May 12, 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 - Self-Certification Building Permit Program In the absence of any advance information beyond the agenda announcement, it is difficult to comment
on
this
item.
Is there a record of architects submitting plans that need no corrections? Will there be a spot check of self-certified plans to ensure they do comply with the codes? Will architects who self-certify plans that prove to be inconsistent with City codes be removed from
further
participation
in
the
program?
Will self-certified projects be subject to the normal building inspections, or will that be self-inspected
as
well?
Item 2. Minutes for the April 28, 2026, City Council Meeting The minutes of the City Council meetings appear to be moving in an unfamiliar direction. From the City’s founding in 1906, the minutes were kept in books with numbered pages. Last year, starting on July 29, the approved minutes signed by the Mayor and City Clerk ceased being stamped with the City Seal, but they did continue to show volume and page numbers. Starting with the March 10 minutes, the page numbers disappeared. Assuming the unnumbered pages are still assembled into books, this would be minimally compliant with the City Charter Subsection 603(e) requirement for the City Clerk to maintain records of the proceedings of the Council. However, it is difficult, at least for me, to see the advantage of not having page numbers.
It
certainly
complicates
reference
to
the
pages,
and
could
make
it
difficult
to
tell
if
a
page
is
missing.
In any event, 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 785-page agenda packet, in which the minutes begin with a cover page numbered “12” and end on a page numbered “22.”. Agenda packet page 12 : This is a cover page, which has not been part of the minutes in the past,
but
is
helpful
in
identifying
the
location
of
the
meeting.
However,
like
the
header
line
on
each
subsequent
page,
it
refers
to
“STUDY
SESSION-
4:00
PM
(PUBLIC
WELCOME),”
implying
these
are
the
minutes
for
the
Study
Session
item,
only.
Yet,
they
appear
to
be
minutes
for
the
full
meeting.
Agenda packet page 13 , Item II, paragraph 1, sentence 2: “ Acting Deputy Director Zdeba noted that
the
Planning
Commission
unanimously
recommended
adoption
the
prior
week
,
…”
Agenda packet page 15 , Council announcements, paragraph 2: “ Councilmember Barto thanked Newport
Ocean
Sailing
Organization Association and the delegation from Ensenada, including Claudia Agatón Muñiz, for their participation in the Newport to Ensenada race kickoff. ” [The video May 12, 2026, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 2 of 8 indicates Councilmember Barto thanked “NOSA” without further elaboration. Spelling it out in the minutes is helpful, but the “A” in “NOSA” stands for “Association.”] Agenda packet page 15 , Council announcements, paragraph 3: “ Councilmember Grant highlighted
recent
community
events
including
the
Oasis OASIS Senior Center volunteer lunch,
yacht
club
opening
day,
the
inaugural
Oasis OASIS Coastal Circle Women's Group, a Newport Beach Historical Society presentation on the city's last 20 years, the Newport Beach Chamber Commodores
Scholarship
Dinner,
and
National
Library
Week
activities
.”
[“OASIS”
is
normally
in
capital
letters.
It
is
an
abbreviation
for
“Older
Adults
Social
and
Information
Services.”]
Agenda packet page 15 , Council announcements, paragraph 5: “ Councilmember Stapleton commended
the
OC
Marathon
coordination
efforts
and
thanked
the
Newport
Beach
Historical
Society,
the
Newport
Beach
International
Boat
Show,
Harbormaster
Paul
Blank,
Library
Services
Director
Melissa
Hartson,
the
Chamber
of
Commerce,
and
the
Oasis OASIS sailing community .” Agenda packet page 15 , PUBLIC COMMENTS ON CONSENT CALENDAR: The minutes formerly
identified
the
Consent
Calendar
item(s)
the
comments
related
to.
Agenda packet page 16 , CONSENT CALENDAR, paragraph 2: “ Motion to approve the Consent Calendar,
minus
item
#4,
with
amendments
to
the
minutes
,
was
made
by
Mayor
Pro
Tem
Blom
and seconded by Councilmember Weber .” [The video confirms this was the motion. However, I am unable to find anything in the meeting archive indicating any amendments to the minutes were proposed.] Agenda packet page 17 , last paragraph: “ All Council members declared no ex-parte communications
with
the
exception
of
Councilmember
Stapleton
,
who
disclosed
a
brief
general
communication
with
the
applicant's
representative
that
did
not
go
beyond
information
already
in
the
administrative
record
.”
