April 14, 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 III. STUDY SESSION Legislative Platform Changes
The City’s Legislative Platforms originally provided policy direction for a single calendar year (as in the oldest easily located example, Item 3 from February 22, 1999) or for a Sacramento legislative session (as in the last of those, Item 5 from February 27, 2007). They changed to the present indefinite time limit with Item 25 on February 12, 2013.
Assuming the process initiated by this study session will result in a resolution similar to that adopted with Item 16 on February 28, 2023, it will direct that Council members be provided with copies of advocacy letters submitted pursuant to the platform. However, the public will likely remain largely, if not totally, in the dark as to these efforts. To the best of my recollection, aside from claims about trips to Washington DC to advocate for dredging, the only legislative advocacy shared with the public has been the occasional oral reports on aviation issues lobbying received at the rare meetings of the Aviation Committee.
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON AGENDA AND NON-AGENDA ITEMS
Comment 1: Notably absent from this agenda is any response to the Brown Act violation letter that was discussed as closed session Item IV.A at the March 24, 2026, meeting. Does this mean the Council wants to risk the matter going to litigation? If so, why? It would have been so easy to properly re-introduce the portion of the challenged ordinance having to do with shade structures on public beaches.
Comment 2: Under this heading at the March 24, 2026, meeting, I commented (see video) on the need to encourage people to fill out speaker cards in order to have their names spelled correctly in the minutes and cited as an example the misspellings in the amended draft minutes for the March 10 meeting being considered as Item 2 on the consent calendar.1 I also mentioned the need for the Council to fund a proper electronic bulletin board for posting agendas and hearing notices,2 as well as suggesting an update on the new Spring Break Safety Enhancements might be useful.
2 The electronic display which has been in the Council Chambers lobby since its opening in December 2012 has never been Brown Act compliant because it does not allow members of the public to interactively access the posted materials with the same convenience that would be afforded by a physical bulletin board.
As a result, the City has for 13 years made due with a binder containing paper copies of the “postings.” But the binder is neither secure (since both it and individual pages can easily be removed or altered) nor as convenient as a bulletin board (since one has to rummage through pages between which an item of interest can easily be missed).
1 Those minutes for March 10, 2026, meeting, as approved and signed, now memorialize such novel spellings as “Walter Star” for “Walter Stahr,” “Arthur Yelsi” for “Arthur Yelsey,” and “Karen Trinvalley” for “Karen Tringali,” as well as such possibly less well-known names as “Shawn Hannah” for “Sean Hanna” and “Maryanne Soden” for “Mary Ann Soden.” The importance of correct spellings is not just vanity, but to allow reliable searches for them in the City’s archives (in which all the preceding appear).
Received After Agenda Printed
April 14, 2026
Written Comments
April 14, 2026, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 2 of 8 Those comments were preceded by the City Clerk reading the “PUBLIC COMMENTS ON AGENDA AND NON-AGENDA ITEMS” announcement printed in the agenda, to which Centivintennial Mayor Kleiman added (see video), “We’ll now proceed with public comment on all agenda and non-agenda items. Please note that members of the public will still have an opportunity to comment on agenda items under consent and closed session later in the meeting provided they do not offer comments on those items at this time.” This is relatively new admonition, not, to the best of my knowledge, grounded in any formal Council policy, and which, to my recollection, was first enforced by former Mayor Will O’Neill, who would not allow members of the public to speak on a particular consent calendar item (or other agenda item) if they had spoken about that same consent calendar item (or other agenda item) when this opportunity to speak on “Agenda and Non-Agenda Items” appeared at the end of a study session or before a closed session.3
After “PUBLIC COMMENTS ON CONSENT CALENDAR” had been announced a few minutes later in the meeting, after noting that the all the regular public business was on the consent calendar, I attempted (see video) to comment on agenda Item 9 (“2025 General Plan and Housing Element Annual Progress Reports (PA2025-0008)”), but was brusquely prevented from doing so by City Attorney Aaron Harp.
