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
be
submitted
to
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
to
provide
feedback
on
this
project,
which
included
an
LED
lighting
retrofit
component
in
addition
to
the
turf
replacement.
The
staff
report
said
“
Sufficient
funds
in
the
amount
of
$3,146,000
are
available
in
FY
2025-26
CIP
in
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
to
be
added
to
a
re-budget
of
$2,792,000
for
a
total
of
$4,592,000?
Slide 15 : New Water Wells and Pipelines . I thought water expenses were funded by the rates charged
(the
“Water
Fund”).
Who
is
granting
or
contributing
$10
million
toward
this
effort?
Is
that
the
City
of
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
to
support
planning
for
the
Police
Station
is
still
not
expected
to
be
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
we
get
to
Slide
19 (Police
Facility
Site
Comparison)?
Slide 6 : Potential New Police Facility at Current Site . Why is the longer construction schedule
a
problem?
Given
significant
recent
investments
in
the
current
building,
what
is
motivating
the
rush
to
move?
Slide 12 : Potential New Police Facility at 1201 Dove Street . Why is this being an “Income-producing
City
asset”
a
consideration?
If
the
Police
Headquarters
were
moved
here,
wouldn’t
the
existing
location
become
an
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
to
move
the
Lido
Fire
Station
it
missed
a
chance
to
buy
the
former
McDonald’s
site
and
wound
up
having
to
pay
a
much
higher
price
for
it,
the
City
appears
to
have
missed
a
chance
to
buy
the
4.2 acre
Regal
Edwards
Big
Newport
site,
ideally
sited
facing
Fashion
Island.
Not
only
did
the
City
miss
the
chance,
but
it
jacked
up
the
price
it
would
have
had
to
pay
for
it
by
increasing
the
height
limit
from
32 to
270
feet
and
rezoning
it
for
housing.
Slide 17 : Potential New Police Facility at Civic Center Park . How would the public access the
“Reimagined
Park
&
Sculpture
Garden”?
Is
the
parking
along
Avocado
south
of
the
Transit
Center
considered
adequate
(it
already
looks
fairly
fully
occupied
in
satellite
photos)?
By
including
the
“Upper
Park”
(much
of
which
is
the
dog
facility),
it
seems
misleading
to
say
the
impact
on
the
park
would
be
going
from
“9.45
Acres”
to
“5.95
Acres.”
In
addition
to
impeding
access
to
it,
the
numbers
show
the
relocated
Police
Headquarters
will
take
away
more
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
on
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
at
all,
not
even
loss
of
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
2,
the
instruction
to
them
to
“solicit
further
input
from
community”
is
slightly
amusing,
both
because
it
is
not
clear
the
Committee
has
felt
a
need
to
solicit
any
community
input
so
far
and
because
it
is
not
at
all
clear
exactly
how
the
Committee
might
propose
to
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
be
preserved
as
a
park,
and
not
viewed
as
a
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
be
honored.
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS Since the meetings of our Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission are not video recorded or
otherwise
reported
to
the
Council,
the
Council
members
may
wish
to
know
that
at
their
March
3 meeting,
Commissioners
expressed
concern
about
two
actions
taken
at
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
of
trees
and
shrubs
in
all
parks,
playgrounds
and
streets
,
subject
to
the
rights
and
powers
of
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
in
Charter
Subsection
709(a)
to
advise
the
Council
on
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,
to
approve
staff’s
recommendations
.”
Blom
and
Mayor
Kleiman
(4)
”
1
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
of
new
properties?
Or
to
the
acquisition
of
properties
with
multiple
tenants,
such
as
1201
Dove?
With
regard
to
the
latter,
should
that
site
not
be
used
for
a
Police
Headquarters,
as
was
originally
proposed,
is
it
the
City’s
intention
to
continue
holding
it
as
a
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
is
unclear,
since
“Noes”
was
the
widely-recognized
and
long-time counterpart of “Ayes,” as well as, apparently, the only one ever recognized
in
Roberts
Rules
of
Order
(although
an
earlier edition says an alternative name for a roll call is a
call
for
“yeas
and
nays,”
even
though
the
response
is
“aye”
or
“no”).
In
any
event,
the
Charter
currently
requires
a
recording
of
“nays”
(instead
of
“noes”)
and
“NAYES”
is
a
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
of
the
programs
it
administers
overseen
and
directed
by
other
departments:
for
example,
Municipal
Operations
for
refuse
violations,
and
the
Finance
Division
of
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
of
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
to
report
on
whether
the
local
fees
being
charged
are
adequate
to
defray
the
cost
of
providing
the
inspections,
and
if
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
of
the
completeness
of
inspections
to
the
State
Fire
Marshal
for
public
posting
of
the
records.
However,
despite
(like
SB
1205)
passing
both
houses
of
the
legislature
by
near
unanimous
votes,
SB-1415
was
vetoed
by
the
Governor.
The
existence
of
this
other
bill
with
a
stronger
public
reporting
component,
and
the
requirement
that
the
SB
1205
report
come
during
budget
discussions,
reinforces
my
belief
that
the
present
report
was
intended,
at
least
in
part,
to
inform
the
Council
and
public
about
the
adequacy
of
local
inspection
funding.