[comment:
This
was
about
the
300
Newport
Center
Drive
Condominiums,
for
which
the
Council
was
holding
a
de
novo
hearing
on
appeal.
It
is
hard
to
believe
that
no
one
outside
of
City
staff
had
spoken
to
any
other
Council
member
regarding
this
high profile and controversial project. Indeed, the meeting archive includes a number of emails addressed to the Council members from various parties, and it seems likely there would have been
more,
including
oral
conversations
with
project
proponents
and
opponents.]
Agenda packet page 18 , paragraph 1, sentence 4: “ One of two appeals (filed by SAFR SAFER) was
withdrawn
on
the
day
of
the
hearing;
…”
Agenda packet page 19 , last paragraph: “ Ron Rubino (39-Year East Bluff Eastbluff Resident) commended
staff's
work,
acknowledged
the
legitimacy
of
the
planning
process,
and
expressed
concern
that
the
project
consumes
housing
overlay
units
without
producing
any
affordable
housing
.”
Agenda packet page 20 , paragraph 5: “ Mayor Pro Tem Blom moved, seconded by Councilmember
Weber,
to
deny
the
appeal;
conduct the public hearing; Find that this project is not
subject
to
further
environmental
review
pursuant
to
Section
21083.3
of
the
California
Public
Resources
Code
(PRC)
and
Section
15183
of
the
California
Environmental
Quality
Act
(CEQA)
Guidelines … ” [The video indicates the motion was simply “to deny the appeal.” Someone has added a lot to that in the minutes. Among the things added, I think it would be very odd for the Council
to
have
moved
to
“conduct
the
public
hearing”
since
it
had
just
conducted
one.]
May 12, 2026, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 3 of 8 Agenda packet page 21 , Item 15, paragraph 5: “ Mayor Pro Tem Blom moved, seconded by Councilmember
Grant,
to
a) Conduct a public hearing; Find that the proposed overriding action is
not
subject
to
the
California
Environmental
Quality
Act
(CEQA)
…”
[see
previous
comment]
Agenda packet page 22 : The minutes do not say if an announcement was made about the closed
session
items.
They do say “Meeting went into Recess” and “Meeting Reconvened,” but they fail to say the time at
which
those
events
occurred,
making
it
impossible
to
know
how
long
the
closed
session
lasted.
Agenda packet page 22 : This last page is also missing the usual statement indicating how the meeting
was
noticed,
and
the
places
for
signatures
by
the
Mayor
and
Clerk.
Item 1. Reading of Ordinances Why is this part of the present Consent Calendar? On this agenda, I am unable to find any ordinances
proposed
for
adoption.
Item 4. Fire Station No.2 HVAC Retrofit - Notice of Completion for Contract
No.
9959-1
(25R02
It is good to see a contract completed for under the bid price. While the report indicates improvements in the humidity inside the building have been observed after
the
retrofit,
it
is
unclear
if
there
was
a
target
for
how
much
improvement
was
expected
or
promised
and
if
it
was
met.
Item 5. Approval of Professional Services Agreement with X Engineering
&
Consulting,
Inc.
for
the
AD
124
Alley
Restoration
Design
Services-Contract
No.
9451-4
It is unclear why the contract is proposed to be awarded to the second-highest scoring firm in a previous
RFP
for
similar
work,
especially
since
the
components
that
went
into
the
previous
“total
scores”
(qualifications?
cost?)
are
not
specified.
Would the proposed contract amount be different if a different firm was recommended? Wouldn’t it make sense to recommend the firm that can do the work at the lowest cost? Item 6. Approval of Equipment Replacement Purchase Orders for One Hydro
Excavator
Truck
and
One
Sewer
Cleaner
Truck
The staff report refers to Council Policy F-9 (“City Vehicle/Equipment Replacement Guidelines”) for guidance on when this (very expensive) equipment needs to be replaced. It should be noted that Policy F-9 (which has existed in some form since 1992) was revised in 2016 to make clear it is primarily a financial planning tool – to ensure funds are being set aside and
will
be
available
to
pay
for
replacements
if
needed
at
the
expected
end
of
life.
However,
with
the
exception
of
fire
trucks,
it
does
not
require
that
replacement
happen
on
the
stated
schedule.