He apparently interpolates into the Mayor’s direction, as stated above, some words she did not say, interpreting it to mean “We’ll now proceed with public comment on all agenda and non-agenda items. Please note that members of the public will still have an opportunity to comment on agenda items under consent and closed session later in the meeting provided they do not offer comments on those items any consent or closed session item at this time.” If that is the direction she wished to give, I hope she will give it in the future.
Perhaps Mr. Harp will next decide that anyone who has taken advantage of the statement in the agenda that “Written comments are encouraged as well”4 has had their opportunity to comment and may not speak in person at the meeting?
Not wanting to disrupt the meeting, I complied with Mr. Harp’s order, but this is not the first time Mr. Harp has told speakers they must sit down, and several things should be said about that.
First, California’s open meetings law, the Brown Act (specifically Section 54954.3), ensures members of the public a right to participate in meetings and provide their thoughts to the Council before they take action on agenda items. Perhaps even more importantly, Article I, Section 3 of the California Constitution, which all public officials in this state are sworn to uphold, not only ensures the people’s “right to instruct their representatives” but since Proposition 59 in 2004 has instructed that “A statute, court rule, or other authority, including those in effect on the effective date of this subdivision, shall be broadly construed if it furthers the people’s right of access, and narrowly construed if it limits the right of access” and required that “A statute, court rule, or other 4 Unlike any other City body, the Council agendas are unique in inviting written comments, but providing no direction on how to submit them.
3 Prior to the February 24, 2026, revisions to Council Policy A-1, the regular business meetings could be preceded by a study session and/or closed session, and the “Public Comments on Agenda and Non-Agenda Items” invitation appeared only when one or both of those was scheduled.
April 14, 2026, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 3 of 8 authority adopted after the effective date of this subdivision that limits the right of access shall be adopted with findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and the need for protecting that interest.”
I am not aware of Mr. Harp’s new “authority” to limit public participation having been adopted with any findings identifying the public interest they protect. Nor do I recall this authority having been adopted at all.
Indeed, while the February 24, 2026, revisions to Council Policy A-1, adopted without much scrutiny as part of the 278-page Item 11, shifted the role of Parliamentarian at the Council meetings from the City Clerk to the City Attorney, the Parliamentarian is merely a non-binding advisor to the Presiding Officer (usually the Mayor, but never the City Attorney). Only the presiding officer can determine who is in order and who is not (and even those decisions are subject to an “Appeal from the Decision of the Chair”).
Additionally, the authority to regulate public input on agenda and non-agenda items, including those on the consent calendar) is specifically given to the Presiding Officer (not the Parliamentarian or City Attorney) in Section B under “Rules of Order for City Council Proceedings” starting on page 3 of the current version of Policy A-1.
Finally, beyond the context of this recent misunderstanding, one might ask if the recent practice of placing all, or nearly all, the Council’s business items on a consent calendar and allowing members of the public a single 3 minutes in which to provide input on the entirety of them is a “reasonable regulation” of the sort allowed by Brown Act Subsection 54954.3(b)(1), or that it maintains the access available to the public when Proposition 59 was approved in 2004, as voters might reasonably have expected when they overwhelmingly approved it.
For those with short memories, or new to Newport Beach, in 2004 (see, for example, the agenda for November 9, 2004) the Council began its regular business at 7:00 p.m. to give the public a better opportunity to participate, gave members of the public, as well as staff and Council members, the ability to request separate discussion of items listed on the consent calendar, and gave members of the public a separate 5 minutes to comment on each and every agenda item they wished to comment on, and an additional 3 minutes to speak on non-agenda items. It does not seem like we have improved public access to our meetings since then.
