Non-Agenda Items - Correspondence — Newport Beach City Council, April 14, 2026

From: Garrett, Errica
Sent: March 24, 2026 3: 00 PM
To: Dept - City Clerk
Subject: FW: Dock tax
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: Holly Winder < hollywinder@hotmail. com>
Sent: March 24, 2026 2: 35 PM
To: Dept - City Council< CityCouncil@newportbeachca. gov> Subject: Dock tax
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 increase our dock tax !
Holly Winder
326 Buena Vista
Newport Beach CA 92661
April 14, 2026
Non Agenda Item Correspondence
From: Dana Place < danaplace2@gmail. com>
Sent: April 06, 2026 5: 47 PM
To: Younger, Cameron; Stapleton, Joe; Jurjis, Seimone; City Clerk' s Office Subject: Re: The Shore at Lido Marina Village
Attachments: IMG_ 7975. PNG; IMG_ 7976. PNG; IMG_ 7978. PNG; IMG_ 7979. PNG; IMG_ 7983. PNG; IMG_ 7985. PNG; IMG_ 7984. PNG; IMG_ 7989. PNG; IMG_ 7990. PNG; IMG_ 7987. PNG; IMG_ 7988. PNG
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.

Asa follow up and byway of an update I'm cc' ing everyone who replied to my original concerns. The Shore at Lido Marina Village Instagram now is promoting a Coachella type event with a floating dock on the water for 10 days from May 8- 17. Do they have a permit for this? With LIVE DJ? This is very worrisome and needs swift action; likely on a faster response and timeline than the planning department normally follows.

I'm also attaching images from a disturbing post on Instagram this weekend by @livewithaxel where extreme happenings are posted with video reels.

Screenshots are provided but if you research the link, the commentators say " we' ve been to Santa Ana, this is not as bad as Santa Ana" so this is what is being promoted and going viral online about Newport Beach? Our similarities to Santa Ana although it' s not as bad? The reel features a live fight of two women in the parking lot outside Stag Bar and is going viral about Newport Beach.

Now with a new real estate developer attempting to go viral with large events in our quiet village just off Lido Isle where the shopping has been targeted to the local resident. None of this is serving the local community and seems to be occurring with disregard to zoing, parking and permit approvals. Many shop owners are very upset and these new visitors are NOT the Lido Marina Village target customer. The parking garage is full at 9am and there is nowhere to park. Yet the people still keep coming!
I know you' re in the process of investigation but I wanted to help update you with these images and online resources. I' ve included screenshots of the comments from local Newport Beach residents in their 20' s- 40' s who seem alarmed. It is a good pulse of the response of a typical peninsula late night local customer' s opinion.

I don' t envy yourjobs; thank you for being on top of this and good luck! 5= 0 . e.r .
44 00
V. Q Q

r
1 1 1
r
5: 20 JE
Q) Q 44 r3) 5 V Q
T Liked by tsgnewportbeach and others
drenchedla Rumors are TRUE... be a part of
the FIRST Floating Wellness Festival!
Our yacht classes sold out in just 30 minutes
don' t miss your chance! Limited spots.

For 10 days, Drenched takes over a 10,000 sq.
ft. floating dock in Newport Beach Harbor —
the ultimate wellness playground on the water.

Thinly Pilates and Coachella just had a
wellness baby.

Board the yacht first, cruise the harbor, and
step onto a floating destination alive with
music, sun, and ocean energy.

Experience:

Signature Drenched Pilates, breath work,
sound baths, dance fusions and boxing
Live DJs setting the rhythm for every class &
sunset
Luxury wellness vendors & curated pop - ups
Sign up on our website ( link in bio).

On Tue, Mar 24, 2026 at 11: 59 AM Younger, Cameron < CYoungerPnewportbeachca. gov> wrote:

Hi Dana,
Thank you for reaching out and expressing your concerns regarding the project. There was no prior zoning approval given to this applicant as this is their first time submitting. At this time, this is project is awaiting holistic department review where all elements, including parking, will be evaluated.

If you have any additional questions or concerns, please let me know or feel free to give me a call to discuss further.

Best regards,
Cameron Younger
Planning Technician
Community Development
Department
Office: 949- 644- 3228
100 Civic Center Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92660
AM 16
f{ • CRY OF
0 NEWPORT REi4CH

AVE TIME
a { r
adyn°
kPp tho
i
trip to the counter
4 PPL OflUnE
a„
CIviCPortatIrma
I
CfrY OF F
r NEWPORTREACH
SAVE TIME apoarYrtt?kPptM RPPLY
trip
to thecounterGUIRE
an
CIV
ort Ei Irrea
From:

Dana Place < danaplace2C«)gmail. com> Date:

Monday, March 23, 2026at 2: 05PMTo:

Stapleton, Joe < [email protected]> Subject:

The Shore at LidoMarina Village EXTERNAL
EMAIL] DO NOTCLICKlinks or attachmentsunless you recognizethe senderand knowthe contentis safe.

Reportphish using the PhishAlert Buttonabove. Councilmember Stapleton,
I'm a registered voter in your district. Ijust sent a public comment for review at tomorrow' s meeting regarding Redwood West concerns, but wanted to take this additional concern offline from that submission, discussion with you first, to learn more before making a public comment submission.

I've been in touch with Redwood West regarding leasing The Shore at Lido Marina Village and have some concerns about their goals for pop up events to " go viral" in that space.

With the parking limitations already in our area combined with the chaos lessons the area endured during Covid where additional policing of jumpers was needed on the Lido Bridge an injured jumper at low tide ended up on our dock with emergency personnel breaking through the fence to access him), to overflow parking concerns onto Lido Isle becoming troublesome due to the already existing parking challenges for the Lido Marina Village area, I have concerns about their intent for this space.

