From: Jim Mosher
To: City Clerk"s Office
Cc: Dept - City Council
Subject: Comments on Council agenda items (4/28/2026 meeting) Date: April 27, 2026 4:07:29 PM
Attachments: 2026-04-28_CC_Agenda_Comments_JimMosher.pdf [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Report phish using the Phish Alert Button above.
Madam Clerk,
Please find attached some written comments regarding selected items on tomorrow's Newport Beach City Council agenda.
Yours sincerely,
Jim Mosher
April 28, 2026
Written Comments
April 28, 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 II. STUDY SESSION: Introducing the Newport Beach 2050 General
Plan
(PA2022-080)
The last comprehensive General Plan update, in 2000-2006, 1 included revisions to the Housing
and
Circulation
Elements
as
integral
parts
of
the
effort.
While the present effort differs in that those elements were regarded as separate matters approved
in
2022,
the
difference
in
Council
and
public
interest
in
the
remainder
of
the
proposed
new
General
Plan
is
stunning.
The preamble to the former General Plan Update adopting Resolution No. 2006-76 lists 15 Planning Commission meetings and 17 Council meetings as it progressed through the GPAC process,
and
another
10 Planning
Commission
hearings
and
8 Council
hearings
after
the
GPAC
wrapped
up
its
work
with
a
recommendation
at
its
March
13,
2006,
meeting.
2 The
Planning
Commission
and
Council
meetings
went
over
every
Element
and
most
policies
in
depth,
and
video records of the last 12 months of Council meetings, which were generally long and well-attended, survive. By contrast, this first Council study session, to be followed by a single hearing on June 23, was preceded
by
a
brief
Planning
Commission
review
of
the
Land
Use
and
Safety
Elements,
followed
by
a
single
Planning
Commission
study
session
and
hearing
on
the
complete
final
GPAC
recommendation,
each
lasting
barely
15 minutes.
For what it may be worth, I submitted some written comments at the April 23 Planning Commission hearing, at which I believe I was the only member of the public in attendance. I have
not
had
time
to
expand
on
them
since.
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON AGENDA AND NON-AGENDA ITEMS I continue to miss the CIty providing printed copies of Council agenda materials for the public to study,
and
have
to
refer
to
at
the
meetings,
as
most
other
City
bodies
continue
to
do.
The experience of seeing materials in printed form is quite different from that of seeing them only
on
electronic
devices.
In
my
experience,
the
latter
discourages
relevant
participation
in
the
meetings.
It
certainly
complicates
preparing
these
comments,
which
are
significantly
less
thorough
than
they
would
formerly
have
been.
2 Unfortunately,
as
often
happens
with
limited
term
committees,
minutes
of
the
final
meeting
do
not
seem
to
exist.
1 Records of the meetings of the earlier General Plan Advisory Committee from 2002-2006 are part of the City’s
Boards
&
Commissions
archive.
If
the
meetings
of
the
General
Planning
Update
Committee,
which
began
“steering”
the
process
before
that
(see
Resolution No. 2000-45), are archived, it is not obvious where.
April 28, 2026, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 2 of 5 Item 4. Resolution No. 2026-23: Undergrounding Utility Assessment Loan
Program
It is surprising to me that this significant new program does not come to the Council with a recommendation
from
the
Finance
Committee.
And given the Council’s recent interest in having more public discussion of financial matters, it is even
more
surprising
it
is
scheduled
on
the
Consent
Calendar,
where,
if
it
proceeds
as
planned,
it
will
be
approved
with
no
discussion
at
all,
and
not
even
the
item
title
will
be
publicly
announced.
Regarding the proposed program, on page 2, it does not seem to me that the sorts of documentation
described
would
be
adequate
to
establish
an
applicant’s
assets.
For
example,
a
tax
return
would
not
reveal
stock
ownership
unless
the
stock
paid
dividends.
Item 5. Resolution No. 2026-24: Approving a Legislative Platform Many of the planks in the current and proposed legislative platforms support legislation that enhances
local
control
and
oppose
legislation
that
reduces
it.
While I’m sure the state and federal legislative bodies will be interested in hearing this, are there really
a
lot
of
California
cities
that
take
the
opposite
position,
seeking
to
have
bills
passed
that
will
reduce
their
power?