Incidentally, the comment about March 24 agenda Item 9 that Mr. Harp would not allow me to make would have been to elaborate on my written comment about a long-range problem that the City is facing as a result of its handling of its state-mandate RHNA requirements, which is not clearly, if at all, disclosed in the Item 9 report to the state, and which grows worse with each approval of a new housing housing application that does not provide the number of affordable units projected for the site in the Housing Element.
Under the state “no net loss” provision, when a site develops with less than the projected number of units in each income category, a city has to demonstrate it has sufficient additional sites to meet its quotas. Table C of the Excel workbook associated with the Item 9 report shows the City has added housing overlays to enough sites to accommodate 21,698 new units at a density of 50 du/ac (it is actually more than 22,000 since some sites are missing from the table). So, facing a RHNA of 4,845 new units, “no net loss” is not a problem.
April 14, 2026, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 4 of 8 But Newport Beach also has a limit of 8,175 total units that can be approved on the overlay sites, And even if all 8,175 were approved, the City would meet its affordable unit targets only if each site developed at its full potential and with more than one-third of the units affordable. But approvals are being granted with far less than a third affordable. Each new approval eats into the 8,175 unit limit and, to meet the affordable unit quota, would require what’s left of the 8,175 to develop with ever higher, and eventually impossibly high, percentages of affordable units. So, on our present course, the 8,175 limit will be reached with minimal progress toward the affordable unit quotas, which will carry over into and be added to the next RHNA cycle.
This is the plan residents were not given a chance to vote on, and it is resulting in thousands of luxury units, far in excess of numbers required by the state, being added to the City while the state’s requirement for new affordable housing will remain unfulfilled and have to be approved in addition to the 8,175 units of mostly unneeded luxury housing in future years.
None of this appears to be addressed in the report and, as far as I can tell, no one in the City staff is tracking it.
Item 2. Minutes for the March 24, 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 799-page agenda packet, since the draft posted identifies neither the volume nor page number in the Council minutes archive.
activities including approval of a design-build contract to rebuild the current headquarters and recent water winter salt marsh mosquito activity as well as remediation” [See video. “Winter Salt Marsh Mosquito” (Aedes squamiger) is the specific technical name correctly stated by Councilmember Weigand. “Water mosquito” is a poor and unspecific substitute, since (as far as I know) the larvae of all mosquito species develop in water.]
off Dover Street Drive and commented that it was well organized.” [see video]
noted he submitted a correction for Agenda Item 2 (Minutes for the March 10, 2026 City Council Meeting) and spoke in favor of affordable housing relating to Agenda Item 9 (2025 General Plan and Housing Element Annual Progress Reports (PA2025-0008)).”
commented on Agenda Item 9 (2025 General Plan and Housing Element Annual Progress Reports (PA2025-0008)) and questioned whether the City will meet state housing mandates.” [comment: See video. The minutes omit my effort to speak regarding agenda Item 9 (as well as the fact that all the Council’s regular business was on the consent calendar) and being denied that opportunity by City Attorney Harp.]
April 14, 2026, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 5 of 8 Item 3. Ordinance No. 2026-03: Amending Subsection 12.68.060(B) - (Preferential Parking Zones - Locations And Restrictions) of Chapter
12.68 - (Residents’ Preferential Parking) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code Regarding the Residential Parking Permit Program for Newport Heights and Cliff Haven
I do not believe it is ever appropriate to introduce (and later approve) ordinances on the consent calendar without any (oral) public explanation of what is being proposed to be added to the Municipal Code, however seemingly minor it may be.
In the present case, if we are to rely on a purely written explanation, it would have been helpful to have at least provided a map of the area around Newport Harbor High School and the parking restrictions currently in effect on the streets, including addresses, so those reading the report could visualize what is being discussed.
Item 7. Fifth Amendment to Lease with Minuteman Press International, Inc. for Use of Suite 490 at 1201 Dove Street
1201 Dove Street was, of course, purchased for the purpose of building a new Police Headquarters, and is at the center of an ongoing controversy as to where that facility should be located.