When they converted this space just a few months ago, was there any official application for zoning approval where they stated their intent for its use and outlined how the parking would be accommodated? Or was it not required since it is simply an extension of their already existing retail property?
While I inquired about a lease to utilize the space along a launch of a new brand, they weren' t prepared with the acumen to honestly even discuss these parameters and the employee soliciting me for a 35k rental price for a weekend, was not even a licensed commercial agent nor seemed prepared to understand or discuss normal event marketing details. The 35k weekend price being substantially higher than a normal 30- day a month brick and mortar location lease price, almost indicates they are targeting very high foot traffic events for a vendor to justify that lease expense number; where are all these people going to park?
While I'm simply reaching out with these questions to learn more, I'm actually interested to see the zoning ordinance for the space, the occupancy limits and just generally understand how the venue has been approved for use.

Thank you for your time and assistance,
Dana Place
949. 386. 6595
10: 10 6 ^ E
Q 3,158 0 99
f' 44 V 3,255 Q
livewithaxel Just another peaceful night in
0C
orangecounty # fyp # pov # funny # reel
March 20
10: 10 . ^ 6
Q 31158 0 99 fE 44 V 3,255 Q
livewithaxel Just another peaceful night in
0C
orangecounty # fyp # pov # funny # reel
March 20
A 9 V. Q a
0% 01 1 11 1 1%- 1 1 Er7
treyfullerton 1w
Santa ana and costa mesa people
coming to Newport. Stay away.
164
Reply
View 14 more replies
chrisinsocali Tw
Let' s get this right... in Newport n
where all the 909ers go...
15 Reply
View 3 more replies
williamgarner 1w
Not one single person who lives
Ca
here in sight
44 Reply
a. lop8 2w
Next round . where you can catch
What do you think of this?
F
0% 01 1 11 1 1%- 1 1 Er7
a scaneiixleTTer a oa
Out of towners lol
Reply See translation
chrisinsocali 5d
@mrcatchafayde needs to head out
to Newport!
Reply
nealfuji 6d
Bringing ghetto to Newport
Reply
southcountyaustin 1 w
Oh hi mark
Reply
williamgarner I
Not one single person who lives
C4
here in sight
44 IPA
What do you think of this?
F
14: 24 9 A C3,
@oc. hoods
7 Y ,
9 View 4 more replies
jencyrogersjohnson 6h
Newport berry farms
Reply
28 View 2 more replies
anana. x. aaron 13h
That Pipeline spot right there has Dr
Pepper Dip & Dots it
is
Reply
View 3 more replies
IOfbugg 12h
Oh my god can we bring back
burning cars at Huntington Beach
please Mr. BBQ
M Join the conversation...
10: 21 A car
W
1W
@oe. hoods
M
yashicall 1 1
Two wards..... SPRING BREAK
Reply
View 1 more reply
joshkrogers 12h
Just like LA used to be nice, before
the non citizens infested it. Prob
another 20 years and Corona Del
Mar will be the same
Reply
View 5 more replies
bebeo_ 343412h
miss when it was wholesome clean
fun going to Newport Beach 0 .........

IbW Join the conversation...

M
a
30 Q
225
ED

10. 20 A C3,
@oc. hoods
View 4 more replies

85. thewitnesshb 4h
Make all lanes of the 55,
northbound....

Reply
View 2 more replies
IS justinred1312h
Newport Beach where everything
you do is illegal s
Reply
View 4 more replies
0 iogw453512h
remember Newport use to be such
a chill spot
MM Join the conversation...
0 n
39 Q
25 152
E
B
10: 2 2 9 A C3,
@oc. hoods
0 s rushfan900012h
This is y I stopped going there
n
itsghetto time over summer
5 Reply
n= detroitnashty h
Torta hunters
Reply
5 jarit_ cs I ..1
Edgars takeover
0 Reply See translation
1 itchuwanadance Sh
Brown people activities
Reply
3 AA beachiniife 9h
IF
M Join the conversation...

I
10: 2 2
Gcc.ht d
aft, OIL
40 Q Search • What happened in Newport Beach
I' m so sick of visitors on the
beaches that don' t respect the area 2
for those of us that live here! Time
to cut back on rentals or impose
some strict rulesA
Reply
M15yearoldkateparryhourseswag 121,.

Did they all check in with those
C
white dudes? 10
Reply
View 1 more reply
griggstagram2812h
Take that shit back to Santa ana
T Join the conversation... E
10: 21
r
i
@oo. ho s
PqW
f-
r
A
40 L- c ) uaiuri • vvrldL riapperieu i i i IIevvPOI r aederI iievvpur L Uuuiu wive rriiti pruuielTI uy
33 playing nothing but country &
classic rock to detour the club
crowd... but they' d lose a lot of
money. guess if you wanna profit off
the culture you gotta deal with the
realities of the culture
Reply
misguidedclothing190113h
They burned out the spotO
Q
Reply
10 View 1 more reply
its venesssa 12h
Not one local
r,
13 Join the conversation...
c,
10: 21 7 r A C3,
@oc. hoods
Y
s
Z
CZ Search • What happened in Newport Beach
Reply
thatgoidenphyllis 3h
Edgar' s Kickback 2026
Reply
jeieven_ 1::;
Make the parking more expensive
and enforce strict towing regulations
33 Reply
thedarkhorse84 I I h
What happened to Newport? 4
Reply
2 T Join the conversation... F
From: Garrett, Errica
Sent: April 06, 2026 5: 29 PM
To: Dept - City Clerk
Subject: FW: Request for Confirmation of City Council Decision 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 < ron@eastbluff. net>
Sent: April 06, 2026 5: 12 PM
To: Kleiman, Lauren < Ikleiman@newportbeachca. gov>
Cc: Dept - City Council< CityCouncil@newportbeachca. gov> Subject: Request for Confirmation of City Council Decision EXTERNALEMAIL] DO NOT CLICKlinks or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button above. 4/ 6/ 2026
To: Lauren Kleiman, Mayor
Honorable Mayor Kleiman.

