzano, Rosene and Salene NOES: None
ABSENT: Reed
RECUSED: None

ACTION: Approved

ITEM NO. 3 THE NICE GUY RESTAURANT (PA2025-0252)
Site Location:
2607 West Coast Highway

SUMMARY: A request for a conditional use permit (CUP) to renovate an existing 5,260- square-foot restaurant space on the waterfront, formerly occupied by GuacAmigos, and operate a restaurant known as The Nice Guy with a Type 47 (On-Sale General – Eating Place) Alcoholic Beverage Control license, late hour operations, and live entertainment. Proposed hours of operation are 11 a.m. to 12 a.m., Monday through Saturday, and 9:30 a.m. to 12 a.m. on Sunday. A CUP is required to authorize a restaurant with alcohol service and late hour operations (defined by the Newport Beach Municipal Code as service provided after 11 p.m.). If this CUP is approved, the restaurant operator will be required to obtain an operator license from the Newport Beach Police Department, as they intend to offer alcoholic beverages for on- site consumption in conjunction with late hour operations and live entertainment. No dancing is proposed. Approval of the project will also supersede the Minor Use Permit filed as PA2023-0119 and Staff Approval No. SA2018-010.

The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing, considered public input, and approved the project with amendments to the Conditions of Approval by the following vote:

AYES: Langford, Ellmore, Gazzano, Rosene and Salene
Planning Commission Agenda Report for March 5, 2026
March 10, 2026

Page 3 ends

_-3
NOES: None
ABSENT: Reed
RECUSED: Harris

ACTION: Approved

ITEM NO. 4 WIRELESS SERVICE FACILITIES CODE AMENDMENTS (PA2021-103) Site Location: Citywide

SUMMARY: Consistent with the City Council’s initiation on May 25, 2021, and the more recent guidance provided at the City Council Study Session on January 13, 2026, the proposed amendments to Title 13 (Streets, Sidewalks and Public Property), Title 20 (Planning and Zoning), and Title 21 (Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code serve to simplify and modernize some of the City of Newport Beach’s (City) regulations related to the permitting, installation, modification, operation, and maintenance of wireless service facilities on both private and public property, including within the public right-of-way. Although Title 13 does not fall within the purview of the Planning Commission, it is included for reference.

The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing, considered public input, and recommended the City Council’s approval of the code amendments by the following vote:

AYES: Harris, Langford, Ellmore, Gazzano, Rosene and Salene NOES: None
ABSENT: Reed
RECUSED: None

ACTION: Recommended the City Council’s Approval

ITEM NO. 5 ANNUAL GENERAL PLAN HOUSING REPORT (PA2026-0004) Site Location:

Citywide

SUMMARY: The General Plan and Housing Element Annual Progress Reports (Reports) are prepared by City of Newport Beach staff each year and reviewed by the Planning Commission and City Council. The Reports summarize the City’s progress with implementing the goals, policies, and programs of the General Plan and specifically, the Housing Element. The current Reports are presented for the Planning Commissions’ review and expansively cover the City’s activities in calendar year 2025.

The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing, considered public input, and recommended the City Council review and authorize submittal of the 2025 General Plan and Housing Element Annual Progress Reports by the following vote:

AYES: Harris, Langford, Ellmore, Gazzano, Rosene and Salene NOES: None
ABSENT: Reed
Planning Commission Agenda Report for March 5, 2026
March 10, 2026

Page 4 ends

_-4
RECUSED: None

ACTION: Recommended the City Council’s Authorization

City of Newport Beach
Tentative Agenda Report -
2/28/2026
-
6/3/2026
Project Title
Activity

ADDRESS
PA #
Staff assigned
Status
District
March 03, 2026 - PB&R Commission Meeting (GP Update)
March 05, 2026 - Planning Commission Meeting
300 Newport Center Drive
Condominiums
Public Hearing
300 NEWPORT CENTER DR
PA2025-0102
Liz Westmoreland
MORE
INFO
District 5
Annual General Plan Housing
Report
General Plan Annual Report
100 CIVIC CENTER DR
PA2026-0004
Melinda Whelan
MORE
INFO
District 5
Telecom Facilities (CC
Initiated 05/25/2021)
Public Hearing - Considering
Recommendation to City Council
1 CITYWIDE PROJECT
PA2021-103
Benjamin Zdeba
MORE
INFO
Citywide
The Nice Guy CUP
Public Hearing
2607 COAST HWY W
PA2025-0252
Laura Rodriguez
MORE
INFO
District 2
March 10, 2026 - City Council Meeting
Reclassifications
Authorization
100 CIVIC CENTER DR
PA2026-0020
Jaime Murillo
MORE
INFO
District 5
March 11, 2026 - Harbor Commission Meeting (GP Update)
March 12, 2026 - Zoning Administrator Meeting (Zdeba)
Manson Residence Mod
Permit
Public Hearing
2612 CIRCLE DR
PA2025-0205
Oscar Orozco
MORE
INFO
District 2
March 19, 2026 - Airport Land Use Commission (GP Update) March 19, 2026 - Planning Commission Meeting
General Plan Update
Study Session
1 CITYWIDE PROJECT
PA2022-080
Benjamin Zdeba
MORE
INFO
Citywide
Newport Place PC
Amendment- Affordability
Public Hearing
1 CITYWIDE PROJECT
PA2025-0196
Rosalinh Ung
MORE
INFO
ZC & LCP Amendment for
Smoke Related Businesses
Public Hearing
100 CIVIC CENTER DR
PA2025-0171
Oscar Orozco
MORE
INFO
District 5
Zenith Driveway Access
Public Hearing
2350 BRISTOL ST
PA2025-0112
Daniel Kopshever
MORE
INFO
District 3
3/3/2026
The tentative schedule is a tool to assist the preparation of future agendas. It does not provide a complete description of projects and it does not list all projects currently under review that could be scheduled. The tentative schedule changes without notice.

Page 1 of 5 ends

City of Newport Beach
Tentative Agenda Report -
2/28/2026
-
6/3/2026
Project Title
Activity

ADDRESS
PA #
Staff assigned
Status
District
March 24, 2026 - City Council Meeting
Amendments to Professional
Services Agreements
Consent
1 CITYWIDE PROJECT
PA2024-0225
Tonee Thai
MORE
INFO
District 5
Annual General Plan Housing
Report
General Plan Annual Report
100 CIVIC CENTER DR
PA2026-0004
Melinda Whelan
MORE
INFO
District 5
March 26, 2026 - Zoning Administrator Meeting (Zdeba)
407 Heliotrope
Condominiums
Public Hearing
407 HELIOTROPE AVE
PA2025-0172
Melinda Whelan
MORE
INFO
District 6
Amalfi MUP
Public Hearing
401 NEWPORT CENTER DR, A104
PA2025-0210
Daniel Kopshever
MORE
INFO
District 5
Camp James LTP CDP
Public Hearing
1131 BACK BAY DR
PA2025-0224
Jerry Arregui
MORE
INFO
District 4
Emami Residence CDP
Public Hearing
355 VIA LIDO SOUD
PA2025-0173
Daniel Kopshever
MORE
INFO
District 1
Hoag Development
Agreement Annual Review
Public Hearing
1 HOAG DR
PA2025-0046
Jerry Arregui
MORE
INFO
District 2
Meadows Residence
Public Hearing
2412 MESA DR
PA2025-0200
Laura Rodriguez
MORE
INFO
District 3
Newman Residence CDP
Public Hearing (tentative)
2609 COVE ST
PA2025-0229
Laura Rodriguez
MORE
INFO
District 6
April 02, 2026 - Planning Commission Special Meeting
1500 Quail Residences
Public Hearing
1500 QUAIL ST
PA2025-0163
Melinda Whelan
MORE
INFO
District 3
Jaypop Sushi CUP
Public Hearing
3333 COAST HWY E
PA2025-0152
David Blumenthal
MORE
INFO
District 6
April 09, 2026 - Planning Commission Meeting (Canceled) April 14, 2026 - City Council Meeting
Acacia Atrium Medical Office
Condominiums CUP, TPM
Appeal Hearing
20280 ACACIA ST
PA2024-0236
Oscar Orozco
MORE
INFO
District 3
3/3/2026
The tentative schedule is a tool to assist the preparation of future agendas. It does not provide a complete description of projects and it does not list all projects currently under review that could be scheduled. The tentative schedule changes without notice.

Page 2 of 5 ends

City of Newport Beach
Tentative Agenda Report -
2/28/2026
-
6/3/2026
Project Title
Activity

ADDRESS
PA #
Staff assigned
Status
District
April 16, 2026 - Zoning Administrator Meeting (Westmoreland) April 23, 2026 - Planning Commission Meeting
General Plan Update
Public Hearing
1 CITYWIDE PROJECT
PA2022-080
Benjamin Zdeba
MORE
INFO
Citywide
Poitevin Residence
CDP/Variance
Public Hearing
2441 CRESTVIEW DR
PA2025-0179
Laura Rodriguez
MORE
INFO
District 2
April 28, 2026 - City Council Meeting
General Plan Update
Study Session
1 CITYWIDE PROJECT
PA2022-080
Benjamin Zdeba
MORE
INFO
Citywide
April 30, 2026 - Zoning Administrator Meeting (Zdeba)
May 07, 2026 - Planning Commission Meeting
May 12, 2026 - City Council Meeting
General Plan Update
Public Hearing - Adoption
1 CITYWIDE PROJECT
PA2022-080
Benjamin Zdeba
MORE
INFO
Citywide
May 14, 2026 - Zoning Administrator Meeting (Zdeba)
May 21, 2026 - Planning Commission Meeting
May 26, 2026 - City Council Meeting
May 28, 2026 - Zoning Administrator Meeting (Westmoreland) Hearing Date to be Determined
Lower Castaways
Resolution declaring Lower Castaways
exempt surplus land
100 DOVER DR
RP2026-0001
Lauren Wooding
MORE
INFO
District 3
Palmilla Use Permit
Amendment
Public Hearing (Tentative)
3110 NEWPORT BLVD
PA2025-0108
Melinda Whelan
MORE
INFO
District 1
Parkhouse Residences Fee
Credit
Administrative Action. Director
Approval
4251 UPTOWN NEWPORT DR
PA2024-0229
Rosalinh Ung
MORE
INFO
District 3
Saunders Self Storage
3848 CAMPUS DR
PA2023-0145
Liz Westmoreland
MORE
INFO
District 3
3/3/2026
The tentative schedule is a tool to assist the preparation of future agendas. It does not provide a complete description of projects and it does not list all projects currently under review that could be scheduled. The tentative schedule changes without notice.

Page 3 of 5 ends

City of Newport Beach
Tentative Agenda Report -
2/28/2026
-
6/3/2026
Project Title
Activity

ADDRESS
PA #
Staff assigned
Status
District
Pending Coastal Commission
Coastal Act 30613 CDP
Jurisdiction Change
City Project
1 CITYWIDE PROJECT
PA2022-111
Jaime Murillo
MORE
INFO
Citywide
Housing Element
Implementation Program
Amendments
LCP Amendment
1 CITYWIDE PROJECT
PA2022-0245
Benjamin Zdeba
MORE
INFO
District 5
3/3/2026
The tentative schedule is a tool to assist the preparation of future agendas. It does not provide a complete description of projects and it does not list all projects currently under review that could be scheduled. The tentative schedule changes without notice.