Item 13. Planning Commission Agenda for the April 23, 2026, Meeting The Council may notice from the Planning Division’s Tentative Agenda (which does not seem to be part of the currently posted single-file Agenda Packet) that between now and when it will be asked to approve a comprehensively revised General Plan on June 23, only two of their four meetings
have
any
items
scheduled.
One
might
wonder
why
the
Council
would
not
want
them
to
use
some
of
that
downtime
to
more
carefully
review
the
proposed
General
Plan
revisions,
especially
since
two
of
the
Commissioners
were
absent
from
the
one
17-minute
long
review
they
did
conduct
on
April
23. Item 14. Resolution No. 2026-26: 300 Newport Center Drive Condominiums
Appeal
(PA2025-0102)
I think the public’s consternation is understandable regarding the Planning Commission’s approval
of
a
project
very
similar
to
the
Council’s
approval
of
the
same
developer’s
“Museum
House,”
which
was
rescinded
by
the
Council
in
2017
in
response
to
a
voter
initiative
against
it
(see Item 15 from February 28, 2017). Since, like that, it involves a drastic change in land use, one might have expected the entire proposal
for
land
use
change
and
project
approval
to
have
come
before
the
Council
for
public
consideration
as
a
complete
package.
Instead,
it
has
been
pursued
in
a
piecemeal
fashion
evading
proper
public
knowledge
or
close
environmental
scrutiny
of
what
might
change.
April 28, 2026, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 3 of 5 That tortured history is only partially disclosed in the March 5 Planning Commission staff report, which is only linked to in the present one. In particular, it seems important to note this property has never, to the best of my knowledge, been
recognized
in
our
General
Plan
as
a
site
needed
to
meet
our
RHNA
requirements.
It
is
not
recognized
as
a
“Housing
Opportunity”
site
in
the
Housing
Element.
Instead, when the “Housing Overlay Districts” implementing the opportunity sites were added by ordinance
to
the
Zoning
Code,
it
and
a
couple
of
other
sites
were
rather
surreptitiously
included
–
even
though
there
was
no
prediction
of
how
many
units
in
what
income
categories
it
was
intended
to
support,
making
a
“no
net
loss”
evaluation
of
the
present
approval
difficult,
if
not
impossible. One had to dive deep into the map accompanying Ordinance No, 2024-16 to discover that sites not in the Housing Element, including the Edwards Cinema property, had been
slipped
into
the
EIR
and
added
to
the
overlay
map
being
approved.
3 Then last year (see Item 18 from the June 10, 2025, Council meeting) the height limit for the property was drastically increased from 32 to 270 feet, not as a project-specific consideration, but
as
part
of
a
more
generalized
change
to
height
limits
on
a
variety
of
properties
in
Newport
Center
and
other
locations,
said
to
be
necessary
to
make
feasible
construction
of
the
housing
being
required
by
the
state.
However,
what
the
height
increase
made
possible
was
the
large
luxury
units
presently
being
proposed,
which
are
not
being
required
by
the
state.Keeping
the
original
height
limit
would
actually
have
served
as
an
incentive
for
the
affordable
workforce
housing
that
is
being
required
by
the
state,
because
only
if
affordable
(as
opposed
to
luxury)
housing
was
being
proposed
could
a
height
waiver
sufficient
to
make
it
feasible
have
been
demanded.
Because of the large number of properties potentially impacted by these overlays and height increases,
notices
of
these
meetings
were
not
mailed
to
surrounding
neighbors.
Instead,
notice
was
confined
to
an
obscure
ad
in
the
edition
of
the
Daily
Pilot
.
These little-noticed Council pre-approvals left the full project needing only a Planning Commission
sign-off,
and
I
believe
it
is
this
lack
of
any
clear
and
transparent
airing
of
major
land
use
changes
that
is
the
source
of
much
of
the
public’s
current
frustration
–
being
told,
now,
that,
unknown
to
them,
what
they
might
object
to
was
previously
approved,
leaving
no
further
recourse.
Regarding the adequacy of the CEQA analysis, the Council may wish to be aware of the recently California Court of Appeals opinion in SAVE OUR ACCESS v. City of San Diego , 115 Cal. App. 5th, 388, which found a generalized program environmental impact report was not an adequate substitute for a more substantial review of the potential impacts of major height limit increases.