In the recent StuNews edition on 04/ 03/ 26 there is an article by Councilmember Sara Weber concerning the Council' s recent decision to evaluate the Civic Center Park as the preferred location for a new Police Department headquarters. ( Here is the link to the full article: https:// stunewsnewport. com/ my- turn- 040326/)
In her article, Councilmember Weber emphasized certain key facts about the recent decision to select the Civic Center Park site from the locations in the staff report, to be the location for a new Police Department Headquarters building. My question is whether other sites in the report, including land across the street from the Civic Center, were ruled out for future consideration.

Councilmember Weber' s statements are:

1. " The only direction to staff was to proceed with analysis of the Civic Center site, and to begin seeking input from the community and the Arts Commission on how art and open space could be thoughtfully incorporated. Dove Street and Santa Barbara were not removed from consideration. The action taken was to advance study of the Civic Center, not to choose it."

2. " I've heard thoughtful questions from the community about environmental impacts, local habitats, fuel storage, security, traffic, and how a facility like this would fit within the Civic Center. All excellent questions. And questions I wish I had the answers to, but don' t, which is exactly why we' ve directed staff to do this analysis so we can have real answers, not assumptions."

3. " At this early stage, we owe it to the community to spend reasonable time and resources to clearly understand what the Civic Center option could look like, which spaces it might use, its potential."

4. " Just as a reminder, no decisions have been made, and no formal project has been initiated. We are just beginning to evaluate what the Civic Center site could look like." Please confirm if these statements by Councilmember Weber are consistent with the direction of City Council approved by 6 to 1 vote. There were statements made by council members at the meeting that the other locations will not be further considered.

I will share your clarification with our HOA members who question why the other locations were eliminated before the Civic Center Park location was thoroughly studied and evaluated as a potential site.

Thank you,
Ron Rubino, Board Director, Government Affairs Eastbluff Homeowners' Community Association From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

City Clerk's Office
April 06, 2026 10:49 AM
Mulvey, Jennifer
FW: Question re Minutes & Transcript of City Council meetings From: Laura Curran <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 6, 2026 10:48:55 AM (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: City Clerk's Office <[email protected]>; Dept - City Council <[email protected]>
Subject: Question re Minutes & Transcript of City Council meetings [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.

The Council and Public benefits from clear, transparent information about the Council discussion and public input.
the Agenda for the April 7, 2026 Council meeting includes additional Written Comments from past meetings. Re the Minutes of City Council Meeting on March 1 O summarize who spoke at the meeting. Unfortunately, in most cases, subject of the comments is not included. The 1st paragraph only lists the names of speakers. Further, starting in paragraph 2, the subsequent Speaker names with notes provided are simplistic and not informative.

Complete Minutes help the Council and Public gain an understanding of the issue from reading. That is not possible from the Minutes on the March 1 O Civic Center item.

Please consider options and implement a practice to provide Council and the Public with clear, comprehensive Minutes from Discussions and Public Comment.

Thank you Laura Curran

PUBLIC COMMENTS
Don Webb, Ron Rubino, Nancy Skinner, Pamela Marx, Shawn Hannah, Lily Lieberman, Maryanne Soden, Roy Englebrecht, Ron Vanderhoff, Walter Star, 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.

Charles Klohe emphasized environmental concerns and spoke against removing the Civic Center Park.

Dennis Baker criticized the process and warned that inadequate public engagement could lead to legal challenges.

Wade Womack provided a handout and suggested an alternative site for the police facility.

Arlene Greer, Phil Greer, Jasmine Marini, and Charles Fancher commented regarding increased community involvement and public input prior to deciding on a facility location.

Dennis Bress, 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.

Gary Galloway questioned the size of the facility.

Linda Watkins emphasized innovation.

Adam Leverenz voiced his support for police and fire, advocated for keeping open spaces, and thought ad hoc committees negatively affect public trust.

Keith Curry thought the potential relocation was not fiscally conservative.

Arthur Yelsi suggested purchasing a car sales lot for the police facility.

An unidentified speaker suggested considering a substation near the peninsula.

Karen Trinvalley suggested expanding the current location.

Bruce Clark posed traffic concerns.

Rimo Falcelli offered an alternative location.

DraftAn
unidentifiedspeaker commentedon his patriotism. Councilmember Grant praisedthe thoroughpresentationand publicengagement, expressed disappointment in theprocessand criticizedthe lack of earlystakeholderinvolvement. She expressed concerns about environmentalmitigation costs and potentiallitigation delays. She noted that viable alternativesexist and thoughtall site optionsshould be explored. Councilmember Barto emphasizedthe importanceof balancingquality of life, safety, and fiscalresponsibility.

She notedthat previousCouncils studied the SantaBarbaraDrive site and determined it problematic, leading to theDoveStreet purchase. She clarifiedthis was a studysession, not a finaldecision, and expressedopenness to furtherstudies determiningproject viability.

Councilmember
Weigand provided extensive commentarydefending the decision -making process and emphasizedthe benefitsof a centralizedlocation. He firmlyopposedany SantaBarbara Drive site optionsdue to operationaldisruption concerns. He advocatedfor rulingoutCityof NewportBeach March 10, 2026 both
Santa Barbara Drive and Dove Street locationswhile focusingon NewportCenter area options.

He emphasizedhis commitmentto publicsafety and encouragedcomprehensive public outreach including town halls and pollingto reachaverageresidentswho do nottypicallyattend Council meetings. Councilmember
Weber thankedstaff and the community, supported the CivicCenterlocation as fittingthe visionof NewportBeach' s " heart" and expressedconcerns about operationalcontinuity during Santa BarbaraDrive reconstruction. She clarifiedthat the CivicCenteroption does not eliminatethe park, supportedstudying the site and forminga publiccommitteefor design and open space planning. Councilmember
Stapleton emphasized that discussionsare in theearlystages, noted public input is necessarythroughout the process, agreed the policedepartmentrequires a newheadquarters, advocated for continuingall studiesto makefully informeddecisions and spokeagainst eliminatingoptions prematurely. Mayor
Pro Tem Blom gave a detailedbackgroundon the creationof thead hoccommittee, prior study sessiondiscussionregarding the site study, providedfiscal context, and suggestedthe Santa Barbara Drive property's valuecould financethe new facilitywithout adding taxpayer debt.