May 12, 2026, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 4 of 8 Replacement can be needed sooner or later dep
1 ending on the condition of the vehicle and other factors.
The report is not entirely clear as to whether this equipment does, indeed, show signs of being at its
end
of
useful
life
after
the
10 years
predicted
in
Policy
F-9.
It
also
does
not
seem
to
mention
how
long
it
is
expected
it
will
take
to
receive
the
replacements,
or
if
any
alternative
vendors
were
considered.
Item 7. Approval of Purchase Order with Pinnacle Petroleum, Inc. for Fuel
It might have been helpful to indicate where City vehicles will fuel up under this purchase order.
Hopefully,
they
do
not
need
to
drive
to
the
address
on
the
P.O.,
which
is
in
Huntington
Beach.
Has the fueling station closure/construction mentioned in the report affected the previously-announced
public
mulch/compost
distribution
program,
which
I
thought
was
being
staged
at
the
same
location
(but
does
not
seem
to
be
well
publicized
on
the
City
website)?
Item 8. Pump Station Commercial Door Replacement - Award of Contract
No.
9888-1
(25F03)
The link to the project plans is a welcome replacement for the previous statements that Public Works’ plans would be available for inspection at the meeting.
Item 9. Professional Services Agreement with Aleshire & Wynder, LLP, JLGroup,
LLC,
and
Richard
D.
Jones
dba
Jones
Mayer
for
Hearing
Adjudication
Services
It would have been helpful to provide statistics on the number of appeals heard by the three firms as
well
as
the
percentage
of
successful
appeals,
and
whether
it
differs
between
them.
While
decision
for
or
against
the
City
is
not
supposed
to
be
a
criterion
for
selection,
it
might
help
to
indicate
if
an
objective
service
is
being
provided.
In view of Item 15 on the present agenda, it might also have been helpful to note if any fees are charged
to
help
defray
the
cost
of
the
hearing
officer
contracts.
The
Municipal
Code
appears
to
be
ambiguous
in
this
regard.
While
it
does
not
appear
to
address
Police-issued
citations,
the
“Cost Recovery Percentages” table in Section 3.36.030, under “Finance Department,” indicates there is “0%” recovery expected for “Admin. Cite Hearings,” “Parking Hearings” and successful “Short
Term
Lodging
Permit
Suspension
or
Revocation
Hearings”
(with
50%
recovery
for
unsuccessful STL hearings). But in Chapter 1.05, Subsection 1.05.010 defines “Administrative Costs” to include everything including a hearing officers fee, while Section 1.05.050 establishes a system
for
recovery
of
those
administrative
costs
(subject
to
a
possible
appeal
of
them,
too).
1 While sewer cleaning “vactor” trucks are explicitly listed in Policy F-9, it is not entirely clear what replacement
schedule
category
a
“hyro-excavator”
would
fit
under.
May 12, 2026, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 5 of 8 It is hard to see why there would be extensive code ensuring recovery of the costs if (per Section
3.36.030)
there
is
no
intent
to
recover
them.
Item 10. Amended and Restated National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System
Stormwater
Permit
Implementation
Agreement
-
Approval
Does the City have any alternatives to joining the agreement? Are there any cities taking a different
path?
Item 11. Amendment to Professional Services Agreement with Sampson
Oil
Company
for
Oil
Well
Management
Services
The three-member Ad Hoc Oil Advisory Committee was created by Resolution No. 2025-15, adopted on April 29, 2025. The report says that after discussions with various parties, including the
Committee,
staff
is
recommending
this
contract
extension.
Isn’t it the Committee, rather than staff, that is supposed to be making a recommendation to the full
Council?
How does staff know “an extension of the existing agreement … provides the best value to the City”
if
it
did
not
follow
through
on
its
previously-announced
plan
to
explore
other
possibilities
by
conducting
an
RFP?
Item 14. Resolution No. 2026-27: Notice of Intent to Override Airport Land
Use
Commission
Finding
of
Inconsistency
for
Amendment
to
Newport
Place
Planned
Community
Development
Plan
Related
to
the
Minimum
Percentage
of
Inclusionary
For-Sale
Housing
within
the
Residential
Overlay
(PA2025-0196)
It is interesting to see the push to reduce residential unit affordability requirements in the one remaining
part
of
the
City
where
any
affordability
requirement
remains.
