March 24, 2026, City Council Agenda Comments
The following comments on items on the Newport Beach City Council agenda are submitted by:
Jim Mosher ( [email protected] ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach 92660 (949-548-6229) Item 2. Minutes for the March 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 the 395-page agenda packet, since the draft posted identifies neither the volume nor page number in the Council minutes archive.
interest: Balboa Yacht Basin Dock Replacement Project and Vessel Sewage Pump Out Replacement (based on his financial relationship with a client who owns an adjacent property) and Birch Street) and – Bristol Street to Jamboree Road Street Improvements (based on interest in 4100 and 4110 MacArthur Blvd).”
interest: Balboa Island Drainage Pump Station, Balboa Island Seawall - Permitting & Sign Design, and the Balboa Island Tide Valve Replacement due to an interest in real property at 224 Marine, as well as a conflict based on real property interests at 417 and 501 30th Street with the Balboa Island Concrete and Road and Alley Improvements and Via Lido Pavement Rehabilitation.”
microplastics.”
videos of the City Council meetings, the City Charter required written minutes serving as a helpful guide to the more detailed content that can be found in the complete video record. This page records that 43 different members of the public spoke regarding plans to rebuild the police headquarters facility. However, the names are not reliably listed in the order in which they spoke,1 nor is the nature of what they said always clear or accurate. For example, Balboa Island resident Dennis Bress spoke first, supporting Option 3 for reconstructing the police facility at its current location, yet he is listed as the 27th speaker and erroneously characterized as having favored building a new police facility in the Civic Center park.
Sean Hanna, Lily Lieberman, Maryanne Mary Ann Soden, Roy Englebrecht, Ron Vanderhoff, Walter Star Stahr, Tony Petros, Rhonda Watkins, Paul Watkins, Debbie Stevens, Dorothy Larson, Denys Oberman, Karen Clark, Laura Curran, and George Leslie spoke against relocating the police station at the Civic Center Park.” [comment: It is unclear why anything about these speakers’ individual comments has been omitted, while those of other speakers have been included. The video shows most of these raising different points, often as different as the speakers separately listed.
1 When names are combined on a single line, they appear to be listed in the order they spoke, but where they appeared in the overall sequence, and hence in the video, is unclear.
Received After Agenda Printed
March 24, 2026
Written Comments
March 24, 2026, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 2 of 4
station
at
its
current
site.
, Omar Herrera, Margarita Avila, Ruth Kobayashi, David Gonzalez, Neil
DeWitt,
and
an
unidentified
speaker
spoke
in
favor
of
relocating
the
police
station
to
the
Civic
Center
Park
.”
facility
.”
Committee
on
Utilization
of
Lower
Castaways
and
Aquatic
Center
Site
Options
and
announced
park
recommendations
would
be
presented
at
the
next
City
Council
meeting
.”
{comment:
The
minutes
are
accurate,
but
it
looks
like
this
is
not
happening.]
Item 3. Resolution No. 2026-19: Finding Consistency with Stated Investment
Objectives
and
Amending
City
Council
Policy
F-1
(Statement
of
Investment
Policy)
to
Incorporate
Changes
in
Government
Code
Section
53600,
Et
Seq
The proposed revision to Subsection G.1.i)iii (at the bottom on agenda packet page 27) – mostly changing a date, and apparently the only change being proposed to the body of the policy – strikes
me
as
missing
an
opportunity
to
correct
a
poorly
added
previous
revision.
As
currently
written
and
as
proposed,
the
first
sentence
places
a
limit
of
25%
on
the
amount
of
the
CIty’s
total
investments
that
can
be
in
“commercial
paper.”
The
following
sentence,
which
is
being
revised,
seems
intended
to
temporarily
replace
that
with
a
40%
limit
whenever
the
total
investments
are
$100,000
or
more.
However,
it
doesn’t
say
it
supersedes
the
25%
limit.
So
when
the
assets
exceed
$100,000
during
the
temporary
period,
we
have
two
contradictory
directions,
with
no
indication
of
which
prevails.
I
see
no
reason
for
creating
such
contradictions.
Item 5. Award of Maintenance/Repair Services Agreement with California
PPE
Recon
Inc.
for
Fire
Department
Turnout
Maintenance
and
Cleaning
Services
Since the scores assigned to the potential contractors are stated to have been a composite of several
elements,
including
cost,
it
would
have
been
helpful
to
display
the
scores
in
each
category,
and
not
just
the
total
score.
Item 7. Amendment No. One to Professional Services Agreement with COAR
Design
Group
and
Approval
of
Professional
Services
Agreement
with
Geocon
West,
Inc.
The staff report does not clearly explain what has changed that would create new services needed
from
COAR
that
were
not
included
in
the
original
contract
approved
by
the
Council.
March 24, 2026, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 3 of 4 Item 9. 2025 General Plan and Housing Element Annual Progress Reports
(PA2025-0008)
Considerable effort appears to have gone into preparing this report. However, as might be expected
in
a
work
of
this
size,
it
is
not
without
imperfections.