He emphasizedfiscal responsibilityover emotionalconsiderationswhile expressingopenness to reimaginingthe remainingpark space throughthe creationof a publiccommittee. Following extensive discussion, CouncilmemberGrant proposedmoving forward with Option1:

Continueto review/evaluatepotential sites and timingfor sitingthe newPoliceFacility. City AttorneyAaron Harp noted that thereseemedto bea consensusregarding Option # 2 andrecommended a strawvote on that option. Action:

Mayor Pro Tem Blom moved to approveOption # 2: To continuefurther evaluationof a new PoliceFacility in CivicCenter Park including: selection and hiringof a ConsultantTeam to undertake the DesignDevelopment, Preparation of FinalConceptDesign and EIR, solicit further input from communityand Arts Commissionfor incorporatingart andpark spaceinto the overallCivic Center campus, then return to Councilfor reviewand approval. The motioncarried by the followingvote: AYES:

CouncilmemberWeber, CouncilmemberStapleton, CouncilmemberWeigand, Councilmember Barto, Mayor Pro Tem Blom and Mayor Kleiman ( 6) NAYS:

CouncilmemberGrant ( 1)
From: Garrett, Errica
Sent: April 06, 2026 7: 49 AM
To: Dept - City Clerk
Subject: FW: Civic Center Park and Police Facility Planning 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: Wendy Liu <wendyshinliu@gmail. com>
Sent: April 05, 2026 9: 21 AM
To: Dept - City Council< CityCouncil@newportbeachca. gov> Subject: Civic Center Park and Police Facility Planning EXTERNALEMAIL] DO NOT CLICKlinks or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button above.

Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council,
I support the City' s efforts to modernize facilities for the Newport Beach Police Department and recognize the importance of maintaining effective public safety infrastructure.

At the same time, I would like to express concern about the potential use of Newport Beach Civic Center Park as a site for a new facility.

As a Corona del Mar resident since 1975, and as someone who regularly enjoys Civic Center Park, I deeply value both public safety and thoughtful city planning. This park is a rare and intentionally designed civic space whose value lies not only in its size, but in its openness, layout, and overall experience. Even partial use of the Avocado frontage area would have a disproportionate impact on how the park is perceived and enjoyed.

I respectfully encourage the City to prioritize alternatives — such as expansion of the existing police site or nearby acquisitions — before making an irreversible change to one of Newport Beach' s most distinctive public spaces.

This is a decision that will shape Newport Beach for decades. Once altered, spaces of this quality are difficult to recreate.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Wendy Liu
From: Garrett, Errica
Sent: April 07, 2026 8:42 AM
To: Dept - City Clerk
Subject: FW: Police Station issue

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: Vic Paglia <[email protected]>
Sent: April 07, 2026 8:32 AM
To: Dept - City Council <[email protected]> Subject: Police Station issue

[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button above.

I agree with Keith Curry posted position in Stu News.

Sent from my iPhone
From: Garrett, Errica
Sent: April 07, 2026 2:33 PM
To: Dept - City Clerk
Subject: FW: to CCC re 4/17 item 11, opposition to Newport Beach application for approval of Housing Overlay on Newport Beach Golf Course Attachments: letter to California Coastal Commission.docx; favicon.ico

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 Auster <[email protected]>
Sent: April 07, 2026 2:32 PM
To: Dept - City Council <[email protected]>; OC <[email protected]> Cc: Jurjis, Seimone <[email protected]>
Subject: Fwd: to CCC re 4/17 item 11, opposition to Newport Beach application for approval of Housing Overlay on Newport Beach Golf Course

[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button above.

Dear Mayor and City Council members,
Please consider withdrawing application to CCC for Housing Opportunity Overlay or revise application to exclude NBGC. Meeting is scheduled for 4/17 item 11. There are more than enough housing sites in the pipeline to meet Element requirements, especially if public votes to limit housing to the minimum number required by CA.

Certainly ALUC will reject housing in noise and crash zone directly under JWA flight path.

NB Council and NB taxpayers will not be exempt from enormous liability if it recklessly ignores this obvious risk and overrides ALUC to approve housing application on NBGC.

Existing use as golf course is the only safe use and is therefore the highest and best use of this land as intended when it was sold by Irvine Co and permanently dedicated as golf course by Orange County and NB in Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan.

Jim Auster
20401 Bayview Ave
Newport Beach CA;92660

9706187692

Begin forwarded message:

From: Jim Auster <[email protected]>
Date: April 7, 2026 at 14:53:26 MDT
To: [email protected], [email protected] Subject: 4/17 item 11, opposition to Newport Beach application for CCC approval of Housing Overlay on Newport Beach Golf Course

Please forward to CCC members and please include me on list to make live public comment at the 4/17 meeting.

Thank you,
Jim Auster,
20401 Bayview Ave
Newport Beach CA 92660
9706187692

letter to California Coastal Commission.docx
dropbox.com

April 7, 2026

To the California Coastal Commission,

I am writing to strongly oppose the proposed approval of the Housing Layer and the rezoning of the Newport Beach Golf Course from its current Recreational Open Space designation to High-Density Housing.

The Newport Beach Golf Course is an invaluable community and environmental asset. Its current zoning as Recreational Open Space safeguards not only the character of the surrounding area but also the ecological balance, open vistas, and natural habitats that are vital to our coastal environment. Rezoning this land for high-density housing would irreversibly damage the integrity of the coastline, increase traffic congestion, strain public services, and diminish the recreational opportunities that residents and visitors currently enjoy.

High-density development in this sensitive coastal area directly contradicts the principles of the California Coastal Act, which prioritizes the protection of coastal resources, scenic beauty, and public access to open spaces. Approving such a drastic change would set a harmful precedent for the erosion of recreational spaces in favor of urban sprawl, undermining the very mission of the California Coastal Commission.

