May 26, 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 - Proposed Fiscal Year 2026-27 through 2031-32
Capital
Improvement
Program
(CIP)
The presentation provided with the agenda packet is helpful, but the actual document the Council will be asked to approve on June 9 seems more important. Two weeks later, the Council will
apparently
be
asked
to
approve
an
updated
General
Plan.
Program Imp 1.1 in Chapter 13 of the existing General Plan says “ When the City or any external agency responsible for the planning or implementation of public works within the City prepares its
annual
list
of
proposed
public
works
and
its
five-year
Capital
Improvement
Program
(CIP),
these
must
be
submitted
to
the
Planning
Commission
for
review
for
conformity
with
the
adopted
General Plan (Government Code §65401) .” Will the Planning Commission be reviewing the CIP before June 9? I don’t believe they have done so. Imp 1.1 also says “ Additionally, when the City acquires property for public purposes, such as streets
and
parks,
the
Planning
Commission
is
required
to
review
this
action
and
report
on
its
consistency with the General Plan (§65402) .” Was this done with the City’s acquisition of 1201 Dove or property for relocation of the OCTA Transit Center, which seem closely related to some of
the
CIP
plans?
Regarding those, a couple of things about the treatment of Project No. 26F13 (replacement of the
Police
Station
Headquarters)
seem
strange.
First, on printed page 15, it shows $1.5 million for this project having been already approved in the
FY2025-26
budget
and
being
proposed
to
be
re-budgeted
for
FY2026-27.
While
I
recall
the
Council
discussing
$1.5
million
and
taking
straw
votes
about
proposals
that
involved
making
such
an
allocation,
I
do
not
recall
seeing
the
potential
for
any
formal
vote
to
amend
the
current
budget
being
announced
on
any
agenda.
When
was
this
revision
to
the
FY2025-26
budget
approved?
Second, the five-year plan on printed page 128 shows funding for the Police Station Replacement
to
be
approved
before
that
for
replacement
of
the
Newport
Center
Fire
Station.
Is
the
Council
being
asked
to
approve
this?
Since
the
concepts
that
have
been
shown
for
rebuilding
the
Police
Headquarters
at
its
present
location
require
moving
the
Fire
Station
first,
wouldn’t
this
approved
funding
plan
preclude
that
possibility?
An additional concern I have about the Capital Improvement Program document, as opposed to the
presentation,
is
that
the
document
serves
not
only
to
anticipate
future
funding
requirements,
but
to
document
past
commitments
to
the
same
projects
(in
the
“Prior
Year(s)”
column
of
the
“Expense
Type”
and
“Funding
Source”
tables.
Yet,
projects
disappear
from
the
CIP
book
as
soon
as
no
future
funding
needs
are
anticipated.
For
example,
two
major
CIP
projects
currently
underway
according
to
the
presentation
are
the
Civic
Center
Lecture
Hall
and
the
Balboa
Fibrary
Replacement.
Yet,
as
best
I
can
tell
neither
is
mentioned
in
the
CIP
book.
May 26, 2026, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 2 of 7 The Lecture Hall last appeared in the FY2023-24 CIP book with an allocation of $11,628,144 for "Construction" expenses. Even though the budget was nearly doubled by an amendment in the middle
of
that
year,
the
book
was
not
revised,
and
the
project
did
not
appear
in
the
2024-2025
CIP
or
any
later
book.
This does not provide good public transparency of the City’s commitments to on-going and highly
visible
capital
projects.
Similarly, the Balboa Library / Fire Station No. 1 Replacement last appeared in the FY2025-26 CIP book, where a new commitment that year of $16,000,000 was anticipated, bringing total funding to an expected $16,700,000. The project’s absence from the presently-proposed FY2026-27
book
suggests
no
further
commitments
will
be
needed,
but
it
leaves
the
public
in
the
dark
as
to
whether
any
revisions
to
the
budget
were
made
before
the
year
ended,
as
they
were
for
the
Lecture
Hall.
As a result, the public has no easy way to know what the City’s current total financial commitments
to
ongoing
projects
are.
To remedy this, I think the status of CIP projects should be reported in the CIP book until they are
completed,
independent
of
whether
a
need
for
additional
funding
is
anticipated
in
a
future
year.
Item III. MATTERS WHICH COUNCILMEMBERS HAVE ASKED TO BE PLACED
ON
A
FUTURE
AGENDA
Since discussion would presumably result in a better informed decision and more efficient use of staff
time
in
preparing
the
future
agenda
item,
I
continue
to
be
puzzled
why
the
Council
does
not
want
to
discuss
these
proposals.
That said, I think Councilmember Weigand’s suggestion to acquire capabilities to audio livestream
and
record
all
the
City’s
Brown
Act
meetings
is
long
overdue
for
consideration.