Page 4 of 5 ends

City of Newport Beach
Tentative Agenda Report -
2/28/2026
-
6/3/2026
Planner Contact Information
Name & Title
Phone
Email
Benjamin Zdeba, Acting Deputy Director
949-644-3253
[email protected]
Cameron Younger, Planning Technician
949-644-3237
[email protected]
Dan Campagnolo, Systems and Administration Manager
949-644-3231
[email protected]
Daniel Kopshever, Assistant Planner
949-644-3235
[email protected]
David Blumenthal, Contract Planner
[email protected]
David Lee, Principal Planner
949-644-3225
[email protected]
Jaime Murillo, CDD Director
949-644-3209
[email protected]
Jasmine Leon, Planning Technician
949-644-3201
[email protected]
Jenny Hannsun, Associate Planner
949-644-3212
[email protected]
Jerry Arregui, Assistant Planner
949-644-3249
[email protected]
Joselyn Perez, Senior Planner
949-644-3312
[email protected]
Laura Rodriguez, Assistant Planner
949-644-3216
[email protected]
Lauren Wooding, Real Property Administrator
949-644-3236
[email protected]
Liz Westmoreland, Principal Planner
949-644-3234
[email protected]
Melinda Whelan, Assistant Planner
949-644-3221
[email protected]
Oscar Orozco, Associate Planner
949-644-3219
[email protected]
Rosalinh Ung, Principal Planner (PT)
949-644-3208
[email protected]
Tonee Thai, Deputy CDD Director & Building Official
949-718-1867
[email protected]
3/3/2026
The tentative schedule is a tool to assist the preparation of future agendas. It does not provide a complete description of projects and it does not list all projects currently under review that could be scheduled. The tentative schedule changes without notice.

Page 5 of 5 ends

From: Sam Giahi
To: City Clerk"s Office
Subject: Newport Beach City Council meeting - PUBLIC COMMENTS Date: March 08, 2026 7:00:16 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.

Dear City Council,
I would like to know what is the city's policy in adopting AI to reduce cost and increase efficiency and the speed of operation.

Best regards,
Sam Giahi
Received after Agenda Printed
March 10, 2026
Non Agenda Item
Page Intentionally Left Blank
From: Ad lever
To: City Clerk"s Office
Subject: Council Meeting Slides 03-10-2026
Date: March 08, 2026 12:47:20 PM
Attachments: Slide - City Council 03-10-2026 - A Leverenz.pdf [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Report phish using the Phish Alert Button above.

Hello,
Please have these available for call up on the BIG screen, at the City Council Meeting of 03/10/2026, public comment on non-agenda items.

Also, please link them with the agenda for that meeting.

Thank you,
Adam

1 vs.

Commercial tidelands user rates:

Commercial Use Category*
Annual Rental Rate
(Per SF)
3/1/26 - 2/28/27
Large Commercial Marinas $1.56
Medium Commercial Marinas $1.19
Small Commercial Marinas $1.03
Shipyards $0.49
HOA Marinas/Docks for Non-members' Use
> 30,000 SF $1.56
13,000 SF to 30,000 SF $1.19
< 13,000 SF $1.03
Yacht Club Guest Slips $0.49
Vessel Rental Facility (Boat Rentals) $1.03
Sport Fishing Charters $1.03
Restaurants' Guest Slips $0.49
Vessel Charters $1.03
Fuel Docks * $1.03
All Others $1.03
2 3

From: Sherman Zieve
To: City Clerk"s Office
Subject: Dock tax
Date: March 06, 2026 10:18:21 AM
[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 Clerk,
I am writing to respectfully urge the Council to reconsider policies that would confiscate existing tidelands permits, increase residential dock fees, or impose new rate hikes on current permit holders.

For many residents, these permits represent long-standing agreements that were entered into in good faith. Property owners have made significant investments in their homes, docks, and waterfront maintenance based on the understanding that these permits would remain stable and predictable.

Confiscating permits or substantially increasing fees undermines that trust and creates uncertainty for residents who have relied on the City’s commitments for many years.

In addition, increasing residential dock fees or implementing rate hikes places an unnecessary financial burden on homeowners who already contribute substantially through property taxes and local spending.

Waterfront residents help maintain the character, safety, and economic vitality of our coastal community. Policies that penalize these homeowners risk discouraging continued investment and stewardship of our shoreline.

Rather than confiscating permits or raising fees, I encourage the Council to work collaboratively with residents to develop fair, transparent, and sustainable policies for managing tidelands. Open dialogue with permit holders and community stakeholders will lead to better long-term solutions that respect existing agreements while ensuring responsible stewardship of our coastal resources.

I respectfully ask the Council to:

Preserve existing tidelands permits and honor established agreements.

Reject any increase in residential dock fees.

Avoid implementing new rate hikes that disproportionately affect waterfront residents.

Thank you for your time and for considering the concerns of the community. I hope the Council will work with residents to maintain fairness, stability, and trust in the City’s governance.

Sincerely,
Sherman Zieve
809 N Bay Front
Newport Beach, CA 92662
From: Garrett, Errica
To: Dept - City Clerk
Subject: FW: Civic Center Park
Date: March 09, 2026 7:31:02 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: Kilian Ollison <[email protected]>
Sent: March 05, 2026 8:54 AM
To: Dept - City Council <[email protected]> Subject: 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 Newport Beach City Council Members,
I wanted to share my thoughts regarding the proposed police station project in Newport Beach.

First, I want to acknowledge that our city deeply values and supports our police department. Newport Beach has long demonstrated that commitment by ensuring our officers are well compensated and equipped to serve the community. Public safety is incredibly important to our residents.

At the same time, our city also cares deeply about preserving public spaces—especially parks. Civic Center Park is the only meaningful park space within Newport Center, and it Correspondence
March 10, 2026
Study Session 2
Item
has become an important gathering place for families, residents, and visitors alike.

Losing or reducing that space would be a significant loss for the community.

While I fully support providing the police department with a functional and updated facility, I believe the station should be designed to fit on the existing site on Santa Barbara—property that has already been purchased by the city for this purpose.

Preserving Civic Center Park should remain a priority. With thoughtful planning, it seems entirely possible to meet the department’s needs without sacrificing one of the few green spaces in the area.

Our community cares about both public safety and protecting the spaces that make Newport Beach such a special place to live. I encourage residents to use their voices, set thoughtful boundaries on how our town grows, and advocate for solutions that protect our shared public spaces.

Please consider prioritizing construction on the already designated property and preserving our Civic Center Park for current residents and future generations.

Sincerely,
Kilian Ollison
Kilian Tracy Ollison
949.315.5078
From: Garrett, Errica
To: Dept - City Clerk
Subject: FW: Don’t tear down the park
Date: March 09, 2026 7:48:48 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: Lee Cassidy <[email protected]>
Sent: March 08, 2026 3:04 AM
To: Dept - City Council <[email protected]> Subject: Don’t tear down the 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.

Perhaps a new police station is needed. Perhaps the city council needs to listen to the people about keeping the civic center park. Perhaps the city council can think creatively and constructively ( save money, please the people, keep beauty and open spaces) and perhaps build such police station elsewhere ( perhaps on 9 holes of the public golf course which consumes too much water and allows too many chemicals so to maintain the non-sustainable nor native grass carpet).

Sent from my iPhone
From: Garrett, Errica
To: Dept - City Clerk
Subject: FW: Civic Center Park
Date: March 09, 2026 7:48:56 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: Karen Carlson <[email protected]>
Sent: March 08, 2026 8:26 AM
To: Dept - City Council <[email protected]> Subject: 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.

To our City Council: I am writing to voice my strong opposition to the plan to put the new Police Station in the Civic Center Park. I am a big supporter of our Police Dept. and there are several other viable spots (including expanding next door to the soon to be abandoned fire department) that would not do irreparable damage to our much needed park. Many are taken by surprise by this seemingly sudden decision.Much more thought needs to go into the location of this project.

Sincerely
Karen Carlson
CORONA DEL MAR.

From: Garrett, Errica
To: Dept - City Clerk
Subject: FW: PD move to Civic Center
Date: March 09, 2026 7:49:10 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: Debbi Coffman <[email protected]>
Sent: March 08, 2026 8:56 AM
To: Dept - City Council <[email protected]> Subject: PD move to Civic Center
[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.

Do NOT waste our tax dollars on moving/expanding the police dept to the Civic Center! We love our police but use existing facility! Leave the civic center and sculpture garden the way it is now! Too many other things need attention and that is NOT a priority!
Sent from my iPhone
From: Garrett, Errica
Sent: March 09, 2026 7:53 AM
To: Dept - City Clerk
Subject: FW: Police department

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: Tara Gouveia <[email protected]>
Sent: March 08, 2026 6:39 PM
To: Dept - City Council <[email protected]> Subject: Police department

[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.

Good evening

What a great idea relocating the Police Department headquarters to the Civic Center campus! It’s a central location in the city and it makes sense for the HQ to be part of our civic campus! Love it.

Thank you
Sent from my iPhone

From: Garrett, Errica
Sent: March 09, 2026 7:53 AM
To: Dept - City Clerk
Subject: FW: Pls relocate police HQ to Civic Center site

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: Peter Kazin <[email protected]>
Sent: March 08, 2026 6:21 PM
To: Dept - City Council <[email protected]> Subject: Pls relocate police HQ to Civic Center site

[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.

To our hard working Council,

Apparently, there is mixed support for moving the police headquarters. This defies logic to me as the current one is 50 years old and, more importantly, it seems that those who protect and serve prefer the new option. How could they not? The internet didn’t exist when the last HQ was designed and built. I can’t even imagine how much retrofitting would be required to bring the current HQ up to standard and how disruptive it would be to police work. How may extra crimes will happen due to distractions forced upon the police by a bad plan? Also, isn’t the future park being contemplated a place where transients tend to gravitate? It would be helpful to have the police there.

This is to say nothing of the synergies being connected with the rest of City Hall.

Please do the right thing. Help our police do their jobs.

This is the most important fiction of our local government and the right choice is clear. Stop wasting time. Make the right decision and let those against the new site get back to the important business of organizing no Kings parades.

Pete Kazin

Sent from my iPhone
From: Garrett, Errica
Sent: March 09, 2026 7:53 AM
To: Dept - City Clerk
Subject: FW: Proposed Police Department Headquarters

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: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: March 08, 2026 5:26 PM
To: Dept - City Council <[email protected]> Subject: Proposed Police Department Headquarters

[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 strongly support the proposed location and on the Civic Center Campus!! The central location makes the most sense.

Marcia Silva
CDM resident
Sent from my iPhone
From: Garrett, Errica
Sent: March 09, 2026 7:53 AM
To: Dept - City Clerk
Subject: FW: PD @ City Hall

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: Paul Samson <[email protected]>
Sent: March 08, 2026 5:00 PM
To: Dept - City Council <[email protected]> Subject: PD @ City Hall

[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 think relocating the Police Department headquarters to the Civic Center campus is a great idea. It’s a central location and feels like a natural place for an important public safety facility.

Having the police headquarters as part of the civic campus just makes sense. I’m glad the City is looking seriously at this option.

Best regards,
Paul Samson

Sent from my iPhone

From: Garrett, Errica
Sent: March 09, 2026 7:53 AM
To: Dept - City Clerk
Subject: FW: Police Station
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 Byers <[email protected]>
Sent: March 08, 2026 4:22 PM
To: Dept - City Council <[email protected]> Subject: Police Station
[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:

My name is Diane Byers. I am a 55 year resident of Newport Beach.

I am writing to let you know that I am opposed to a police station and parking garage to be built in the Civic Center Park.

There is a long list of reasons as to why this is a terrible idea. Pursuing this location makes no sense.

There are alternative locations that should be explored … but under no circumstance should there ever be a police station and parking garage in Civic Center Park! Respectfully,
Diane Byers

From: Garrett, Errica
Sent: March 09, 2026 7:52 AM
To: Dept - City Clerk
Subject: FW: Police Station
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 Byers <[email protected]>
Sent: March 08, 2026 4:20 PM
To: Dept - City Council <[email protected]> Subject: Police Station
[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:

My name is Steve Byers, I am a 45 year resident of Newport Beach.

I am writing to let you know that I am opposed to a police station and parking garage to be built in the Civic Center Park.