One of the more obvious is the date on which Housing Opportunity Overlay Districts were added to the focus areas in the Zoning Code, which according to the notations in the code itself, occurred via Ordinance No. 2024-16, adopted on September 24, 2024, with amendments by Ordinance No. 2025-10, adopted on June 24, 2025. Page 10 of the report mentions the Zoning Code amendments, but does not give their date. Page 11, in the paragraph at the top explaining Table C, suggests the date was previously noted
(which
it
does
not
appear
to
have
been),
and
suggests
it
occurred
“during
the
Reporting
Period”
(which
it
does
not,
it
occurred
in
the
previous
Reporting
Period,
2024).
It
also
suggests
review
of
the
zoning
changes
by
the
Coastal
Commission
is
expected
in
March,
which
did
not
happen.
review
in
March
2026.
date
of
Ordinance
No.
2024-16).
What bothers me, however, is not such minor technical inconsistencies, but rather the bigger picture
question
(apparently
not
required
to
be
answered
by
the
state),
of
how
the
City
is
tracking
its
ability
to
meet
its
RHNA
requirements,
especially
for
affordable
units,
within
the
8,174-unit
cap
it
has
set
for
development
on
its
opportunity
sites,
a
number
that
does
not
seem
to
appear
anywhere
in
the
report.
I believe that to meet that affordable unit quota, our Housing Plan assumed about one-third of the
8,174
would
develop
in
the
affordable
category.
Yet
the
“Table
A
Summary”
on
page
9 of
the
report
suggests
they
are
being
applied
for
at
a
much
lower
rate.
Each
new
approval
at
a
lower
rate
eats
into
the
8,174,
and
(to
meet
the
affordable
quota)
will
require
the
remainder
to
develop
at
an
even
higher
rate.
Eventually,
the
few
parcels
left
available
for
approval
would
have
to
develop
at
more
than
100%
affordable.
I
don’t
see
any
indication
of
this
being
tracked,
which
is
worrisome.
Item 11. Planning Commission Agenda for the March 19, 2026, Meeting
The Council may notice from the Action Report that the Planning Commission conducted a “Study Session” on the proposed Newport Beach 2050 General Plan affecting the City for the next 24 years. Considering the material to be studied consists of some 188 pages of draft documents, containing 568 proposed policies organized under 99 goals (not to mention the separate Circulation and very lengthy Housing element with which all those are supposed to be
March 24, 2026, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 4 of 4 consistent), the Council may be surprised to learn from the video that the entire study session took less than 17 minutes to complete, to be followed by a single public hearing on all that. This might be compared to the many hours of study sessions and the four solid months of public hearings
spent
reviewing
every
element
in
detail
before
the
last
comprehensive
General
Plan
update was approved in 2006 (as listed in the preamble to City Council Resolution No. 2006-76).
Item IV.A. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL ANTICIPATED
LITIGATION
-
THREAT
OF
LITIGATION
Although it does not appear to be required by the Brown Act, this item is unusual in that it does not
cite
the
Brown
Act
provision
justifying
a
non-public
(closed
session)
discussion
of
the
announced
topic.
Since
it
says
“Threat
of
Litigation,”
it
implies
the
session
is
justified
under
Government Code section 54956.9, paragraphs (d)(2) [significant exposure to litigation] and (e)(3) [receipt of a written communication from a potential plaintiff threatening litigation]. The City Attorney is to be commended for making the letter alleged to contain the threat readily available for public inspection. But having read the letter, I think the item is mislabeled. While a failure to respond to this Brown Act “cure or correct” letter would certainly expose the City
to
litigation
(if
it
fails
to
correct
the
problem
as
requested),
I
do
not
see
any
actual
threat
of
litigation
in
the
letter.
It
simply
asks
the
City
to
correct
what
it
alleges
to
have
been
a
Brown
Act
violation.
It
could
have
said
“if
you
do
not
respond
within
30 days,
I
intend
to
file
an
action
as
permitted
by
the
Brown
Act.”
But
it
does
not.
The justification for the closed session appears to be paragraph (e)(2) [circumstances that might result
in
litigation
against
the
agency
and
that
are
known
to
a
potential
plaintiff]
not
(e)(3).
As a result, I think the agenda notice should have simply said “ANTICIPATED LITIGATION - Significant
exposure
to
litigation”
and
not
“Threat
of
Litigation.”
As to the substance of the matter, I think the letter raises a very valid concern about the misleading
notice
for
the
February
10 agenda
item
introducing
an
ordinance
establishing
new
regulations
for
shade
coverings
on
all
public
beaches
at
all
times.
The
Council
may
recall
the
ordinance was introduced without redlining to make clear what was being changed. In my own comments on the item (hampered by no longer having paper copies to review), I completely missed the intent of the shade covering changes. I trusted not only the agenda announcement, but also the staff report which indicated (in passing, and only on the fourth page) nothing more than that the ordinance “clarifies” the shade covering rules applicable “during periods of heavy beach
use.”
I
had
no
idea
it
proposed
year-long
changes
to
beach
regulations.
Under the circumstances, I think the Council would be foolhardy to ignore the letter and expose the
City
to
lengthy
and
costly
litigation,
when
correcting
the
alleged
violation
–
by
simply
re-introducing
the
shade
covering
portion
of
the
ordinance
for
a
proper
public
discussion
–
is
so
simple.