There are alternative opportunities for housing development in areas already designated for urban or residential use that would not compromise the environmental and social value of Newport Beach Golf Course. Preserving this open space is essential to maintaining the quality of life, ecological health, and recreational opportunities that define our region. Newport Beach claim the Housing Overlay is needed to meet Element Housing required number of units is incorrect, more than enough housing applications are already being processed to meet Newport Beach Element mandate without building it on NBGC within Coastal protection boundary.

A petition to block Surf Park development of middle NBGC parcel was recently signed by 6100 Newport Beach voters and NB reversed approval to avoid a public vote. Housing on golf course will also be opposed y by Newport voters.

Another petition with required 6100 signatures was approved for a community vote to limit housing to the minimum required Element number under 3000 units. NBGC is not needed for housing.

The John Wayne Airport Land Use Commission rejected development of Surf Park on golf course in high noise and crash zone directly under the flight path. NB Council over rode ALUC to approve the project but then reversed approval after 6100 signature public petition required a public vote. ALUC rejected NB revision of noise contour to allow housing in 65 db zone but NB overrode ALUC. If Overlay is approved ALUC will also reject housing directly under flight path in crash zone that will make NB taxpayer potentiall liable for enormous crash and noise impacts to housing residents.

Housing on this site requires sewage pumping up to Mesa Drive and risks sewage pollution of Back Bay with a power outage. It is also in the tsunami and flood protection zone from historical flooding of Delhi Channel.

Santa Ana Specific Plan enacted when Santa Ana Heights was annexed by NB requites golf course to be permanent, see letter to Nb copied below. The only highest safe and best use of this land is to leace it as it is now, golf course low density recreational with no impact to the environment, airport, our community, and the Back Bay.

I urge the Commission to reject the proposed Housing Layer and rezoning request in order to protect the natural and community resources entrusted to your stewardship.

Respectfully,
Jim Auster
9706187692

RESIDENTS TO SAVE NEWPORT BEACH GOLF COURSE
March 16, 2026
Mayor Lauren Kleiman & Newport Beach City Council
100 Civic Center Dr
Newport Beach, CA 92660
[email protected]
Dear Mayor Kleiman & City Council Members,
As you are aware, Santa Ana Heights (SAH) was annexed into the city in two phases, in 2002 the area east of Irvine Ave and 2008 the area west of Irvine Ave. The annexation agreement was memorialized on September 10, 2002 and remains in full force.

SAH was content as a county island and did not seek annexation – the City approached us.

We were concerned city government would add another layer of regulation and bureaucracy to our lives while disregarding the unique character of SAH. Our fears have been confirmed.

Residents worked with the City and County for over fifteen years to develop an annexation agreement to maintain the unique characteristics of the area. The Heights includes a winery, equestrian property, traditional residential tracts, estate lots, mansions, 18-hole Newport Beach Golf Course and driving range.

These were hard-fought negotiations that encompassed many complex issues across multiple governmental jurisdictions including the City, County, a redevelopment agency, city, Coastal Commission, Mesa Water District, JWA Settlement Agreement, property tax transfers, and a utility undergrounding district.

As previously noted, the 2002 City/County Santa Ana Heights Annexation Agreement remains a legally controlling document. It specifically requires the City to seek the County’s consent for General Plan Amendments – including the City’s housing zoning overlay on the golf course. ALUC found the housing overlay INCONSISTENT with the Airport Environs Land Use Element (AELUP) on a 5-1 vote. This is the only attempt the City made to seek County approval, and it failed. As such, the City ignored other considerations of the Santa Ana Heights Annexation Agreement as it relates to the proposed development site south of Mesa Drive.

The unique characteristics of the Santa Ana Heights are codified in the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan (NB Municipal Code Chapter 21.90, specifically Section 21.90.020 SP-7(OSR) stating “Land Use and development standards for Santa Ana Heights shall be in accordance with Exhibit 21.90-1, “Land Use Map – Specific Plan District No. 7” and the provisions of this section
The plain language of the codified specific plan and enabling map DOES NOT allow any non-golf course uses like wave pools, Costco, apartments, commercial buildings or anything else – no matter how giddy the property owner, politicians and staff are to kill the golf course.

The city council’s October 29, 2025, Snug Harbor project approval – effectively killing the Newport Beach Golf Course and replacing it with a 15-acre, 10-million-gallon heated wave pool – sought to destroy the unique characteristic of SAH; ignored the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan, zoning, and Annexation Agreement. In addition, you failed to acknowledge the long history of the underlying restrictive leases with the County and property owner for the long-term use as a golf course and related uses.

We were forced to circulate a successful citywide referendum petition triggering an election for the council’s unanimous Snug Harbor wave pool approval. Over 9600 signatures were collected in just 21 days. We are reminded of the perils of local government.
2To your credit, facing the wrath of the community at the ballot box, the Council rescinded the General Plan Amendment approval of 40,000 square feet of commercial buildings on a site zoned for open space and recreation, whose sole purpose and intent is explicitly “to insure the long-term use and viability of the Newport Beach Golf Course” – not concrete.

In 1973 the Irvine Company leased the site to the Lane Family who graded the community golf course that remains today. It is a very challenging parcel for development due to its topography, proximity to JWA, water table, Delhi Channel, and restrictions of the FEMA Zone A flood hazard area. The Irvine Company understood these development barriers in 1973. Nothing has changed in 53 years – except additional binding restrictions of the SAH Annexation Agreement, SAH Specific Plan, zoning code, and Charter Section 423.

The front nine is owned in fee by Newport Golf Club LLC, comprised of long-time Newport residents. They want the highest and best use on a degraded parcel that is restricted for development. As you know, the back nine is owned by the County of Orange (JWA) and serves as the FAA Runway Protection Zone requiring open space and prohibiting permanent structures – in perpetuity.

We respect the private property rights of the respective families and their heirs. We also respect the decades of their investment in our community, both financial and philanthropic. They are an important part of the fabric that makes Newport Beach a vibrant community.

As elected officials you are often asked to balance the needs of the residents and development community. This is one of those moments.