Putting this on the consent calendar, where it will potentially be approved without any public discussion, deprives the public of any knowledge of whether this, and other tenant leases, will be used to claim conversion to a Police Headquarters has been rendered impossible by contractual obligations to tenants. If so, it would be an obligation the City does not have to enter into.
Item 9. Award of On-Call Vessel Removal, Storage and Disposal Services Agreements with Core Water Systems, Inc., Pacific Towing LLC, Perry Trucking and Equipment Repair LLC, and South Waterfront Construction Corporation
The request for $1,000 million in on-call contracts far exceeds the $100,000 of grant money currently available for this service. Is there an understanding these contracts will be used only to the extent there is grant money available to pay 90% of the charges? My understanding of the individual contracts is that the $250,000 not to exceed limit applies to the initial three-year term. It is not obvious to me how it would be affected by the two automatic one-year extensions. Would it stay the same when extended? Would it automatically increase by some amount? If so, to what amount? Or does a new limit have to be negotiated? In the Schedules of BIlling Rates (agenda packet page 257 for Core Water Systems, Inc.; page 327 for Pacific Towing LLC page 397 for Perry’s Trucking & Equipment Repair LLCl; and page 467 for South Waterfront Construction Corporation) it is not obvious how the tables are to be read. There are rows with per foot prices for three vessel length categories followed by rows for three material types (wood, concrete and steel). For a given vessel, is the number from one of the first three rows supposed to be added to the number from one of the last three rows and then the April 14, 2026, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 6 of 8 total multiplied by the length of the vessel? Or is it to be read in some other way? Setting aside that
South’s
schedule
provides
only
wide
ranges
of
possible
charges,
aren’t
many
of
the
boats
to
be
disposed
of
made
of
fiberglass
or
other
materials?
Where
do
those
fit
in
the
schedules?
Item 10. Plaque Donation for the United States of America’s 250th Anniversary
It is curious that the staff report does not include a copy of Council Policy B-17, the donation request from former Mayor Will O’Neill, the March 3, 2026, PB&R agenda packet (starting on page 164 with a staff report and presentation), or the minutes of that meeting. At the Parks, Beaches and Recreation meeting, I asked why this donation request was going to the
Council
for
approval
when
most
donation
acceptances
by
PB&R
do
not.
Recreation
and
Senior
Services
Director
Sean
Levin
kindly
pointed
out
the
Council
would
need
to
waive
a
part
of
its Policy B-17 to make this possible, since the Council had formerly amended it (see Item 22 from the September 10, 2019, meeting, with then Mayor Pro Tem O’Neill voting in favor) to eliminate
donation
plaques.
Despite
one
subsequent
amendment,
the
prohibition
on
memorial
plaques remains a feature of Council Policy B-17 (see provision H.4 on page 4 of the current version: “ Donations are not eligible for donation plaques, however the donor will be provided with a
certificate
acknowledging
the
donation
and
the
location
of
the
donated
item
”).
So, it is curious that nothing in the agenda or staff report indicates the Council is being asked to waive
the
policy
it
adopted
by
resolution.
As to the merits of the request, I have no objection to a plaque commemorating the 250th anniversary
of
our
nation’s
Declaration
of
Independence
from
the
State
of
Great
Britain.
And
it
seems
appropriate
that
it
be
placed
next
to
a
plaque
commemorating
the
200th
anniversary
of
that
event.
I do have some problem with plaques that seem intended as much to honor the donor as the event
being
commemorated.