There is a long list of reasons as to why this is a terrible idea. Pursuing this location makes no sense.

There are alternative locations that should be explored … but under no circumstance should there ever be a police station and parking garage in Civic Center Park! Respectfully,
Steve Byers

From: Garrett, Errica
Sent: March 09, 2026 7:52 AM
To: Dept - City Clerk
Subject: FW: Relocating Newport Beach Police Department station

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: Omar Herrera <[email protected]>
Sent: March 08, 2026 3:50 PM
To: Dept - City Council <[email protected]> Subject: Relocating Newport Beach Police Department station

[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 think relocating the Police Department headquarters to the Civic Center campus is a great idea. It’s a central location and feels like a natural place for an important public safety facility.

Having the police headquarters as part of the civic campus just makes sense. I’m glad the City is looking seriously at this option.

Thank you
Omar Herrera
Sent from my iPhone

From: Garrett, Errica
Sent: March 09, 2026 7:52 AM
To: Dept - City Clerk
Subject: FW: Newport Beach Police Headquarters

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: Lauren Mitchell <[email protected]>
Sent: March 08, 2026 3:47 PM
To: Dept - City Council <[email protected]> Subject: Newport Beach Police Headquarters

[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 Council,

Happy Sunday! The NBPD is such a critical component of our Newport Beach home.

I love the idea of relocating the Police Department headquarters to the Civic Center campus.

It’s a central location the City already owns and it definitely makes sense to keep an essential public safety service in the heart of our civic campus.

I wanted to be sure to send a note, reiterating the importance of keeping the NBPD in a centralized location.

If you would like to discuss further, I’d be happy to hop on a call.

Best,

Lauren Mitchell

Sent from my iPhone
From: Garrett, Errica
Sent: March 09, 2026 7:52 AM
To: Dept - City Clerk
Subject: FW: Police department

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: Kaylen Morrison <[email protected]>
Sent: March 08, 2026 2:56 PM
To: Dept - City Council <[email protected]> Subject: Police department

[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,

I think relocating the Police Department headquarters to the Civic Center campus is an excellent idea. Its central location in the heart of the city makes it a logical and strategic place for the police headquarters to be integrated within our civic campus.

I appreciate the City’s leadership in moving this plan forward and believe it will be a positive step for the community.

Thank you for your efforts.

Best regards
Kaylen Morrison
From: Garrett, Errica
Sent: March 09, 2026 7:52 AM
To: Dept - City Clerk
Subject: FW: Police department

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: Ashley Bello <[email protected]>
Sent: March 08, 2026 2:54 PM
To: Dept - City Council <[email protected]> Subject: Police department

[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 Members,

I’m writing to express my strong support for the proposal to move the Police Department to the Civic Center in the heart of our community.

I think this is a great idea. Placing the Police Department at the Civic Center would make it more accessible and visible to residents and visitors, while positioning it near many of the places where people gather, conduct business, and participate in community activities. Having the department located close to where patrons spend their time helps strengthen the connection between public safety services and the community they serve.

This move would also reinforce the Civic Center as a true hub of our city, bringing important services together in a central, convenient location. It demonstrates a thoughtful approach to community planning and public safety.

Thank you for considering this perspective and for your continued efforts to support and improve our community.

Sincerely,

Ashley Bello
714)745-9099
[email protected]
From: Garrett, Errica
Sent: March 09, 2026 7:52 AM
To: Dept - City Clerk
Subject: FW: Relocating Newport Beach Police Department station

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: Omar Herrera <[email protected]>
Sent: March 08, 2026 3:32 PM
To: Dept - City Council <[email protected]> Subject: Relocating Newport Beach Police Department station

[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 think relocating the Police Department headquarters to the Civic Center campus is a great idea. It’s a central location and feels like a natural place for an important public safety facility.

Having the police headquarters as part of the civic campus just makes sense. I’m glad the City is looking seriously at this option.

Thank you
Omar Herrera
Sent from my iPhone

From: Garrett, Errica
Sent: March 09, 2026 7:52 AM
To: Dept - City Clerk
Subject: FW: police dept

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: Bre Suryan <[email protected]>
Sent: March 08, 2026 2:50 PM
To: Dept - City Council <[email protected]> Subject: police dept

[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.

Council-

I love the idea of relocating the Police Department headquarters to the Civic Center campus. It’s a central location the City already owns and it makes sense to keep an essential public safety service in the heart of our civic campus.

best
breanna suryan

From: Garrett, Errica
Sent: March 09, 2026 7:52 AM
To: Dept - City Clerk
Subject: FW: Police Headquarters

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: Lindsey Silva <[email protected]>
Sent: March 08, 2026 2:50 PM
To: Dept - City Council <[email protected]> Subject: Police Headquarters

[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.

Council-

I love the idea of relocating the Police Department headquarters to the Civic Center campus.

It’s a central location the City already owns and it makes sense to keep an essential public safety service in the heart of our civic campus.

Thank you
Lindsey
Sent from my iPhone

From: Garrett, Errica
Sent: March 09, 2026 7:52 AM
To: Dept - City Clerk
Subject: FW: Police station

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: Lisa Hallock <[email protected]>
Sent: March 08, 2026 2:48 PM
To: Dept - City Council <[email protected]> Subject: Police station

[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.

Council,

I love the idea of relocating the Police Department headquarters to the Civic Center campus. It’s a central location the City already owns and it makes sense to keep such an essential public safety service in the heart of our civic campus.

Thank you for considering this option.

Best,
Lisa Hallock

From: Garrett, Errica
Sent: March 09, 2026 7:51 AM
To: Dept - City Clerk
Subject: FW: Proposed police station in Civic Center Park

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: Michael Richardson <[email protected]> Sent: March 08, 2026 9:15 AM
To: Dept - City Council <[email protected]> Subject: Proposed police station in 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.

To our Newport Beach City Council,

PLEASE do not approve the proposed police station in Civic Center Park. I am deeply opposed to losing that open space which is so vital to the ambiance of living here. As a Corona Del Mar resident, I would be very disappointed to hear that the central park in our community would be replaced by a police station.

Thank you for your consideration of my views. I wish I could attend the planning meeting on March 10th at 4pm to express these concerns in public comment but I will be at work.

Please feel free to read this during public comment.

Michael Richardson
6 Canyon Ln, Corona Del Mar, CA 92625

From: Garrett, Errica
Sent: March 09, 2026 7:56 AM
To: Dept - City Clerk
Subject: FW: Police station

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: Jason Bartusick <[email protected]>
Sent: March 08, 2026 8:08 PM
To: Dept - City Council <[email protected]> Subject: Police station

[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

I've seen some emails circulating in my neighborhood about the pollce station and their position, I initially thought it might not have been the best idea given their ideas but I did get some clarification on it and just wanted to send an email that I'm in full support of it now.

Jason

From: Garrett, Errica
Sent: March 09, 2026 7:55 AM
To: Dept - City Clerk
Subject: FW: Civic Center Park vs Police Station and parking structure

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: janine wynn <[email protected]>
Sent: March 08, 2026 7:23 PM
To: Dept - City Council <[email protected]> Subject: Civic Center Park vs Police Station and parking structure

[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:

My name is Janine Wynn and yes, I am the daughter in-law of former City Manager of Newport Beach, Bob Wynn, who served from 1971-1993. I have been a resident of Newport Beach for over 27 years. I married Steve Wynn who was raised here in Newport Beach and who has owned his orthodontic practice here is Newport Beach for over 36 years. You can imagine the changes my husband and I have seen in Newport Beach since Steve and his siblings attended Corona Del Mar High School between 1971-1985. We have felt very blessed to have stayed and raised our own children here is this beautiful part or the world. However, with some of the changes that are currently being discussed by the council, some without the vote of the community, we feel conflicted and a little betrayed. This is very close to home for us because Steve’s dad gave so much to protect the beauty and the family centered nature of this community.

Why in the world, would the council want to create more traffic than there already is on MacArthur Boulevard at all times of the day?Have any of you been on Jamboree or MacArthur an hour before or after CDM and Lincoln Middle School begins or lets out? Have you ever been on PCH and tried to turn on to Dover, while Newport Harbor or Ensign Middle was starting school or letting out? If you have, then there is no way that you would be in favor of creating more driving stress by turning the one open space left in that one square mile into a three story parking garage and police station. Especially, when there are several other options for such a structure. In the 27 years that I have lived here in Newport, I have either witnessed or seen first hand the afte rmath of 8 fatal accidents on Jamboree Road. Adding more businesses and people (referring to the 2 high rises proposed, another catastrophe) will only enable this total to increase. I can not believe that

the council has agreed to the proposals of 2, 22 story high rises where the Regal Theaters currently are. Both of these proposals can not be the desires of the people who elected all of you into office

The city has already spent $30.5 Million to acquire a site for the police station on Dove Street near the airport. Perfect. Why change?

Just the site preparation alone for moving dirt and redirecting a ravine that drains the Harbor View and Broadmoor Neighborhoods to the ocean will cost over $8 Million MORE than the 2010 Civic Center Project.

Finally, in 2008, voters approved a city charter amendment called “City Hall in the Park” that mandated the location of City Hall and Promised a world class city park. This action breaks that promise.

There are alternative locations that should be explored … Please explore them and preserve what little open space is left here in Newport Beach. Under no circumstance should there be a police station and parking garage in Civic Center Park!

Thank you for your time and your consideration.

Respectfully,
Janine Lindsay Wynn
44 Old Course Drive
Newport Beach, CA
949-633-2866

Janine Wynn
"If music be the food of love
.......play on. Shakespeare
From: Garrett, Errica
Sent: March 09, 2026 7:55 AM
To: Dept - City Clerk
Subject: FW: Relocation of Police Department

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: Tania Aldaddah <[email protected]>
Sent: March 08, 2026 6:51 PM
To: Dept - City Council <[email protected]> Subject: Relocation of Police Department

[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 Council-

I support the idea of relocating the Police Department headquarters to the Civic Center campus. It’s a central location the City already owns, and it makes sense to keep such an essential public safety service at the heart of our civic campus. As a Newport Beach voter, public safety is a top priority for me, and this proposal reflects a practical step toward maintaining that commitment.

Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to reach out.

Best regards,

Tania Levinski

Sent from my iPhone

From: Garrett, Errica
To: Dept - City Clerk
Subject: FW: Civic Center Park
Date: March 09, 2026 9:42:11 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: Julie Gaumond <[email protected]>
Sent: March 09, 2026 9:41 AM
To: Dept - City Council <[email protected]> Subject: 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.

Please do NOT build a police station at the Civic Center Park location. The potential for contamination of groundwater streams is too high. No mater how much you fortify it, there will be a problem, maybe not at first, but the longevity will be a problem and the risk outweighs the “reward”.

It would be devastating to loose so much of the park. Especially after spending so much money building it. Please be more fiscally responsible!!!!!
We enjoy walking the park, enjoying a tiny slice of nature, I really hate to lose it, the birds, butterflies, rabbits would lose their homes. Newport Beach/Corona del Mar is losing its charm.

Please cancel this project, I’m sure there are other locations where this would be much more appropriate.

Thank you,
Julie (and Michael) Gaumond
706 Avocado
CDM
949-697-5146
Sent from my iPhone
From: Garrett, Errica
Sent: March 09, 2026 7:56 AM
To: Dept - City Clerk
Subject: FW: Police station

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: Jason Bartusick <[email protected]>
Sent: March 08, 2026 8:08 PM
To: Dept - City Council <[email protected]> Subject: Police station

[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

Jason

From: Garrett, Errica
Sent: March 09, 2026 7:55 AM
To: Dept - City Clerk
Subject: FW: Civic Center Park vs Police Station and parking structure

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: janine wynn <[email protected]>
Sent: March 08, 2026 7:23 PM
To: Dept - City Council <[email protected]> Subject: Civic Center Park vs Police Station and parking structure

[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:

The city has already spent $30.5 Million to acquire a site for the police station on Dove Street near the airport. Perfect. Why change?