The push is predicated on the claim that such requirements make construction unfeasible. That claim is especially interesting in view of the fact that the first Airport Area residential project, Uptown
Newport,
considered
at
a
time
when
the
since-repealed
NBMC
Chapter
19.54 placed
a
15%
requirement
on
it,
was
proposed
and
approved
with
20%
of
the
base
units
affordable.
2 Since it was built, and appears successful, it’s a bit hard to believe it was “unfeasible.” I do not believe, however, that the Airport Land Use Commission is objecting to the change in the affordability
requirement,
but
rather
simply
reaffirming
their
previous
unease
about
this
being
a
suitable
site
for
any
housing
to
be
compatible
with
airport
operations.
As I indicated at the last Council meeting on April 28, when the Council initiated a similar override to
make
possible
approval
of
the
Comprehensive
General
Plan
Amendment,
the
most
basic
2 See table on page 12 of the December 6, 2012, Item 5 Planning Commission staff report.
May 12, 2026, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 6 of 8 disagreement
3 is over what the most appropriate aircraft-generated noise contours are to use for compatibility
planning
purposes,
with
neither
side
having
a
good
argument
since
neither
has
bothered
to
actually
measure
the
noise
in
the
area
in
any
comprehensive
way,
or
to
project
where
the
contours
might
lie
more
than
four
years
from
now.
The continued approval of residential projects in this area is providing some limited private noise studies,
required
during
the
plan
check
process.
Although
not
precisely
in
the
Newport
Place
area,
City
staff
has
recently
posted
measurements
taken
in
conjunction
with
an
Irvine
Company
proposal
to
build
a
700-unit
complex
on
the
southeast
corner
of
MacArthur
and
Campus
(PA2026-0041 Acoustic Assessment), which included deploying a microphone on the roof of 4685 MacArthur Court from December 3 to 5, 2025. Unfortunately, the results (a measured 67 CNEL) are
not
presented
in
a
way
to
distinguish
aircraft
from
road
traffic
noise.
Regarding the proposed resolution of intent, it might be noted that it seems to be arguing that the Council’s action would be consistent not only with the state purposes listed in Public Utilities Code Section 21670, but with the JWA AELUP adopted by the OC ALUC. It is not clear the latter is either necessary or persuasive. It might also be noted that what proposed Section 2 of the resolution
refers
to
as
“finds”
are
more
commonly
known
as
"findings."
Item 15. Ordinance No. 2026-04: Amending Newport Beach Municipal Code
Section
3.36.030
Related
to
Cost
Recovery
Percentages,
and
Resolution
No.
2026-28:
Revising
and
Adopting
Fees
Within
the
Schedule
of
Rents,
Fines
and
Fees
Regarding Cost Recovery Percentages table, Exhibit A of NBMC Section 3.36.030, I have long commented
(including
at
the
most
recent
Finance
Committee
meeting)
about
the
inefficiency
of
stating
at
the
beginning
of
the
table
a
general
rule,
applicable
to
“All
Departments,”
that
unless
otherwise
specified,
0%
of
the
cost
of
successful
appeals
and
50%
of
the
cost
of
unsuccessful
appeals
is
recovered,
and
then
repeating
the
identical
rule,
over
and
over,
for
most,
but
not
all
of
the
departments.
Equally inexplicable is the decision this year to remove this redundant provision for “Chapter
17.65 Appeals”
under
“Community
Development
Department,”
but
retain
it
under
“Harbor
Department”
and
“Public
Works
Department.”
This
is
especially
strange
when
one
actually
reads
Chapter 17.65 and learns that under it an appeal could be filed against a decision made by “the Public Works Director, Community Development Director, Risk Manager, and/or Harbormaster” as well
as
the
Harbor
Commission.
While
I
think
none
of
these
are
necessary
(given
the
redundancy
of
these
provisions
with
the
general
rule
applicable
to
all
departments),
why
have
the
Harbor
Department
and
Public
Works
Department
been
singled
out
for
inclusion,
while
the
Community
Development
and
the
Office
of
the
City
Attorney
(within
which
the
Risk
Manager
now
resides)
omitted?
And as noted in comments on Item 9, above, this table also appears to create a conflict within the Municipal
Code
as
to
whether
administrative
costs
are
ever
recovered
when
administrative
citations
are
appealed,
even
if
the
appeal
is
unsuccessful.