We encourage you to keep an open mind and create a vehicle that preserves the unique character of Santa Ana Heights, while complying with the requisite Santa Ana Heights Annexation Agreement and Specific Plan, zoning code, Charter Section 423 and if necessary calling for a citywide vote for large commercial projects, and respect private property rights and honor the City’s commitment to Santa Ana Heights and the residents of Newport Beach.

Sincerely,

RESIDENTS TO SAVE NEWPORT BEACH GOLF COURSE

From: Garrett, Errica
Sent: April 07, 2026 4:32 PM
To: Dept - City Clerk
Subject: FW: Request for Confirmation of City Council Decision

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: April 07, 2026 4:24 PM
To: Jurjis, Seimone <[email protected]>
Cc: Dept - City Council <[email protected]>; Kleiman, Lauren <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Request for Confirmation of City Council Decision

[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 Seimone
Thank you for the response.

The objections to the other sites seem to indicate that the City only has the park site remaining. I feel that is not the case. Here are points for the City to consider.

The staff report identified property across the street. This could be acquired and used as the Police department headquarters. The only objection was that the Newport Center land is too expensive.

I think this location should be pursued with the Irvine Company and other existing leasees and owners.

This is a good location for the desired Civic Center PD headquarters, and the parkland would not be impacted.

Income from property near the airport on Dover could be sold. Invest the money in the new PD building site acquisition. That is what the original $30 million was intended to do. Trade-in this site for new land in the civic center. This option is not included in the other options list.

I also disagree about the PD response time. Response is by patrolling police vehicles and motorcycle officers. Offices are not sitting around headquarters waiting for a call. This argument about the location of PD Headquarters and response time is not valid.

The funds allocated to studying the civic center park site will be wasted due to strong citywide opposition to using it. Lawsuits and EIR objections will cost millions and delay the end result.

I also feel that the separation of the Police Department from City Hall is good for emergency planning.

The operational portion of the PD would remain open should an emergency occur, closing City Hall.

Putting all our "eggs" in the civic center is not good for emergency/continuity planning.

Thank you for considering my input. These points reflect the thinking of many residents like me who support building a new police headquarters and fire station but oppose using the civic center park location.

Respectfully yours,
Ron Rubino

________________________________________
From: Jurjis, Seimone <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 7, 2026 10:45 AM
To: Ron Rubino; Kleiman, Lauren
Subject: RE: Request for Confirmation of City Council Decision

Good morning, Ron,

Mayor Kleiman asked that I respond on her behalf, and I will do my best to address your questions.

To be clear, none of the other sites were formally ruled out by the City Council. The direction supported by the Council majority on March 10 was consistent with the earlier discussion on January 31: to continue evaluating the Civic Center site as a potential location for a new Police Department headquarters.

The reason for that direction is straightforward. At this stage, staff cannot fully answer questions about the Civic Center site such as potential environmental impacts, traffic circulation and access, building height, view impacts, open space considerations, and related design issues without first conducting additional analysis. In order to answer those questions responsibly, the City would need to retain consultants, prepare conceptual designs, and undertake the appropriate environmental review.

With respect to the property near the airport, the issues are somewhat different. Based on current information, that site appears to present fewer environmental constraints, as it is already developed with an existing office building and is not located in an area with known sensitive habitat. That said, there are broader operational and policy considerations. For example, locating the Police Department that far north would add significant travel time between the station and the end of the Balboa Peninsula, which could affect both officer response times and the time required to transport and book individuals into jail.

As for the Santa Barbara site, staff has previously discussed the significant operational challenges associated with redeveloping the existing police headquarters while maintaining continuous public safety operations. Redevelopment of that site would require construction of a parking structure, which in turn would require police personnel to park offsite during construction. The resulting need to shuttle staff and vehicles back and forth to an offsite parking lot (that we haven't even identified) during the construction period is not operationally acceptable to the Police Department. While environmental impacts there may be limited, the operational impacts are huge.

To summarize none of the other sites are ruled out, but we need to study the civic center site further to be able to answer the questions of impact.

I hope this helps clarify the City Council's direction.

Seimone Jurjis
City Manager
Office: 949-644-3282
100 Civic Center Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92660

-----Original Message-----
From: Ron Rubino <[email protected]>
Sent: April 06, 2026 5:12 PM
To: Kleiman, Lauren <[email protected]>
Cc: Dept - City Council <[email protected]> Subject: Request for Confirmation of City Council Decision

[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.

4/6/2026
To: Lauren Kleiman, Mayor

Honorable Mayor Kleiman.

In her article, Councilmember Weber emphasized certain key facts about the recent decision to select the Civic Center Park site from the locations in the staff report, to be the location for a new Police Department Headquarters building. My question is whether other sites in the report, including land across the street from the Civic Center, were ruled out for future consideration.

Councilmember Weber's statements are:

1. "The only direction to staff was to proceed with analysis of the Civic Center site, and to begin seeking input from the community and the Arts Commission on how art and open space could be thoughtfully incorporated. Dove Street and Santa Barbara were not removed from consideration. The action taken was to advance study of the Civic Center, not to choose it."

2. "I've heard thoughtful questions from the community about environmental impacts, local habitats, fuel storage, security, traffic, and how a facility like this would fit within the Civic Center. All excellent questions. And questions I wish I had the answers to, but don't, which is exactly why we've directed staff to do this analysis so we can have real answers, not assumptions."

3. "At this early stage, we owe it to the community to spend reasonable time and resources to clearly understand what the Civic Center option could look like, which spaces it might use, its potential."

4. "Just as a reminder, no decisions have been made, and no formal project has been initiated. We are just beginning to evaluate what the Civic Center site could look like."

Please confirm if these statements by Councilmember Weber are consistent with the direction of City Council approved by 6 to 1 vote. There were statements made by council members at the meeting that the other locations will not be further considered.

Thank you,
Ron Rubino, Board Director, Government Affairs Eastbluff Homeowners' Community Association From: Garrett, Errica
Sent: April 09, 2026 11:31 AM
To: Dept - City Clerk
Subject: FW: Residents to Save Newport Beach and the Newport Beach Golf Course-

04.09.26 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: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: April 09, 2026 11:13 AM
To: Dept - City Council <[email protected]> Subject: Residents to Save Newport Beach and the Newport Beach Golf Course-04.09.26

[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button above.