Thank you for your time and your consideration.

Respectfully,
Janine Lindsay Wynn
44 Old Course Drive
Newport Beach, CA
949-633-2866

Janine Wynn
"If music be the food of love
.......play on. Shakespeare
From: Garrett, Errica
Sent: March 09, 2026 7:55 AM
To: Dept - City Clerk
Subject: FW: Relocation of Police Department

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: Tania Aldaddah <[email protected]>
Sent: March 08, 2026 6:51 PM
To: Dept - City Council <[email protected]> Subject: Relocation of Police Department

[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 Council-

Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to reach out.

Best regards,

Tania Levinski

Sent from my iPhone

Please cancel this project, I’m sure there are other locations where this would be much more appropriate.

Thank you,
Julie (and Michael) Gaumond
706 Avocado
CDM
949-697-5146
Sent from my iPhone
From: Garrett, Errica
To: Dept - City Clerk
Subject: FW: Police Station in Civic Center Park.

Date: March 04, 2026 4:07:00 PM
Attachments: lettertothecouncil.docx
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: Keith Curry <[email protected]>
Sent: March 04, 2026 11:15 AM
To: Dept - City Council <[email protected]> Subject: Police Station in 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.

Honorable Mayor and City Council,

Please see the attached letter setting forth some of the very serious cost, environmental and operational issues regarding placing the police station in Civic Center Park. This is not a complete list but it is my hope it gives you pause to consider the risks of both cost escalation and project delay with the park site.

If the council acts on March 10 to remove the park site from further consideration you will save the taxpayers millions, and you will be able to move forward with other options that will deliver the police station faster and for much lower cost.

Thank you for your consideration.

Keith Curry
Mayor, 2010, 2013
Honorable Mayor and City Council
The decision to place the new police headquarters in Civic Center Park will result in cascading consequences from a bad economic decision.

Where is the best location for the police headquarters? It is the lowest cost practical site with the least risk for environmental or project delay or site preparation issues. Civic Center Park is the opposite of this. It is the most expensive site, it has an assured probability for litigation and environmental delay and it has the highest and most unpredictable site preparation and mitigation costs.

What is the best way to pay for the new facility? It is actually more efficient to finance the project. It is a multi-generational essential asset, the city’s borrowing costs are roughly equal to its investment earnings on cash, it can be financed without stressing the city budget and most importantly, it will allow the council to optimize the disposition of the Santa Barbara and Dove street properties for the benefit of taxpayers and residents.

Except, you cannot finance it because that would require voter approval and this site would certainly not be approved by the city voters.

Therefore, you must seek funding from the disposition of current city real estate assets.

Should the city sell Santa Barbara and/or Dove Street or place the properties into long term ground leases? As with the old city hall site, competent economic analysis will certainly demonstrate the long-term lease of the property is in the best economic interests of taxpayers and residents. The properties are appreciating assets and will be worth much more to the city in the future if it retains ownership and generates reoccurring income through leasing.

Except you cannot lease Santa Barbara because it would not generate the upfront cash needed to pay for construction. Lease benefits accelerate once the property has been redeveloped.

Therefore, you must sell the property if the objective is to finance construction from the proceeds.

Except, You will need to enter into a leaseback agreement following the sale until construction is completed. Depending on the final sale price and length of construction, this will add between $12-$15 million to the cost of the project.

Except the state Surplus Land Act (SLA), requires the city to make the site available for housing with a 25% affordable component. Developers tell us that those economics will not work in this case. Nobody wants to buy a $5 million high rise condominium in a building where every fourth neighbor is a subsidized renter. The recent state cancelation of the Anaheim stadium sale and the development of its parking lots into a commercial zone demonstrate the risk. Therefore, you are unlikely to receive sufficient proceeds to build the new facility.

Back to the initial bad decision, because you choose the park location, you will need multiple state agencies to approve the installation of a fuel tank directly in the path of an underground drainage stream that leads into the ocean. You will need to mitigate the loss of riparian wetlands habitat, likely at a cost of millions, and you will need to spend millions in site preparation. These tasks involve review and approval by agencies and public boards appointed by a partisan state government and require environmental analysis, hearings, public involvement, an appeals process and the opportunity for litigation. You can and should assume that each decision will be used as an opportunity to stop the project at this site. It will take years to resolve while the construction cost of the project escalates, mitigation cost accumulate and the leaseback of the existing site continues to be a financial drain. The objective of providing a new police facility will be delayed for years.

At some point, you or the people who follow you on the council are faced with the need to finance the additional cost, now well in excess of $200 million and going higher. Except now the project has taken on poster child notoriety as a government boondoggle along the lines of high-speed rail.

All of this is before we consider Museum House level opposition to what is to be developed on Santa Barbara, the impact of the daily release of arrestees into the park and library, the conflicts with sex offender registration and the proximity of the police station to the park, the destruction of tens of millions in taxpayer funded park improvements, landscaping and irrigation, loss of parkland for new residents moving into Newport Center, traffic impacts, and the very real potential of a ballot measure to stop the project.

There are better alternatives. There is no widespread opposition to the new police station.

Opposition is centered on the placement in the park and it is adamant.

Dove Street, and any alternate location in Newport Center would be widely acceptable much less costly and entail much less risk. As an example, when the fire station is relocated, a new police station can be built right next door to the existing facility. A parking structure would be built first. This allows a new 70,000 sq. ft. building. When relocation of the police is accomplished, the existing police station could be retrofitted or rebuilt as a state-of-the-art regional training center, gun range, gym, police lab or other purposes providing a total of over 111,000 sq. ft.

You have important optionality. If you decide to keep the existing building, the new station can be smaller and the gun range, training rooms and gym placed in the old building. If you decide to scrap the existing building, you can turn the lot into surface parking and eliminate the need for a parking structure. These and other options save taxpayer dollars.

Alternatively, if more space is not desired, you could lease the former station site to generate city revenue and offset project costs.

This option will take two years or more off the construction schedule, will eliminate environmental and regulatory risk, minimize litigation and site prep costs, and substantially eliminate environmental mitigation and leaseback costs. It will also give you better and more efficient financing options. It will save millions and result in a better facility, delivered faster.

The council needs to take the park off the table now so the city can move forward.

From: Garrett, Errica
To: Dept - City Clerk
Subject: FW: Location of New Police Headquarters
Date: March 04, 2026 7:23:49 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: Ron Rubino <[email protected]>
Sent: March 04, 2026 12:02 AM
To: Dept - City Council <[email protected]> Subject: Location of New Police Headquarters
[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.

March 3, 2026
Honorable Mayor and City Council Members:

This letter is to provide my opinion and advice on where to locate a future new police department headquarters building.

I do not support using the Civic Center park property adjacent to City Hall for this new building and its supporting facilities.

I recommend that the City evaluate the use of the existing Police Department and Fire station located off Jamboree at 870 Santa Barbara. This option will save the City time and money because the land is owned by the City, utilities are in place, and the fire station can be replaced, making the additional land area available for a parking structure.

This alternative avoids complex environmental reviews and potential litigation if the Civic Center park is selected as the site.

In November 2022, the City purchased a building at 1201 Dove St. The office building is on a 4-acre parcel and costs the city $30.5 million. (See Nov 26, 2022, Orange County Register article: Newport Beach plans $30.5 million purchase of site for future police headquarters.) Based on recent comments by members of the city council, it appears the City has decided this is no longer a desirable location.

If this is correct, the building and land can be sold or leased to recoup the city's investment or generate revenue.

These funds could be budgeted to help offset the cost of building the desired Fire Station and Police Department headquarters. The Dove St site has potential for redevelopment as senior and workforce housing units to help the city meet the state mandate for affordable new units.

Planning the new facilities and completing design work will likely take three years. After that time, more City funds should be available to pay debt service on the new Police Department headquarters, as the City's employees' pension unfunded liability debt is paid, freeing up budget dollars.

In summary, I support a plan that includes the following elements:

1. Utilize the land/buildings at the current Fashion Island Police Department and Fire station as the site for the new headquarters facility.

2. Sell the building and land at 1201 Dove Street, Dover, to a developer to construct new housing units, including a substantial number of affordable workforce and senior units.

3. Replace the current Santa Barbara Street Fire Station next to the current Police Department headquarters, to free up city-owned property for the new Police Department headquarters.

4. Determine the architectural and structural building requirements for the new Police Department headquarters.

5. Avoid locating Police Department headquarters, Fire, and Emergency Operations Center in close proximity to City Hall to provide more protection from emergencies that could impact these vital functions.

6. Consider locating Police Department functions such as weapons training, vehicle maintenance, short-term jail custody, vehicle impound, supply storage, training, and IT support at different locations than the administrative headquarters, where they are more compatible with surrounding buildings, parking, traffic flow, and less expensive to build.

7. Other considerations:

Keep costs down to avoid excessive new long-term debt.

Avoid increasing traffic on Jamboree and MacArthur by locating all functions in one Civic Center area.

Avoid impacting the Civic Center building, parking, lawn, library, and park. The city hall, adjacent parking structure, and parking facility were well thought out, and the open space was part of the vision when this decision was made. It works well.

Add Police Department management and technical support staff needed to plan, design, and supervise the construction of a new Police Department headquarters and a replacement Fire Station.

I appreciate the opportunity to share my opinions and suggestions regarding the proposed Police Department headquarters building.

Thank you,
Ron Rubino
Eastbluff Resident for 39 years
2845 Alta Vista Dr
Newport Beach, CA 92660
From: Garrett, Errica
To: Dept - City Clerk
Subject: FW: Civic Center Campus & The Importance of NBPD HQ Date: March 02, 2026 7:33:25 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: Ruth Kobayashi <[email protected]>
Sent: February 28, 2026 8:18 AM
To: Dept - City Council <[email protected]> Subject: Civic Center Campus & The Importance of NBPD HQ

[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.

Good morning City Council Members,

I plan on speaking up frequently about the importance of locating the NBPD HQ to the Civic Center. While you may have already seen it, I’ve copied my letter to the editor that was published in Stu News yesterday, February 27th. Thank you for your consideration and for your commitment to public safety.

Sincerely,

Ruth

As a long time resident of Newport Beach, with a deep commitment to our community, I’m advocating for building our new Police Headquarters on the Civic Center campus. Keeping our vital public safety agencies centralized and integrated offers the strongest foundation for our city’s future.

I fully acknowledge and appreciate the tremendous value of the open spaces adjacent to the Civic Center and the art installations that make it a cherished destination. However, positioning this as Public Art vs Public Safety is not realistic.

Public safety must come first. The core functions of unified command, rapid response, and seamless coordination between Police, Fire, and the Emergency Operations Center are non-negotiable priorities that directly protect residents, businesses, and visitors. These needs are not temporary —they are essential for decades to come.

We also have a City Staff who fully appreciates the high standards that our community expects and we must give them an opportunity to propose a thoughtful and innovative plan that respects the art and open spaces, while knowing that the
primary responsibility of city government is to ensure public safety.

If our community can build a state-of-the-art City Hall and Library Lecture Hall, it only makes sense to provide the same respectful investment for our police department’s centrally located facility on the Civic Center campus.

They belong there too.

Ruth Kobayashi, Newport Beach
Ruth

iPhone Photographer
From: Orange County Chapter
To: City Clerk"s Office
Subject: Civic Center Park Comment Letter
Date: February 27, 2026 4:09:32 PM
Attachments: NB Civic Center Park Comment Letter, 02-27-26.docx.pdf [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Report phish using the Phish Alert Button above.