3 I could have missed it, but I am unable to find anything in the July 23, 2024, staff presentation warning that
the
overlay
maps
being
presented
for
approval
included
opportunity
sites
not
identified
in
the
previously-approved
Housing
Element.
Likewise,
I
see
nothing
about
new
sites
being
added
in
the
September 24, 2024, staff presentation, when the ordinance returned for adoption. Instead, the presentations
focused
on
what
was
claimed
to
have
been
an
extraordinary
amount
to
public
engagement.
April 28, 2026, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 4 of 5 Item 15. Resolution No. 2026-25: Notice of Intent to Override Orange County
Airport
Land
Use
Commission's
Determination
of
Inconsistency
for
the
Comprehensive
General
Plan
Update
(PA2022-080)
It is unusual, as is the case here, for the Airport Land Use Commission to review an item before the
local
Planning
Commission
has
made
a
recommendation
about
it.
It is also unusual that the staff report spends some time on the history and process for overriding
the
ALUC’s
finding
of
inconsistency
with
the
AELUP
for
JWA,
but
as
best
I
can
tell,
does
not
disclose
what
they
found
inconsistent.
I believe, as explained in the accompanying Resolution of Intention, the controversy centers around
the
City’s
insistence
on
using
for
planning
purposes
noise
contours
that
differ
from
those
specified
in
the
AELUP.
The
City’s
preferred
contours
are
those
shown
in
Figure
N-3
of
the
proposed
General
Plan
Update
that
is
the
subject
of
today’s
Council
study
session.
The City’s skepticism about the AELUP contours is justified, since they were computed in around
1985
to
project
what
conditions
would
be
like
in
2005.
Any
resemblance
to
the
current
or
future
reality
might
be
expected
to
be
largely
coincidental.
On the other hand, the CIty’s preferred contours also have their problems. For one, they are not compliant
with
state
law
4 which
requires
General
Plan
Noise
Elements
to
identify
both
current
and
projected
future
contours.
Figure
N-3
is,
without
further
explanation,
labeled
“2014
Settlement
Agreement
Airport
Noise
Contours.”
ALUC
staff
assumed
it
represented
the
contours
observed
in
2014.
I
believe
it
shows
the
contours
projected
in
2014
for
when
the
Agreement
ends
on
December
31,
2030.
Additionally, the footnote at the bottom of page 5 of 11 of the proposed resolution, quoting from the
EIR
containing
the
contours
and
saying
“
Airport
noise
contours
were
generated
using
the
INM
Version
7.0d.
The
latest
version,
INM
Version
7.0d,
was
released
for
use
in
May
2013
and
is
the
state-of-the-art
in
airport
noise
modeling
”
is
misleading.
The
INM
modeling
software
is
no
longer the state of the art. It was superseded in 2015 by something called AEDT, which has itself gone through many generations since. Additionally, since the 2014 Agreement and EIR related
to
commercial
jets,
it
is
unclear
if
the
modeling
included
the
effects
of
the
smaller
piston
planes,
which
are
frequently
a
matter
of
controversy
regarding
noise
in
what
the
City
calls
“the
Airport
Area”
(and
where
neither
JWA
nor
the
City
collect
actual
measurements
to
verify
the
predictions).
Also,
for
reasons
unknown
to
me,
City
staff
refuses
to
include
in
the
Noise
Element
the current JWA noise contours, even though they are publicly posted by the airport and including them is a requirement of state law. By shear coincidence, when the actual measured 2025 contours are compared to the disputed planning contours, the 1985 projections for the location of the 65 db CNEL contour in the vicinity of
Mesa
Drive
are
much
closer
to
the
current
reality
5 there
than
the
2014
projection,
which
5 The
agreement
is
unique
to
that
contour
and
that
area.
At
other
locations
and
other
noise
levels,
the
1985
projections
are
a
poor
match
to
the
current
reality
as
reported
by
the
airport.
4 Government Code Section 65302(f)
April 28, 2026, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 5 of 5 underestimates the aircraft impacts there, but overestimates them in the area to the east of the runway.
In short, neither agency (the ALUC or the City) has an easily defensible reason for basing planning
decisions
on
the
aviation
noise
contours
it
uses
(which
may
change
significantly
when
alternate
modes
of
air
transportation
become
common).