But in the present case, I don’t think we are being told if the annual inspection fees are being paid
or
are
adequate
to
fund
the
service
provided.
In
short,
the
tie-in
to
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
1,
2019.
Is
this
the
first
SB
1205
report?
If
so,
is
there
a
reason
they
weren’t
provided
in
prior
years?
As to whether the Council might wish to designate a time other than its annual budget discussion
for
receiving
future
SB
1205
reports,
I
believe
we
review
our
fee
schedule
separately
from
our
main
budget
discussion.
That
annual
fee
schedule
review
meeting
might
be
the
most
appropriate
for
these
fire
inspection/fee
reports.
Item 5. Resolution No. 2026-18: Amending the Selection Process and Various
Responsibilities
of
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
to
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
to
many
other
boards,
commissions
and
committees.
For
example,
I
attended
meetings
of
the
Civil
Service
Board
for
many
years
and
can
think
of
only
two
at
which
any
other
members
of
the
public
were
present,
even
though
staff
gives
interesting
presentations
which
time
to
prepare,
but
receive
no
further
exposure.
Now
that
I
rely
on
the
posting
of
the
minutes
(a
month
later)
to
find
out
what
they
said,
I
suspect
public
attendance
is
zero.
An
obvious
solution
to
the
low
visibility
would
be
to
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
is
a
worthy
one,
but
I
am
not
sure
how
the
proposed
resolution
ensures
that
any
more
than
the
present
one
does.
As to “Efficient Use of City Resources,” it appeared to me many meetings under the current resolution
were
attended
by
many
more
staff
members
than
necessary,
which
likely
increases
the
number
of
staff
hours
reported.
Tightening requirements for technical expertise on the part of those appointed is probably wise, although
I
have
observed
that
the
responses
to
the
“dumb”
questions
that
might
be
asked
by
members
of
the
general
public
can
also
be
enlightening.
As to having “Three Councilmembers appointed annually by the Mayor,” I don’t think that is wise nor
consistent
with
our
City
Charter,
in
which
decisions
are
made
by
the
Council
acting
collectively,
not
as
individuals,
even
when
serving
as
Mayor.
I
believe
the
normal
application
process
should
be
followed,
with
multiple
applicants
voted
on
by
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
to
create
a
lifetime
limit
of
two
terms.
I
think
a
limit
to
two
consecutive
terms
would
be
better.
I also think the terms of the two citizen appointees should be staggered, for instance by making one
of
the
initial
appointments
for
a
one-year
term.
That
would
provide
better
continuity
than
forever
needing
to
replace
both
in
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
be
advising
the
City
Manager
directly.
Only
the
full
Council
should
be
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
as
to
whether
the
Committee
is
expected
to
bring
financial
issues
to
the
Council’s
attention
on
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,
De
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
on
the
agenda,
nor
is
it
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
at
$900
per
month
from
March
10 to
December
31,
2026
(a
period
of
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
a
chance
to
ask
questions
about
and
discuss
what
had
happened
at
the
most
recent
Planning
Commission
meeting,
and,
when
warranted,
call
decisions
up
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,
I
found
it
disturbing
that
this
application
for
essentially
two
Museum
House
towers
could
proceed
with
no
site-specific
environmental
review
and
only
Planning
Commission
sign-off.
This
is
certainly
not
something
the
state
is
“forcing”
Newport
Beach
to
approve,
and
I
think
the
public
expects
more
deliberate
consideration
of
such
major
projects,
including
a
vote
on
it
by
their
City
Council
members.
That
the
Council
has
essentially
pre-approved
this,
and
many
other,
major
projects
without
knowing
any
of
the
details
of
them
seem
shameful
to
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
to
be
reviewed
and
resolved,
and
at
least
two
of
the
Commissioners
expressed
concerns
about
the
City
exempting
itself
from
the
rules
applicable
to
others.
Yet
they
all
voted
to
recommend
the
Council
adopt
it,
with
no
comments
to
the
Council.
I
thought
the
Planning
Commission’s
role
was
to
work
with
staff
to
get
things
right
before
they
forward
them
to
the
Council,
or
at
least
forward
them
with
recommended
changes
if
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
a
single
public
hearing,
each,
by
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
of
study
sessions
and
hearings
held
the
last
time
a
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
at
25 meetings
each,
with
detailed
discussion
and
public
input
on
every
element.
In
the
four
months
preceding
adoption,
and
with
the
GPAC
having
completed
its
work,
they
each
held
eight
formal
public
hearings
on
the
elements
(each
meeting
twice
a
month),
with
those
of
the
Council,
for
which
there
are
video
records,
spanning
a
total
of
16 hours.
It does not look like there will be anything like that level of comprehensive review, and invitation for
public
comment
to
decision
makers,
on
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
to
Item
3,
which
was
the
potential
adoption
of
a
controversial
ordinance
regarding
“safety
enhancement
zones,”
short
term
lodgings
and
shade
structures
on
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.”