Dear Members of the Newport Beach City Council:

The Orange County Chapter of the California Native Plant Society (OCCNPS) is submitting the attached comment letter regarding the future Police Headquarters proposed for land that is occupied by the Civic Center Park.

We ask that the Newport City Council protect Civic Center Park as an irreplaceable community asset and uphold Newport Beach's commitment to preserving open space and biodiversity.

If you have any comments or questions after reading the letter, please feel free to contact us.

Sincerely,
Elizabeth Wallace
Co-President OCCNPS
949-370-0590

To conserve California native plants and their natural habitats, today and into the future, through science, education, stewardship, gardening, and advocacy. 27 February 2026
P.O. Box 54891
Irvine,

92619-4891

[email protected]

TO: Members of the Newport Beach City Council
c/o

City

Clerk

100

Civic

Center

Drive

Newport

Beach,

92660

RE: Opposition to Proposed Police Headquarters at Civic Center Park (Adj. Newport Beach City Hall) Dear Mayor Kleiman and Members of the Newport Beach City Council, On behalf of the California Native Plant Society – Orange County Chapter (OCCNPS), we write to formally express our

serious

concerns

and

opposition

the

current

concept

under

consideration

site

new

Police

Department

headquarters

and

associated

facilities

within

the

natural

areas

Civic

Center

Park

adjacent

Newport

Beach

City

Hall.

OCCNPS was actively involved in the original creation, planning, botanical survey, and restoration work of this park space

around

the

period

2012-2014.

Our

volunteers,

led

Ron

Vanderhoff,

performed

botanical

surveys

the

land

and

documented

the

existing

native

plants,

contributing

shaping

the

park’s

restoration

and

landscape

plan.

summary

copy

our

botanical

surveys

and

natural

resources

attached.

The

natural

area

helped

steward

have

been

valuable

public

open

space

supporting

local

biodiversity,

passive

recreation,

and

community

engagement

with

nature.

We understand that the City Council’s Ad Hoc Committee has identified Civic Center Park as a preferred option for a

new

police

facility

largely

because

city-owned

and

avoids

costly

land

acquisition.

The

preliminary

estimate

for

headquarters

project

this

location

roughly

$162-165

million

and

would

require

extensive

technical

and

environmental

review

under

CEQA

before

any

further

entitlements

are

considered.

While we respect the need for modern public safety infrastructure, we urge you to reconsider siting such a substantial

facility

within

Civic

Center

Park

for

the

following

reasons:

1. Irreversible Loss of Open Space and Natural Habitat Civic Center Park, including the area adjacent to City Hall, contains significant open space that was intentionally preserved

and

enhanced

with

native

California

plant

communities.

This

space

irreplaceable

once

permanently

developed,

and

its

loss

would

deeply

felt

residents

who

use

for

passive

recreation

and

nature

connection.

Replacing parkland and natural areas with a large office building, extensive parking, and associated infrastructure would

result

in:

● Permanent reduction of accessible public open space. ● Loss of habitat for native plants and associated wildlife (birds, insects, pollinators). ● Reduced park continuity at the core of our Civic Center. ● A backward progression toward the state’s 30 x 30 conservation initiative.

OCCNPS.org | P.O. Box 54891, Irvine, CA 92619-4891

To conserve California native plants and their natural habitats, and increase understanding, appreciation, and horticultural use of native plants.

This green space plays a valuable role in community well-being, environmental education, and local biodiversity—which

increasingly

rare

within

Newport

Beach’s

urban

fabric.

Mature plant communities and established soils cannot simply be “replaced” by installing new landscaping elsewhere.

Loss

contiguous

green

space

fragments

habitat

and

diminishes

ecological

resilience.

highly

urbanized

coastal

city,

preserved

green

space

increasingly

rare

and

increasingly

valuable.

2. Environmental and Biodiversity Impacts
Large-scale development has inherent impacts on local ecosystems. Even with mitigation, the transformation of open

parkland

into

built

infrastructure

alters

hydrology,

soil

integrity,

microclimates,

urban

heating,

water

quality,

and

habitat

connectivity.

The park as currently configured serves and supports native plant species and wildlife that rely on this conserved environment.

The

removal

degradation

these

areas

would

negatively

affect:

● Urban wildlife corridors.
● Local ecological functions (shade, pollination, native plant survival). ● Carbon sequestration and climate regulation
● Urban heat mitigation through tree canopy and evapotranspiration ● Stormwater absorption and soil infiltration
● Pollinator and bird habitat
● Public mental health and wellness benefits
● Public opportunities to engage with nature in an urban setting.

3. Hydrology and Water Quality Concerns
The proposed inclusion of a fueling station, expanded parking, and increased impervious surface area raises serious

concerns

regarding

stormwater

runoff

and

groundwater

contamination.

understand

the

site

lies

within

drainage

pathway

that

ultimately

feeds

into

Newport

Harbor.

Before any commitment to advance this location, a comprehensive hydrological analysis should be conducted to evaluate:

● Changes to surface runoff patterns
● Pollutant loading risks
● Groundwater protection measures
● Potential downstream impacts on harbor and coastal water quality Protection of coastal water quality is a long-standing priority for the City and community; siting critical infrastructure in

drainage

corridor

demands

exceptional

caution.

Once these natural features are eliminated or fragmented, they cannot be restored.

OCCNPS.org | P.O. Box 54891, Irvine, CA 92619-4891

To conserve California native plants and their natural habitats, and increase understanding, appreciation, and horticultural use of native plants.

4. Climate and Urban Heat Island Impacts
Replacing vegetated open space with multi-story structures and associated parking infrastructure will increase localized

heat

island

effects.

Tree

canopy

and

permeable

soil

are

not

aesthetic

luxuries

—

they

function

climate

infrastructure.

They

reduce

ambient

temperatures,

buffer

extreme

heat,

and

improve

microclimate

conditions.

In a warming climate, preserving urban canopy and soil permeability is an investment in long-term public health and

fiscal

resilience.

5. Community Values and Shared Vision
During the park’s planning and creation phase, stakeholders—including CNPS OC—contributed time, expertise, and

community

resources.

That

investment

was

intended

establish

civic

green

that

contributes

quality

life

and

reflects

Newport

Beach’s

stewardship

open

space.

We urge the Council to honor that investment by:
● Protecting these natural areas from removal.
● Exploring alternative sites for essential civic facilities that do not displace parkland or open space.

Appropriate alternatives may include redevelopment of previously disturbed or underused parcels, adaptive reuse of

existing

City

facilities,

other

sites

that

balance

public

safety

needs

without

sacrificing

community

open

space.

6. Precedent and Long-Term Policy Implications
Building major civic infrastructure within designated parkland sets an enduring precedent. Future councils may reference

this

decision

when

considering

other

open-space

conversions.

Preservation of public green space depends upon consistent policy discipline. Once exceptions are made, they are difficult

contain.

7. Broader Community Sentiment
Public records and commentary indicate there are significant concerns among residents about replacing civic green space

with

facilities

that

essentially

extend

municipal

offices

and

parking

into

parkland.

Even

local

coverage

highlights

residents’

anxiety

over

losing

public

open

space

the

Civic

Center.

Protecting public green space aligns with broader community values, supports mental and physical health benefits for

residents,

and

helps

maintain

Newport

Beach’s

identity

coastal

city

with

rich

natural

assets.

Conclusion and Call to Action
OCCNPS.org | P.O. Box 54891, Irvine, CA 92619-4891

To conserve California native plants and their natural habitats, and increase understanding, appreciation, and horticultural use of native plants.

OCCNPS respectfully but firmly requests that the Newport Beach City Council:

1. Cease advancing the Civic Center Park location for the police headquarters.

2. Require a comprehensive environmental impact review prior to advancing any site-specific studies.

3. Prioritize preservation of existing public green space whenever feasible.

4. Direct staff to evaluate alternative siting options that do not compromise parkland, natural habitats, and restored

landscapes.

5. Commit to robust community engagement and transparent environmental review before considering or investing

further

design

development.

We are prepared to work collaboratively with the City and other stakeholders to identify solutions that meet public safety

goals

without

undermining

our

shared

environmental

and

community

values.

Thank you for your thoughtful consideration. We urge the Council to protect this irreplaceable community asset and uphold

Newport

Beach’s

commitment

preserving

open

spaces

and

biodiversity.

Sincerely,

Ron Vanderhoff Elizabeth Wallace
CA

Native

Plant

Society,

Orange

County

Chapter

Native

Plant

Society,

Orange

County

Chapter

Plant

Science

Chair

President

OCCNPS.org | P.O. Box 54891, Irvine, CA 92619-4891

From: Garrett, Errica
To: Dept - City Clerk
Subject: FW: There are better options for a new police station... one resident"s opinion Date: March 09, 2026 1:55:49 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: Jim Cokas <[email protected]>
Sent: March 09, 2026 1:16 PM
To: Dept - City Council <[email protected]> Subject: There are better options for a new police station... one resident's opinion

[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 and Mayor,

Due to recent back surgery I will not be able to attend tomorrow’s council meeting, but I want to weigh in on the proposed location for our new police station, because this is such an impactful decision for us all.

First, I am opposed to demolishing so much of our sculpture garden. It’s part of a park that so many of your residents cherish, and it’s a statement about how much we as a city value arts and culture.

Second, there are many environmental concerns that are not being openly discussed, such as the fact that park sits on riparian wetland habitat that is managed my the state. Besides the destruction of this valuable habitat there will also be many issues involving permits for fuel tanks, environmental mitigation, litigation, etc. The $162 million dollar price tag that is being publicized is far from accurate.

Third, there are several other imminently viable locations, especially from an economic perspective as well environmentally, including upgrading the existing site. It’s already right next to Newport Center, which seems to be a bias for many of you that is perplexing. Then there is also the site closer to the airport which we already own. Why have these locations been disregarded?

There are so many questions that need to be answered. The City seems to have arrived at this “let’s involve our citizens” rather late I think, but at least you’re bringing us into the discussion at last.

Thank you for listening to my concerns.

Respectfully
Jim Cokas
(60 years a resident of Newport Beach)

3438 Irvine Ave
Newport Beach, 92660

From: Garrett, Errica
To: Dept - City Clerk
Subject: FW: Civic Center Park
Date: March 09, 2026 4:03:17 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: Mary Lynn Gaddis <[email protected]>
Sent: March 09, 2026 4:00 PM
To: Dept - City Council <[email protected]> Subject: 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 Newport Beach City Council:

My name is Mary Lynn Gaddis and I have lived in Newport Beach since 1995. My husband and I have raised our 4 children in this community and I want to express my opposition to the police station and parking lot you are planning to build in the Civic Center Park.

I believe that this is a terrible idea that has not been thought through and this location does not make sense to me for the facts that:
$30.5 million that the City has already spent to acquire a site for the police station on Dove Street near the airport
Based on the City Council meetings I watched and the recent articles, this project is estimated to cost $9 million more than other civic center sites and $12 million more than the Dove Street site.

The police station should not be the "center" of our city.

I ask that the City Council explore alternative locations, including the site where over $30 million was spent.

The articles I read suggested locating the police station in the "center of town." From my perspective there is no reason that this should be in the so-called "center of town." How will the noise from the helicopter pad be handled? Great, registered sex offenders
will be nearby the library where many families and
children visit- seriously, please think this through on behalf of all Newport Beach residents.

I am not clear on the "Ad Hoc Committee" but, why were residents not included or offered the opportunity to particpate in a committee making decisions that will impact Newport Beach on many levels in the decades ahead?

For all you do right for our City, this is a huge miss. Under no circumstances should there ever be a police station and parking garage in Civic Center Park. Go back and re-plan Dove Street as you already have a base of over $30 million.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Respectfully,
Mary Lynn Gaddis
Newport Beach Resident of over 30 years

Mary Lynn Gaddis
949-533-2367

This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any review, use, distribution or disclosure by others is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and delete all copies of this message. Please be advised that the content of this message is subject to access, review and disclosure by the sender's email system administrator.