Dear Mayor Kleiman & City Council Members,

As you are aware, Santa Ana Heights (SAH) was annexed into the city in two phases, in 2002
the area east of Irvine Ave and 2008 the area west of Irvine Ave. The annexation agreement
was memorialized on September 10, 2002 and remains in full force.

SAH was content as a county island and did not seek annexation – the City approached us.

We were concerned city government would add another layer of regulation and bureaucracy to our lives while disregarding the unique character of SAH. Our fears have been confirmed.

Residents worked with the City and County for over fifteen years to develop an annexation
agreement to maintain the unique characteristics of the area. The Heights includes a

winery, equestrian property, traditional residential tracts, estate lots, mansions, 18-hole Newport Beach Golf Course and driving range.

As previously noted, the 2002 City/County Santa Ana Heights Annexation Agreement remains a legally controlling document. It specifically requires the City to seek the County’s consent for General Plan Amendments – including the City’s housing zoning overlay on the golf course. ALUC found the housing overlay INCONSISTENT with the Airport
Environs Land Use Element (AELUP) on a 5-1 vote. This is the only attempt the City made to
seek County approval, and it failed. As such, the City ignored other considerations of the Santa Ana Heights Annexation Agreement as it relates to the proposed development site south of Mesa Drive.

The plain language of the codified specific plan and enabling map DOES NOT allow any non-golf course uses like wave pools, Costco, apartments, commercial buildings or anything else – no matter how giddy the property owner, politicians and staff are to kill the
golf course.

The city council’s October 29, 2025, Snug Harbor project approval – effectively killing the
Newport Beach Golf Course and replacing it with a 15-acre, 10-million-gallon heated wave
pool – sought to destroy the unique characteristic of SAH; ignored the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan, zoning, and Annexation Agreement. In addition, you failed to acknowledge the long history of the underlying restrictive leases with the County and property owner for
the long-term use as a golf course and related uses.

To your credit, facing the wrath of the community at the ballot box, the Council rescinded the General Plan Amendment approval of 40,000 square feet of commercial buildings on a
site zoned for open space and recreation, whose sole purpose and intent is explicitly “to insure the long-term use and viability of the Newport Beach Golf Course” – not concrete.

The front nine is owned in fee by Newport Golf Club LLC, comprised of long-time Newport
residents. They want the highest and best use on a degraded parcel that is restricted for development. As you know, the back nine is owned by the County of Orange (JWA) and serves as the FAA Runway Protection Zone requiring open space and prohibiting permanent structures – in perpetuity.

As elected officials you are often asked to balance the needs of the residents and development community. This is one of those moments.

We encourage you to keep an open mind and create a vehicle that preserves the unique character of Santa Ana Heights, while complying with the requisite Santa Ana Heights Annexation Agreement and Specific Plan, zoning code, Charter Section 423 and if necessary calling for a citywide vote for large commercial projects, and respect private
property rights and honor the City’s commitment to Santa Ana Heights and the residents of
Newport Beach.

Best Regards,

Shella & Joseph Salvo
20352 SW Cypress Street

From: Mike Hazelrigg
To: Mike Hazelrigg
Subject: Invitation to Hume Christian Camps- Free Fundraising Event in Newport Beach Date: April 10, 2026 11:41:35 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 Councilmembers and City Leaders,
I hope this message finds you well.

I am writing to invite you to attend the Ripple of Life: Expanding Impact Gala, a special fundraising event supporting the work of Hume Christian Camps at the Harborside Grand Ballroom in Newport Beach.

The ministry of Hume Christian Camps provides year-round youth camps and retreats that focus on mentorship, character development, and building strong, values-centered communities for young people.

The gala will be an evening dedicated to sharing stories of impact, connecting with community leaders, and raising support to expand opportunities for youth to experience these life-changing programs.

More details and registration can be found here:
https://www.eventbrite.com/e/ripple-of-life-expanding-impact-gala- tickets-1983487568712?aff=oddtdtcreator
We would be honored by your presence at this event, as your leadership plays an important role in supporting initiatives that strengthen families, youth development, and community well-being. Would you consider signing up for a table or two? There is no charge for the event, but there will be an opportunity to support the ministry if you feel led to do so.

Please let me know if you have any questions or if we can assist with your attendance. I would be happy to provide additional details.

Thank you for your service to our community, and I hope you can join us.

Warm Regards,
Mike
--
Mike Hazelrigg
Major Gift Officer CenCal | Development
(559) 970‑8425 | hume.org
| Learn more about giving, gift planning, or donor advisement.

From: tutor master
To: Stapleton, Joe
Cc: Grant, Robyn; Dept - City Council; Leung, Grace; City Clerk"s Office Subject: Report of Attempt of Auto Theft
Date: April 10, 2026 10:40:29 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.

Hi,
I have to report an attempt on Auto Theft by drug addicts in a care facility. They were following me in Irvine California.

There are two people named Ryan Dezfoolyzadeh and Reza Mirghaffari and his brother who knows them.

I want to see can I be safe in Orange County? These three people are in the Newport Beach area and somehow are connected to the care facility people in Orange County and Los Angeles.

Please investigate.

I drive a white Toyota corollla
License: 8WFH460
I have never been to Newport Beach in 5 years and I am not going that direction at all. If you see my car there it is probably Auto Theft.

How can I be safe? Can you do surveillance at all times on my car? Thanks,
Mojdeh
From: Garrett, Errica
To: Dept - City Clerk
Subject: FW: California Coastal Commission, Save NBGC
Date: April 13, 2026 7:41:14 AM
Attachments: googleg_gradient_standard_192dp.png
image001.png
image002.png
image003.png
image004.png

Errica Garrett
Administrative Assistant to
the Mayor and City Council
City Manager’s Office
Office: 949-644-3004

100 Civic Center Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92660

From: Jim Auster <[email protected]>
Sent: April 12, 2026 9:50 AM
To: Dept - City Council <[email protected]> Cc: Jurjis, Seimone <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Fwd: California Coastal Commission, Save NBGC

[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button above.