3 The ALUC also has safety concerns related to piston aircraft flight paths.
May 12, 2026, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 7 of 8 The 85 pages of the proposed Schedule of Rents, Fines and Fees are a bit difficult to review for accuracy
and
consistency,
especially
when
made
available
only
for
online
viewing.
But
I
would
note
a
possible
tendency
of
the
Council
to
institute
programs
for
which
it
promises
to
set
a
fee
and
then
failing
to
do
so.
For example, on December 9, 2025, the Council adopted Ordinance No. 2025-35, creating new e-bike regulations. In new Section 12.56.080 (Penalties, Impoundment, and Diversion), subsection (b) allows the Council to set an impound fee, which the consultant has also dutifully studied
and
recommended
for
approval
and
inclusion
in
the
SRFF.
However,
if
one
reads
the
next
paragraph,
subsection
(c)
not
only
allows,
but
actually
commands
that
“
A
fee
for
participation
in
the
diversion
program
shall
be
established
by
resolution
of
the
City
Council
.”
As
best
I
can
tell
this
has
not
been
done,
even
though
the
Municipal
Code
would
appear
to
require
100%
cost
recovery
unless
the
Council
specifies
something
different
in
Exhibit
A
of
Section
3.36.030,
which
also
does
not
seem
to
have
been
done.
Similarly, on February 26, the Council chose to ignore the City Charter and take over revising the City
tree
policies
without
even
a
recommendation
from
the
Parks,
Beaches
and
Recreation
Commission (which the Charter empowers with establishing City tree policies). Page 3 of the newly-adopted Policy G-1 says that those wishing to request removal of a City tree can do so only
by
“
paying
the
applicable
fee
as
set
by
resolution
of
the
City
Council
.”
As
best
I
can
tell,
that
fee
has
not
been
set,
and
the
present
item
fails
to
correct
that.
Moreover, one of the stated reasons for the Council taking the writing of Policy G-1 out of PB&R’s hands
was
the
Council
was
tired
of
hearing
appeals
of
PB&R
tree
removal
decisions
(even
though
the
number
appealed
to
the
Council
has
been
very
low).
Yet,
whether
the
Council
is
aware
of
it
or
not,
it
has
never
set
a
fee
for
either
those
appeals
or
the
much
more
numerous
appeals
of
staff
decisions
to
PB&R.
Having no fee established by the Council leaves the Municipal Operations Department in a quandary
as
to
what,
if
anything,
to
charge
for
these
tree
appeals,
and
as
a
result
my
understanding
is
that
for
years
no
fee
at
all
has
ever
been
charged
for
the
considerable
amount
of
staff
time
devoted
to
providing
a
service
that
would
normally
be
subject
to
100%
cost
recovery.
I cannot guess what other oversights might exist in the SRFF.
Item 16. Resolution No. 2026-29: Dissolving the Newport Beach Police Headquarters
Assessment
Committee
and
Creating
the
Newport
Beach
Police
Headquarters
Advisory
Committee
When did the Mayor become the person deciding which citizens should be appointed to Council-created
committees?
This
is
hard
to
square
with
the
City
Charter,
as
is
the
whole
idea
of
Council-citizen advisory committees. Specifically, Charter Section 700 authorizes the Council to create advisory boards and commissions when it needs them, and Council members (as paid City officers)
are
explicitly
prohibited
from
being
members
of
them.
While
the
Council
has
ignored
this
provision
for
many
years,
it
would
not
appear
the
people
have
ever
authorized
them
to
do
so.
May 12, 2026, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 8 of 8 I also find it extraordinary that a committee created to explore the feasibility of a single site would be
given
nearly
three
years
(until
December
31,
2029)
to
reach
a
conclusion.
That
seems
to
fly
in
the
face
of
claims
there
is
an
urgent
need
to
relocate
the
Police
Headquarters.
Moreover, it appears the intent is to use the same committee to recommend a final detailed design.
Not
only
does
that
presuppose
the
result
of
the
first
task
(a
determination
that
the
site
is
feasible),
but
it
would
seem
to
require
different
skills
on
the
part
of
the
members.
It
would
seem
to
me
wise
to
separate
the
two
tasks,
and
approach
the
second
with
a
different
set
of
people,
and
only
when
and
if
it
is
necessary
to
do
so.