From: Garrett, Errica
To: Dept - City Clerk
Subject: FW: Alternative to Police Station at Civic Center Park Date: March 09, 2026 4:27:58 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: Dave <[email protected]>
Sent: March 09, 2026 4:26 PM
To: Dept - City Council <[email protected]> Subject: Alternative to Police Station at 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 Newport Beach City Council,
My name is David Granoff and I have been a resident of Newport Beach for 42 years, Though I support the need for a new police station, I am writing to respectfully oppose the proposal to build a police station and parking garage in Civic Center Park.

One item mentioned for the need to be near Fashion Island due to past violent crimes has merit, yet the necessity to build the new station in Civic Center Park is not the only answer.

Remember, our current police station is not that much farther from Fashion Island when the incidents occurred, not to the detriment of the criminals involved. The idea of a substation at Fashion Island would be more valuable and less expensive than changing the already owned Dove Street location. It would promote good relations with residents, visitors, workers, and tenants alike in the area with the added hope of deterring potential criminal activities.

Civic Center Park was promised to residents as part of the “City Hall in the Park” vision and is an important open space, especially as more housing is added in Newport Center. A police station—with vehicle storage, maintenance operations, helicopter activity, and drone launches —is simply not compatible with a public park and protected wetlands habitat.

I strongly urge the Council to pursue alternative locations and preserve Civic Center Park for the community.

Respectfully,
David Granoff
From: Garrett, Errica
To: Dept - City Clerk
Subject: FW: Finance Committee
Date: March 09, 2026 1:47:24 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: Keith Curry <[email protected]>
Sent: March 09, 2026 12:55 PM
To:

Dept - City Council <[email protected]>
Subject: Finance Committee
[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 and Councilmembers:

I am pretty sure the last guy you want to hear from is me. I urge you to do yourselves and your credibility a favor and not approve the proposed changes to the finance committee.

We are at a time when the council is considering an ill-conceived, expensive police station with significant environmental, operational, and permitting risk. It will cost more than $200 million when all done at the Civic Center Park location.

This was put together over the Christmas holidays behind closed doors and sprung on the public in a Saturday session on January 31.

The finance committee has cancelled its March and April meetings meaning no meaningful review of this project.

Having a committee where all members are appointed by the mayor will reinforce in the strongest possible way the feeling in the community that the city is now being run by a four-member junta.

This proposal drips with contempt for the public and makes a mockery of the announced initiatives for more "transparency". You are not fooling anyone.

Received after Agenda Printed
March 10, 2026
Agenda Item No. 5
I understand that the tone of this email in not the professional wording that should be the norm, but I can think of no other way to convey to you how much of a mistake this is.

Please do yourselves and the community a big favor and withdraw this proposal.

Thank you for your consideration
Keith Curry.

From: Garrett, Errica
To: Dept - City Clerk
Subject: FW: Street paving contract award
Date: March 09, 2026 7:54:48 AM
Attachments: Letter of Support and Map_St Paving Contract_03 10 26.pdf 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: Ron Rubino <[email protected]>
Sent: March 08, 2026 6:43 PM
To: Dept - City Council <[email protected]> Cc: Morgan Bomboy <[email protected]>; Al Maguire <[email protected]>; Allen Yourman <[email protected]>; Ryan O'Grady <[email protected]>; Paul Jones <[email protected]>; Grant, Robyn <[email protected]>
Subject: Street paving contract award
[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 City Clerk,
Please distribute the attached letter from the Eastbluff Homeowners' Community Association Board of Directors in support of item no. 6, award of street paving contract on the 03-10-2026 agenda.

Thank you,
Ron Rubino
Received after Agenda Printed
March 10, 2026
Agenda Item No. 6
/i255
/i255
/1/2/3/4/5/i255/6/7/i255/8/9/8/10/i255
/i255
/i255
/12/13/14/13/15/16/17/18/19/i255/20
/16/21/13/15/i255/16/14/22/i255/23/24/25/21/i255/23/13/26/14/27/24/18/i255/20/19/28/17/19/15/29/30/i255 /i255
/31/32/24/29/i255/18/19/25/25/19/15/i255/24/29/i255/25/13/i255/33/15/13/34/24/22/19/i255/24/14/33/26/25/i255/35/15/13/28/i255/25/32/19/i255/36/16/29/25/17/18/26/35/35/i255/12/13/28/19/13/37/14/19/15/29/38/i255/23/13/28/28/26/14/24/25/21/i255/39/29/29/13/27/24/16/25/24/13/14/i255/15/19/40/16/15/22/24/14/40/i255/24/25/19/28/i255/41/13/42/i255/43/i255 /13/14/i255/25/32/19/i255/23/24/25/21/i255/44/45/46/47/4/48/49/50/51/i255/1/2/3/4/5/i255/52/9/7/i255/8/9/8/10/7/i255/2/53/54/47/55/2/i255/56/45/i255/16/37/16/15/22/i255/27/13/14/25/15/16/27/25/i255/i255/57/45/58/i255/59/59/60/10/61/52/i255/56/45/i255/62/47/63/64/i255/65/2/66/48/47/53/i255/44/45/67/68/2/47/63/7/i255 /69/47/4/58/7/i255/70/45/3/i255/2/i255/71/48/55/i255/68/3/48/4/54/i255/45/70/i255/72/52/7/9/6/8/7/9/9/9/i255/2/47/55/i255/2/i255/4/45/47/56/48/47/53/54/47/4/63/i255/45/70/i255/72/52/52/9/7/9/9/9/i255/56/45/i255/4/45/66/54/3/i255/56/5/54/i255/4/45/51/56/i255/45/70/i255/46/47/70/45/3/54/51/54/54/47/i255/73/45/3/74/58/i255/31/32/24/29/i255 /37/13/15/75/i255/24/29/i255/15/19/18/16/25/19/22/i255/25/13/i255/25/32/19/i255/23/24/25/21/38/29/i255/76/56/3/54/54/56/i255/65/2/66/54/67/54/47/56/i255/77/54/68/2/48/3/i255/65/3/45/53/3/2/67/i255/78/79/i255/8/9/8/80/61/8/10/58/i255 /i255
/62/46/3/i255/4/45/67/67/46/47/48/56/63/i255/45/70/i255/81/2/51/56/71/49/46/70/70/i255/5/45/67/54/51/i255/4/45/67/68/3/48/51/54/51/i255/60/10/9/i255/51/48/47/53/49/54/61/70/2/67/48/49/63/i255/3/54/51/48/55/54/47/56/51/i255/2/47/55/i255/48/51/i255/2/i255/51/48/53/47/48/70/48/4/2/47/56/i255/68/45/3/56/48/45/47/i255/45/70/i255/56/5/54/i255 /51/4/45/68/54/i255/45/70/i255/73/45/3/74/i255/46/47/55/54/3/i255/56/5/48/51/i255/68/2/66/48/47/53/i255/4/45/47/56/3/2/4/56/58/i255/62/46/3/i255/82/62/83/i255/5/2/51/i255/73/45/3/74/54/55/i255/73/48/56/5/i255/56/5/54/i255/44/48/56/63/i255/65/46/71/49/48/4/i255/84/45/3/74/51/i255/85/54/68/2/3/56/67/54/47/56/i255/56/5/54/i255 /68/2/51/56/i255/56/73/45/i255/63/54/2/3/51/i255/45/47/i255/51/68/54/54/55/i255/49/48/67/48/56/i255/51/48/53/47/51/7/i255/71/2/3/3/48/54/3/51/i255/56/45/i255/3/54/51/56/3/48/4/56/i255/66/54/5/48/4/49/54/51/i255/4/3/45/51/51/48/47/53/i255/2/56/i255/86/48/51/45/47/i255/2/47/55/i255/87/2/67/71/45/3/54/54/i255/56/45/i255/68/3/45/66/48/55/54/i255 /51/2/70/54/3/i255/3/48/53/5/56/i255/2/47/55/i255/49/54/70/56/i255/56/46/3/47/51/i255/45/47/49/63/7/i255/4/3/45/51/51/73/2/49/74/i255/3/54/68/2/48/47/56/48/47/53/7/i255/2/47/55/i255/70/49/2/51/5/48/47/53/i255/3/54/55/i255/49/48/53/5/56/51/i255/45/47/i255/51/56/45/68/i255/51/48/53/47/51/i255/45/47/i255/81/2/51/56/71/49/46/70/70/i255/85/3/48/66/54/i255 /70/45/3/i255/56/5/54/i255/51/2/70/54/56/63/i255/45/70/i255/4/5/48/49/55/3/54/47/i255/2/56/56/54/47/55/48/47/53/i255/44/85/1/i255/87/46/47/48/45/3/i255/2/47/55/i255/82/48/53/5/i255/76/4/5/45/45/49/i255/2/47/55/i255/68/54/55/54/51/56/3/48/2/47/51/i255/73/2/49/74/48/47/53/i255/45/3/i255/71/48/74/48/47/53/i255/56/45/i255/56/5/54/i255 /51/5/45/68/68/48/47/53/i255/4/54/47/56/54/3/58/i255/88/5/54/i255/73/45/3/74/i255/2/4/4/45/67/68/49/48/51/5/54/55/i255/5/2/51/i255/48/67/68/3/45/66/54/55/i255/51/2/70/54/56/63/i255/48/47/i255/45/46/3/i255/4/45/67/67/46/47/48/56/63/i255/2/47/55/i255/48/51/i255/2/68/68/3/54/4/48/2/56/54/55/58/i255 /i255
/84/54/i255/51/46/68/68/45/3/56/i255/56
/5/54/i255/2/73/2/3/55/i255/45/70/i255/56/5/54/i255/68/2/66/48/47/53/i255/4/45/47/56/3/2/4/56/i255/2/47/55/i255/56/5/2/47/74/i255/56/5/54/i255/68/46/71/49/48/4/i255/73/45/3/74/51/i255/55/54/68/2/3/56/67/54/47/56/i255/70/45/3/i255/48/56/51/i255/54/70/70/45/3/56/51/i255/56/45/i255 /67/2/48/47/56/2/48/47/i255/45/46/3/i255/51/56/3/54/54/56/51/i255/68/3/45/68/54/3/49/63/58/i255/69/56/i255/48/51/i255/45/46/3/i255/46/47/55/54/3/51/56/2/47/55/48/47/53/i255/56/5/2/56/i255/56/5/54/i255/51/48/53/47/2/53/54/i255/2/47/55/i255/51/68/54/54/55/i255/49/48/67/48/56/51/i255/68/2/48/47/56/54/55/i255/45/47/i255/56/5/54/i255 /68/2/66/54/67/54/47/56/7/i255/2/47/55/i255/56/5/54/i255/86/48/51/45/47/89/87/2/67/71/45/3/54/54/i255/51/56/3/54/54/56/i255/4/3/45/51/51/48/47/53/i255/68/3/45/5/48/71/48/56/48/45/47/7/i255/73/48/49/49/i255/71/54/i255/3/54/68/49/2/4/54/55/i255/2/51/i255/68/2/3/56/i255/45/70/i255/56/5/54/i255/67/2/48/47/56/54/47/2/47/4/54/i255 /68/3/45/90/54/4/56/58/i255
/i255
/91/19/i255/16/18/29/13/i255/25/32/16/14/75/i255/25/32/19/i255/23/24/25/21/i255/23/13/26/14/27/24/18/i255/35/13/15/i255/24/25/29/i255/19/35/35/13/15/25/29/i255/25/13/i255/17/26/22/40/19/25/i255/35/26/14/22/29/i255/16/14/22/i255/29/25/16/21/i255/13/14/i255/25/15/16/27/75/i255/37/24/25/32/i255/25/32/19/i255/23/24/25/21/38/29/i255/33/16/34/19/28/19/14/25/i255 /15/19/33/16/24/15/i255/33/15/13/40/15/16/28/42/i255
/i255
/92/19/29/33/19/27/25/35/26/18/18/21/93/i255
/i255
/36/16/29/25/17/18/26/35/35/i255/12/13/28/19/13/37/14/19/15/29/i255/23/13/28/28/26/14/24/25/21/i255/39/29/29/13/27/24/16/25/24/13/14/i255 /94/13/16/15/22/i255/13/35/i255/95/24/15/19/27/25/13/15/29/i255 /i255
/39/18/i255/20/16/40/26/24/15/19/93/i255/96/15/19/29/24/22/19/14/25/i255 /92/13/14/i255/92/26/17/24/14/13/93/i255/97/24/27/19/i255/96/15/19/29/24/22/19/14/25/i255/98/i255/99/13/34/25/i255/39/35/35/16/24/15/29/i255 /92/21/16/14/i255/100/38/99/15/16/22/21/93/i255/31/15/19/16/29/26/15/19/15/i255 /39/18/18/19/14/i255/101/13/26/15/28/16/14/93/i255/102/19/27/15/19/25/16/15/21/i255 /96/16/26/18/i255/103/13/14/19/29/93/i255/95/24/15/19/27/25/13/15/i255/98/i255/102/16/35/19/25/21/i255/16/14/22/i255/102/19/27/26/15/24/25/21/i255 /20/13/15/40/16/14/i255/94/13/28/17/13/21/93/i255/31/92/104/31/105/i255/96/15/13/33/19/15/25/21/i255/20/16/14/16/40/19/15/i255 /0/1/2/3/4/5/i255/7/8 /9/10/11/i255/12/13/0/14/9/15/16/13/17/15 /14/15/15/14/5/18/16/13/17/15/i255/14
/4/19/20/1/21/22/23/21/20/0/2/7/20/11/24/25/23/22/26/20/5/27/28/29/23/25/30/29/21/20/31/32/33/34/35/33/36/i255/5/1/9/9/13/17/15/20/33/37/37/38/11/15/9/13/13/15/38/12/9/14/4/17/20/11/29/23/22/22/29/i255/0/39/40/29/i255/9/41/23/i255/0/23/27/42/i255/31/32/i255/33/34/35/33/36/i255/5/35/43/43/44/36/35/45/38/33/36/9/37/46/20/5/8/1/17/5/4/3/i255/16/13/16/8/11/20/14/8/5/20/3/27/30/25/29/47/27/28/i255/16/25/41/38/43/43/44/36/35/45/48/26/49/42/i255/i255/37/33/50/45/46/50/33/36/i255/35/i255/51/19/45/52/25/40/i255/i255/12/53/27/23/26/25/28 /3/8/5/14/15/4/8/17/i255/16/14/0
/0/9/8/53/13/5/15
/3/8/5/14/15/4/8/17/11
/0/9/8/53/13/5/15
/3/8/5/14/15/4/8/17/11
/5/35/43/43/44/36/35/45/37 /46/50/45/37/50/33/37/33/36/33/36/9/37/46 /54/55/56/55/57/i255/59/60/61
/55/57/i255/62/63
/64/57/54/55
/57/56/54/55/65/66/61/67/67
/68/56/69/65
/60/59
/57/57
/11/15/9/13/13/15/i255/0/14/70/13/16/13/17/15/i255/9/13/0/14/4/9 /0/9/8/71/9/14/16/i255/31/32/i255/33/37/33/34/35/33/36
/54/56/72
/73/74/66/66/54/i255/i255/i255/59/75
/68/60/56
/76/61
/74/72
/67/60/59/75/i255/i255/i255/i255/i255/i255/59/75
/72/60/59/55/73
/67/60/59/75
/54/56/72/55/56/i255/56/72/56
/73/57/74/77/73/55/54
/56/74/59/78/60/59/55
/56/59/57/56
/65/56/79/80/74/57/64
/59/75
/68/56/69/65
/60/59
/57/57
/59/75
/74/59/80/74/72/57
/56/80/57
/65/59/74/54/55/60/66
/i255/i255/i255/i255/i255/i255/54/55
/69/56
/81/56/59/55/73/61/59
/65/66/80/75
/75/60/80
/57/59
/75/59
/69/56
/81/56/59/55/73/61/59
/65/66/80/75
/81/60/56
/54/55
/73/64/79
/65/56/81/82
/65/56/79
/75/59
/65/74/54/60/72
/56/80/57
/61/78/78/57/59
/65/56/81/82/i255/65/56/79
/66/60/64 /57/59
/65/56/81/82/i255/65/56/79
From: Jim Mosher
To: City Clerk"s Office
Cc: Dept - City Council
Subject: Comments on City Council agenda items (March 10, 2026, meeting) Date: March 09, 2026 4:55:11 PM
Attachments: 2026-03-10_CC_Agenda_Comments_JimMosher.pdf [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Report phish using the Phish Alert Button above.