To avoid that, I would suggest the Council stick with its wise policy by, assuming the Newport Beach
Foundation
is
still
willing
to
pay,
by
revising
the
proposed
text
to
read:
“Dedicated by the City of Newport Beach Foundation to honor the enduring spirit of liberty,
the
courageous
patriots
who
founded
this
nation,
and
the
generations
of
Americans
who
have
fought,
served,
and
sacrificed
to
defend
and
sustain
its
promise
of
freedom
and
opportunity
for
250
years”
or, alternatively: “Dedicated by the grateful citizens of Newport Beach Foundation to honor the enduring spirit
of
liberty,
the
courageous
patriots
who
founded
this
nation,
and
the
generations
of
Americans
who
have
fought,
served,
and
sacrificed
to
defend
and
sustain
its
promise
of
freedom
and
opportunity
for
250
years”
with a certificate acknowledging this generous park amenity donation, and indicating its location, sent
to
the
Newport
Beach
Foundation
as
directed
by
Council
policy.
April 14, 2026, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 7 of 8 Additionally, the staff report says “ The Newport Beach Foundation will provide a $5,000 donation to
the
City
,”
yet
the
“Attachment
A
–
Donation
Agreement
with
the
Newport
Beach
Foundation”
that
the
Council
is
being
asked
to
approve
says
“
$4,800
.”
And
it
promises
maintenance
for
100
years,
which
also
requires
a
Policy
B-17
waiver.
Finally, the staff report to PB&R said the new plaque would be installed to the left of the existing bicentennial
plaque.
While
the
proposed
Agreement
appears
to
be
silent
on
that,
I
think
it
should
be
installed
to
the
right
,
so
there
will
be
room
for
future
generations
to
add
plaques
to
this
one’s
right,
and
they
will
be
in
chronological
order,
left
to
right.
Item 11. Planning Commission Agenda for the April 2, 2026, Meeting The Council may notice from the Planning Division’s Tentative Agenda, and also from a Public Notice, that on April 23, along with two other hearing items, the Planning Commission will be holding its one and only public hearing to review and formulate a recommendation on a proposed comprehensive
update
of
the
City’s
General
Plan,
affecting
the
City
for
the
next
24 years
and
consisting of more than 188 pages of draft documents, containing 568 proposed policies organized under 99 goals (not to mention the separate Circulation and very lengthy Housing elements with which all those are supposed to be consistent). How the Commissioners will do this in
any
meaningful
way
is
beyond
me.
Members
of
the
public
will
presumably
have
just
3 minutes
to
comment
on
the
entire
thing.
Item 12. Resolution No. 2026-21: Appeal of the Acacia Atrium Medical Condominium
Conversion
Project
at
20280
and
20312
Acacia
Street
(PA2024-0236)
Should the Council decide to adopt the staff recommendation to approve this conversion, I think a reasonable
question
will
remain
of
whether
the
applicant
was
“successful”
in
their
appeal,
which
affects whether they would be entitled, pursuant to NBMC Section 3.36.030 to a refund of their appeal fee. I would argue that they are not entitled to a refund whether or not the conversion is approved. That is because under NBMC Subsection 20.64.030.3.C.d the normal appeal procedure is that “ The review authority shall consider the same application, plans, and project-related materials that
were
the
subject
of
the
original
decision,
unless
otherwise
deemed
relevant
by
the
review
authority
.”
In this case, despite no request by the review authority (in this case the Council) to do so, staff has
substituted
a
different
plan
from
that
reviewed
by
the
Planning
Commission,
which
it
believes
addresses
their
objections,
yet
is
not
the
application
they
denied.
I believe the refund was intended to be due only when the review authority concluded the lower body
had
made
a
“wrong”
decision,
putting
the
applicant
through
what
should
have
been
unnecessary
additional
time,
trouble
and
expense
to
have
the
“wrong”
decision
overturned.
In this case, despite the staff report saying (on page 7) “ There is no fiscal impact related to this item
,”
I
believe
there
is
an
impact,
and
it
is
the
applicant
that
has
put
the
City
through
the
time,
trouble
and
expense
of
modifying
a
modified
application.
April 14, 2026, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 8 of 8 Item VI. MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION See footnote to non-agenda comment 2, above. The Council may wish to reconsider its action on the March 10 minutes, which were approved as Item 2 at the March 24 meeting, but contain multiple misspellings of names of public speakers.