Dear Mayor and NB Council members,
Before CCC meeting on 4/17, please consider withdrawing CCC application or removing NBGC from the application .

Jim Auster
20401 Bayview Ave
Newport Beach CA 92660

Begin forwarded message:

From: Jim Auster <[email protected]
>
Date: April 12, 2026 at 10:35:56 MDT
To: Linda Giedt <[email protected]>, "M. Smith" <[email protected]>, Steve Carfano Carfano <[email protected]>, Benny Hallock <[email protected]>, merrilee bliss <[email protected]>, Robert Rosenberg <[email protected]>, JOSEPH SALVO <[email protected]>
Subject: California Coastal Commission, Save NBGC
Newport Beach City Council applied to California Coastal Commission for approval of housing overlay that rezones NBGC from recreational open space to high density residential. NB claims development of the golf course is needed and necessary to meet CA Element Housing mandate requiting 4800 units. NB Development Office application pipeline already has 2000 units in Airport Area, 5000 units total, see link below.. Public vote is scheduled in Nov. to limit housing to less than 3000 units. There is no need for any housing or any other development on NBGC open space recreation zone, in Coastal protection zone, in JWA crash zone, in JWA high 65db zone, in flood and tsunami zone, in high traffic zone, adjoining Back Bay wildlife zone, in violation of SAH Specific Plan, etc. Normally legitimate city Council decisions are by law exempt from personal liability claims but council and NB tax payers are not exempt from enormous potential liability for Council's reckless unjustifiable overruling of Airport Land Use Commission's rejection of development in 65db zone and crash zone directly under JWA flight path.

Council members justified their approval of Surf Park as a private property owner's right for highest best and most profitable land use but that was not justified and Surf Park approval has been reversed by public petition. Owners purchased the land from Irvine Ranch for a low price to build the golf course and have had a big return on their investment because golf is the only safe low density highest best appropriate and beneficial use directly under JWA flight path.

If CCC follows their staff recommendation to approve housing in this location I will ask commissioners if there is any purpose of the California Coastal Commission? Element Housing law exempts all regulations, zoning, existing land uses, environmental impacts, etc, but does not exempt requirement CCC approval of housing overlay . Except for a legal challenge, this may be our last chance to block administrative approval.

I will attend CCC meeting in Gonzoles on Friday. It is past 4/10 deadline to submit public comments but please send any comments, information, exhibits, photos, etc you would like me to add to the presentation.

how many
housingunits
are already
in planning
approval
process in
Newport
Beachtto
meet
Element
housing
mandate
google.com

On Apr 3, 2026, at 16:45, Linda Giedt <[email protected]> wrote:

Along with the Bristol housing projects underway now, this was just approved by the Planning Commission last night. 100 units at Quail and Birch. They will knock down the existing 7 story high rise there. No low income housing.

Wow, the added traffic in the Airport area. The 73 to the 405 is already a parking lot.

There are more housing projects still waiting to be approved on the other side of Bristol.

Linda

<image.png>

<100-condo development in Newport Beach near John Wayne Airport OK'd - Los Angeles Times.pdf>
From: Garrett, Errica
To: Dept - City Clerk
Subject: FW: CCC housing overlay
Date: April 13, 2026 10:05:25 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: Jim Auster <[email protected]>
Sent: April 13, 2026 10:02 AM
To: Jurjis, Seimone <[email protected]>
Cc: Dept - City Council <[email protected]> Subject: CCC housing overlay
[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 send information on the number of housing unit applications being processed by Community Development in Airport Area and citywide, and if that number exceeds number required for NB to comply with Element mandate. If so will Council consider withdraw of CCC housing overlay application based on now baseless claim that housing on NBGC open space is essential to meet Element mandate numbers. If enough housing on other sites is already in the pipeline, especially considering reversal of Surf Park approval and petition for vote to reduce housing numbers, Element mandate is moot, application is inaccurate and obsolete, and there is no public support to proceed with CCC application for housing on NBGC. If not withdrawn but approved by CCC the housing overlay will be challenged in court.

Jim Auster
20401 Bayview Ave
9706187692
From: Ad lever
To: City Clerk"s Office
Subject: City Council 04-14-2026 Public Comment
Date: April 13, 2026 12:07:47 PM
Attachments: Slide - Public Comment CNB Council 04-14-2026 - Re Extentions - 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 during Public Comment, and linked in the agenda materials for the Council Meeting of 04/14/2026.

Thank you,
Adam

“Chair Beer introduced Item 6.3 regarding the discussion of eliminating the mooring length adjustment process in Title 17. He summarized prior concerns, including navigational safety, limited harbor capacity, public access impacts, fairness among permit holders, and administrative burden.”

Transcribed from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Vm8VW77LvQ (Subject matter starting at 18:46 approx.)

Harbor Commission Chair Ira Beer: “Newport Harbor is a fully built out Harbor. There is no additional water area to expand into, so increasing mooring lengths effectively reallocates limited public water-space to individual permitees.

Longer mooring increases navigational risk… Public access to the Harbor is declining. Expanded moorings exponentially reduce available water area for other Harbor users, including kayaks, paddleboarders, rowing shells and other human powered craft. Incremental expansions create long-term crowding... Granting length increases to some Permitees, effectively grants additional public water-space that is not available to others.”

Public Comment then noted that under the conditions stated by Chair Beer, the same fairness arguments applied to residential pier extensions, which continue to be approved. Concern was expressed over inconsistent enforcement.

Equal treatment of permit holders was urged.

“Chair Beer closed public comments. Chair Beer clarified that private piers are governed by established project lines and noted that moorings present different regulatory considerations.” (1

Federally Designated Lines, and Newport Harbor:

Newport Beach City CouncilApril 14, 2026

Newport Beach City Council
April 14, 2026