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

Yours sincerely,
Jim Mosher
Received after Agenda Printed
March 10, 2026
Written Comments
March 10, 2026, City Council Agenda Comments The following comments on items on the Newport Beach City Council agenda are submitted by: Jim Mosher ( [email protected] ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach 92660 (949-548-6229) Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Early Look Review Slide 2 : The City’s Capital Improvement Program . In addition to preparing our own CIP budget, Implementation Program 1.1 of our current General Plan, citing Government Code Section 65401, says that “ When the City or any external agency responsible for the planning or implementation of public works within the City prepares its annual list of proposed public works and

its

five-year

Capital

Improvement

Program

(CIP),

these

must

submitted

the

Planning

Commission

for

review

for

conformity

with

the

adopted

General

Plan
.”

Has

this

been

happening?
Slide 5 : Summary Of New Funding By Type . How do development impact fees figure into this?

Slide 12 : Bonita Creek Park Athletic Field Turf Replacement . As Item: VII-A on its March 3, 2026,

agenda,

the

Parks,

Beaches

and

Recreation

Commission

was

asked

provide

feedback

this

project,

which

included

LED

lighting

retrofit

component

addition

the

turf

replacement.

The

staff

report

said

“
Sufficient

funds

the

amount

$3,146,000

are

available

2025-26

CIP

the

following

accounts

for

design

and

construction
”

(and

listed

GF,

NE,

FFP,

PMMP).

Why

does

this

slide

give

different

numbers,

saying

$1,800,000

needs

added

re-budget

$2,792,000

for

total

$4,592,000?
Slide 15 : New Water Wells and Pipelines . I thought water expenses were funded by the rates charged

(the

“Water

Fund”).

Who

granting

contributing

$10

million

toward

this

effort?

that

the

City

Laguna

Beach?

Are

Newport

Beach

ratepayers

paying

nothing?
Slide 18 : Estimated Construction Start Dates . In view of the following study session item, it is interesting

that

funding

support

planning

for

the

Police

Station

still

not

expected

needed

for

another

two

years.

Newport Beach Police Headquarters Reconstruction Note : Only slides 14, 16, 17 and 21 have numbers I can see, but the others are referenced by their sequence in the 21-slide presentation that has been posted in advance of the meeting. Slide 5 : Key Factors for Evaluating Police Headquarters Sites . Why are the six “evaluation criteria”

listed

here

not

prominent

when

get

Slide

19 (Police

Facility

Site

Comparison)?
Slide 6 : Potential New Police Facility at Current Site . Why is the longer construction schedule

problem?

Given

significant

recent

investments

the

current

building,

what

motivating

the

rush

move?
Slide 12 : Potential New Police Facility at 1201 Dove Street . Why is this being an “Income-producing

City

asset”

consideration?

the

Police

Headquarters

were

moved

here,

wouldn’t

the

existing

location

become

even

greater

“Income-producing

City

asset”?

March 10, 2026, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 2 of 7 Additionally, how would choice of this option affect the need to move Fire Station #3 and costs associated

with

that?
Slide 13 : Potential New Police Facility Closer to Civic Center . Much like when the City felt a need

move

the

Lido

Fire

Station

missed

chance

buy

the

former

McDonald’s

site

and

wound

having

pay

much

higher

price

for

it,

the

City

appears

have

missed

chance

buy

the

4.2 acre

Regal

Edwards

Big

Newport

site,

ideally

sited

facing

Fashion

Island.

Not

only

did

the

City

miss

the

chance,

but

jacked

the

price

would

have

had

pay

for

increasing

the

height

limit

from

32 to

270

feet

and

rezoning

for

housing.

Slide 17 : Potential New Police Facility at Civic Center Park . How would the public access the

“Reimagined

Park

Sculpture

Garden”?

the

parking

along

Avocado

south

the

Transit

Center

considered

adequate

(it

already

looks

fairly

fully

occupied

satellite

photos)?

including

the

“Upper

Park”

(much

which

the

dog

facility),

seems

misleading

say

the

impact

the

park

would

going

from

“9.45

Acres”

“5.95

Acres.”

addition

impeding

access

it,

the

numbers

show

the

relocated

Police

Headquarters

will

take

away

than

half

the

“Lower

Park.”
Slide 19 : Police Facility Site Comparison . ● As previously noted, the “Evaluation Factors” listed in the first column only vaguely align with

the

“Evaluation

Criteria”

listed

Slide

5. ● It would seem less biased to have labelled the last column “Civic Center Park” rather than

“Civic

Center

Campus.”
● In the final row, “Key Considerations,” it is curious that the Park Option is only one with no

negatives

all,

not

even

loss

dedicated,

and

perhaps

irreplaceable,

park

space.

Slide 20 : Siting / Construction of a New Police Facility . If the Council were to give the Ad Hoc

Committee

proposed

direction

the

instruction

them

“solicit

further

input

from

community”

slightly

amusing,

both

because

not

clear

the

Committee

has

felt

need

solicit

any

community

input

far

and

because

not

all

clear

exactly

how

the

Committee

might

propose

replace

the

lost

park

space

within

the

Civic

Center

Campus

area.

As a more general comment, I stand with the many who feel what remains of the original

12.8-acre

Newport

Center

Park

should

preserved

park,

and

not

viewed

potential

site

for

additional

government

buildings.

The

entire

site

was

dedicated

for

open

space

park

use.

That residents voted in 2008 to allow a City Hall on it was predicated on a promise that the City Hall would occupy less than 2.8 acres at the southern end, and the rest would be preserved for its

original

purpose.

That

promise

should

honored.

PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS Since the meetings of our Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission are not video recorded or

otherwise

reported

the

Council,

the

Council

members

may

wish

know

that

their

March

3 meeting,

Commissioners

expressed

concern

about

two

actions

taken

the

Council’s
February 24 meeting: (1) the adoption of a revised Policy G-1 (retitled “Retention and Removal of City Trees”) without their input and despite their request to make a recommendation about it, and the direction to them in City Charter Subsection 709(c) to “ Establish policies for the

March 10, 2026, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 3 of 7 acquisition, development and improvement of parks, beaches and playgrounds and for the planting,

care

and

removal

trees

and

shrubs

all

parks,

playgrounds

and

streets
,

subject

the

rights

and

powers

the

City

Council
;”

and

(2)

the

adoption,

without

a
recommendation from, or even notice to, them of Ordinance 2026-2 modifying rules for public recreational use of the beaches, specifically with regard to shade structures, despite the direction

Charter

Subsection

709(a)

advise

the

Council

all

such

matters.

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 505 , paragraph 3: “Reverand Reverend Ray Jordan – Corona del Mar Community Church
– arrived at 4:30 p.m. and provided a brief invocation .” [It’s possible Rev. Jordan prefers this unusual spelling, but see page 250 of Volume 66, from January 28, 2025, and Mayor’s thank you letter] Page 509 , Item 11, paragraph 5: “ Regarding aviation policy changes, Councilmember Grant sought

clarification

about

public

comments.

Staff

confirmed

only

the

red-line

changes

were

made,

adding
EV infrastructure EVTOL and drone references .” [There does not seem to be a YouTube posting of this meeting, but see 1:16:04 in the official video.] Page 510 , paragraph 3: “ Mayor Por Pro Tem Blom moved, seconded by Councilmember Weber,

approve

staff’s

recommendations
.”

Page 510 ends

Blom

and

Mayor

Kleiman

(4)
”
1

Page 510 ends

Item 3. Resolution No. 2026-16: Revised Salary Schedule and New Classifications

for

the

Key

Management

Group
It would have been helpful to provide organization charts showing how the two positions in question fit into the overall staff structure. From the one available, it looks like the changes are warranted. However, one might ask: With regard to the proposed Real Property Manager, is the growth in contracts due to acquisition

new

properties?

the

acquisition

properties

with

multiple

tenants,

such

1201

Dove?

With

regard

the

latter,

should

that

site

not

used

for

Police

Headquarters,

was

originally

proposed,

the

City’s

intention

continue

holding

landlord?

1 Prior to 2013, the minutes recorded the votes as “Ayes” and “Noes” as directed in the original City Charter

Section

410. Measure EE, approved by voters in 2012, changed this to its present form of “Ayes” and

“Nays.”

Why

this

change

was

recommended

and

approved

unclear,

since

“Noes”

was

the

widely-recognized

and
long-time counterpart of “Ayes,” as well as, apparently, the only one ever recognized

Roberts

Rules

Order

(although

an
earlier edition says an alternative name for a roll call is a

call

for

“yeas

and

nays,”

even

though

the

response

“aye”

“no”).

any

event,

the

Charter

currently

requires

recording

“nays”

(instead

“noes”)

and

“NAYES”

misspelling

for

that.

March 10, 2026, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 4 of 7 With regard to the proposed Code Enforcement Manager, while citations may be issued by the Code

Enforcement

Division,

aren’t

some

the

programs

administers

overseen

and

directed

other

departments:

for

example,

Municipal

Operations

for

refuse

violations,

and

the

Finance

Division

the

new

Administrative

Services

Department

for

short

term

lodging

violations?

Item 4. Resolution No. 2026-17: A Report Made by the Fire Marshal Regarding

Compliance

with

the

Annual

Inspection

Certain

Occupancies
I do not doubt our City Fire Marshal’s diligence in making all state-required annual inspections. I would, however, note that, unless directed otherwise by the City Council, this new Health and Safety Code Section 13146.4 report is expected to be presented at a meeting where the Council is discussing its annual budget, and the two sections it is to report about compliance with (Section 13146.2 and Section 13146.3) have to do, at least in part, with setting and collecting inspection fees. As such, I would guess that part of the report is expected to verify not just that the state-required inspections

have

taken

place,

but

report

whether

the

local

fees

being

charged

are

adequate

defray

the

cost

providing

the

inspections,

and

those

fees

are

being

paid.

The bill analysis of SB 1205 (2018) notes that in 2018 there was a separate SB-1415 in response to the deadly Ghost Ship nightclub fire in Oakland which, among many other things, required

reporting

the

completeness

inspections

the

State

Fire

Marshal

for

public

posting

the

records.

However,

despite

(like

1205)

passing

both

houses

the

legislature

near

unanimous

votes,

SB-1415

was

vetoed

the

Governor.

The

existence

this

other

bill

with

stronger

public

reporting

component,

and

the

requirement

that

the

1205

report

come

during

budget

discussions,

reinforces

belief

that

the

present

report

was

intended,

least

part,

inform

the

Council

and

public

about

the

adequacy

local

inspection

funding.

But in the present case, I don’t think we are being told if the annual inspection fees are being paid

are

adequate

fund

the

service

provided.

short,

the

tie-in

the

Council’s

budget

discussions

seems

lacking.

Finally, SB 1205 was signed into law in September 2018, and Section 13146.4 became effective on

January

2019.

this

the

first

1205

report?

so,

there

reason

they

weren’t

provided

prior

years?
As to whether the Council might wish to designate a time other than its annual budget discussion

for

receiving

future

1205

reports,

believe

review

our

fee

schedule

separately

from

our

main

budget

discussion.

That

annual

fee

schedule

review

meeting

might

the

most

appropriate

for

these

fire

inspection/fee

reports.

Item 5. Resolution No. 2026-18: Amending the Selection Process and Various

Responsibilities

the

Finance

Committee
Is it correct to assume this is the final recommendation of the Council’s Fiscal Transparency Ad Hoc

Committee,

and

that

with

its

submission

that

committee

ceases

exist?

March 10, 2026, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 5 of 7 As to the recommendation, I’m sure there will be other opinions, but I don’t find it entirely bad. As to the observation of an average attendance of three members of the public, that is actually good

compared

many

other

boards,

commissions

and

committees.

For

example,

attended

meetings

the

Civil

Service

Board

for

many

years

and

can

think

only

two

which

any

other

members

the

public

were

present,

even

though

staff

gives

interesting

presentations

which

time

prepare,

but

receive

further

exposure.

Now

that

rely

the

posting

the

minutes

month

later)

find

out

what

they

said,

suspect

public

attendance

zero.

obvious

solution

the

low

visibility

would

video

record

the

meetings

and

make

the

recordings

available

immediately.

The expectation that under this new structure significant financial topics would “daylight” at publicly

televised

Council

meetings

worthy

one,

but

not

sure

how

the

proposed

resolution

ensures

that

any

than

the

present

one

does.

As to “Efficient Use of City Resources,” it appeared to me many meetings under the current resolution

were

attended

many

staff

members

than

necessary,

which

likely

increases

the

number

staff

hours

reported.

Tightening requirements for technical expertise on the part of those appointed is probably wise, although

have

observed

that

the

responses

the

“dumb”

questions

that

might

asked

members

the

general

public

can

also

enlightening.

As to having “Three Councilmembers appointed annually by the Mayor,” I don’t think that is wise nor

consistent

with

our

City

Charter,

which

decisions

are

made

the

Council

acting

collectively,

not

individuals,

even

when

serving

Mayor.

believe

the

normal

application

process

should

followed,

with

multiple

applicants

voted

the

whole

Council.

Having a term limit is probably a good idea, but with two-year terms, a limit to two terms seems rather

brief.

The

proposed

language

appears

create

lifetime

limit

two

terms.

think

limit

two

consecutive

terms

would

better.

I also think the terms of the two citizen appointees should be staggered, for instance by making one

the

initial

appointments

for

one-year

term.

That

would

provide

better

continuity

than

forever

needing

replace

both

the

same

years.

As to the proposed “Clarification of Purpose and Responsibilities,” a redline comparison with the current set in Resolution No. 2024-91 would have been helpful. In the absence of that, making paper copies of proposed ordinances and resolutions available to the public would make comparison

easier.

The “Purpose” section appears to be new, and within it, I don’t think the new Finance Committee should

advising

the

City

Manager

directly.

Only

the

full

Council

should

doing

that.

Responsibility “E” is ambiguous as to whether the Finance Committee should be reviewing plans

associated

with

the

City’s

enterprise

funds

(water

and

sewer).

The

listed

responsibilities

are

also

unclear

whether

the

Committee

expected

bring

financial

issues

the

Council’s

attention

its

own

initiative.

March 10, 2026, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 6 of 7 Item 8. Approval of Amendment No. One to Professional Services Agreement

with

Hinderliter,

Llamas

Associates

for

Sales

and

Use

Tax

Consulting

Services
This item is unusual in that the dollar cost of the proposed contract approval is not mentioned in the

recommended

action

appearing

the

agenda,

nor

even

clear

from

the

staff

report.

One
has to search for the existing contract, which is apparently C-8658-1, to discover that although described as an “amendment” “to extend the term,” that earlier contract actually terminated on December

31,

2025.

As a result, even after reading the staff report, it is unclear if this a request to authorize HDL billing

$900

per

month

from

March

10 to

December

31,

2026

period

8.7 months),

or,
ignoring the California Constitution’s Article XI, Section 10(a) prohibition on retroactive compensation for work already performed, to authorize 12 full months of payment from January 1 to

December

31,

2026.

Item 11. Planning Commission Agenda for the March 5, 2026, Meeting As I have noted before, this item originally included an oral report from the Planning Director, giving

the

Council

members

chance

ask

questions

about

and

discuss

what

had

happened

the

most

recent

Planning

Commission

meeting,

and,

when

warranted,

call

decisions

for

further

review.

I have several concerns about things that happened at the March 5 meeting:
300 Newport Center Drive Condominiums (PA2025-0102) Considering public concern about the same developer’s “Museum House” proposal a few years ago,

found

disturbing

that

this

application

for

essentially

two

Museum

House

towers

could

proceed

with

site-specific

environmental

review

and

only

Planning

Commission

sign-off.

This

certainly

not

something

the

state

“forcing”

Newport

Beach

approve,

and

think

the

public

expects

deliberate

consideration

such

major

projects,

including

vote

their

City

Council

members.

That

the

Council

has

essentially

pre-approved

this,

and

many

other,

major

projects

without

knowing

any

the

details

them

seem

shameful

me.

Wireless Service Facilities Code Amendments (PA2021-103) I appreciate there are different opinions as to how vigorously the City should be promoting commercial

telecom

deployment.

But

City

staff

admitted

their

present

effort

contained

many

technical

defects

that

would

need

reviewed

and

resolved,

and

least

two

the

Commissioners

expressed

concerns

about

the

City

exempting

itself

from

the

rules

applicable

others.

Yet

they

all

voted

recommend

the

Council

adopt

it,

with

comments

the

Council.

thought

the

Planning

Commission’s

role

was

work

with

staff

get

things

right

before

they

forward

them

the

Council,

least

forward

them

with

recommended

changes

they

think

changes

are

needed.

Apparently

not.

March 10, 2026, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 7 of 7 PC - future agenda items The Community Development Department’s Tentative Agenda Report distributed at the meeting indicates that the City’s comprehensive General Plan Update is expected to be adopted after a single

study

session

and

single

public

hearing,

each,

the

Planning

Commission

(March

19 and

April

23)

and

the

City

Council

(April

28 and

May

12).

I don’t know how long City staff expects those meetings to run, but this may be contrasted with the

litany

study

sessions

and

hearings

held

the

last

time

comprehensive

update

was
considered, as recorded in the preamble to its adoption with Council Resolution No. 2006-76. While the comparison is slightly imperfect since the Housing and Circulation Elements were adopted separately this time, preceding the 2006 adoption the Planning Commission and Council

each

held

25 meetings

each,

with

detailed

discussion

and

public

input

every

element.

the

four

months

preceding

adoption,

and

with

the

GPAC

having

completed

its

work,

they

each

held

eight

formal

public

hearings

the

elements

(each

meeting

twice

month),

with

those

the

Council,

for

which

there

are

video

records,

spanning

total

16 hours.

It does not look like there will be anything like that level of comprehensive review, and invitation for

public

comment

decision

makers,

this

latest

“comprehensive”

update.

Item IV. MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION The Council may wish to reconsider its approval, at the February 24, 2026, meeting of the February 10, 2026, minutes. The result of the voting on Items 3 (page 500) and 11 (page 501) is not recorded in them . It seems important for the minutes to show not just the motions, but what the results were. In the present case, knowing what the vote was seems particularly important

with

regard

Item

which

was

the

potential

adoption

controversial

ordinance

regarding

“safety

enhancement

zones,”

short

term

lodgings

and

shade

structures

public

beaches.

In addition to the absence of those two voting results, in two places, pages 497 and 501, the surname of citizen speaker Jennifer Krestan is misspelled as “Creston.”

Newport Beach City CouncilMarch 10, 2026

Newport Beach City Council
March 10, 2026