However,
I
believe
all
such
meetings
already
are
audio
recorded
for
purposes
of
preparing
minutes,
and
I
am
not
sure
adding
a
livestreaming
capability
is
all
that
critical
(people
unable
to
attend
may
also
be
unavailable
to
listen
to
a
stream
as
the
meeting
is
happening).
More
important,
it
would
seem
to
me,
is
making
the
recordings
easily
and
immediately
available
after
the
meeting,
1 so
those
who
were
unable
to
attend
can
find
out
what
happened
and
those
who
did
attend
can
review
exactly
what
was
said.
At
least
equally
important
is
to
explore
the
potential
of
video
recording
the
meetings
so
the
speakers
can
be
identified.
Item 1. Approval of Minutes As noted in my comments two weeks ago, starting on July 29, 2025, the approved minutes signed by the Mayor and City Clerk ceased being stamped with the City Seal. Starting with the March 10, 2026, minutes, the volume and page numbers disappeared. And starting with what 1 As I understand it, reviewing the audio recordings currently requires a Public Records Act request.
Although
those
requests
are
usually
promptly
fulfilled,
this
would
seem
to
consume
much
more
effort
and
expense
on
the
part
of
both
the
public
and
staff
than
would
simply
posting
links
to
where
the
recordings
are
stored.
May 26, 2026, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 3 of 7 purport to be the approved April 28, 2026 minutes, it appears they no longer even have any signatures attesting to their approval, or the date of approval. The absence of page numbers and
signatures
is
highly
unusual,
and
I
do
not
think
these
changes
serve
our
City
well.
Among
other
things,
without
page
numbers,
it
will
be
very
challenging
to
reference
passages
in
them.
That said, the passages shown in italics below are from the draft minutes of the May 12, 2026, meeting, with suggested corrections shown in strikeout underline format. The page numbers refer to the 673-page agenda packet, in which the minutes begin with a cover page numbered “34” and end on a page numbered “42.”. Agenda packet page 36 , Public Comments, paragraph 3: “Chaylee Coeli Hylkema (Mooring Permit
Holder)
expressed
concerns
about
proposed
mooring
fee
increases
…”
[
note
:
in
previous minutes, such as those from February 10, the name was spelled correctly.] Agenda packet page 36 , Public Comments, paragraph 6: “ Steven Gerard Sidlorsky Sidlovsky advocated
for
the
City
to
adopt
a
resolution
declaring
Newport
Beach
a
safe
pre-born
personhood city .” [ note : in most previous minutes, such as those from February 10, the surname had been rendered as “Sedlowski.” However, “Sidlovsky” appears to be the correct spelling. That spelling also produces dozens of related Google hits, whereas the others do not.] Agenda packet page 36 , City Council Announcements, paragraph 2: “ Councilmember Grant reported
on
attending
the
Boys
and
Girls
Club
of
Central
Orange
Coast
2026
Impact
Summit,
highlighting
the
organization's
partnership
with
the
City
in
East Bluff Eastbluff since 1971 .” [cf. City website and club site for spelling] Agenda packet page 38 , paragraph 3 from end, sentence 2: “ Mayor Kleiman recused herself as
well
due
to
her
husband
having
received
income
from
business
relations
with
INTRACORP
Intracorp involving projects outside the City .” [note: It is not clear why this company name would be capitalized. The company itself does not seem to do so except possibly in their logo.] Agenda packet page 39 , paragraph 1: In this and the following agenda item, it seems unlikely the
Council
would
have
voted
to
“conduct
a
public
hearing,”
since
the
public
hearing
on
the
matter
had
been
held
and
closed
before
the
vote.
Agenda packet page 39 , last full paragraph and beyond: The minutes suggest these Council comments
came
before
public
comments,
but
the
video
shows
they
came
after
.
Agenda packet page 40 , line 1: “ requested that staff explore full or partial cost recovery for administrative
site citation and parking hearings in a future study .” [ note : The video shows Mayor
Kleiman
used
the
word
“cite,”
short
for
“citation.”]
Agenda packet page 40 , Public Comment, paragraph 1: “ Jim Mosher (Resident) noted the complexity
of
the
fee
schedule
and
identified
several
apparent
gaps,
including
a
missing
fee
for
the
e-bike
diversion
program,
the
absence
of
fees
for
city
tree
removal
requests
and
related
appeals
under
the
recently
amended
tree
policy,
and
questioned
the
policy
rationale
for
pursuing
full
cost
recovery
for
the
Junior
Lifeguard
program
while
not
charging
for
CERT
or
Citizens
Police
Academy
participation
.”
[Comment:
Although
not
reflected
in
the
minutes,
following
this
comment Councilmember Weigand suggested that in contrast to the Junior Lifeguards program, the City’s CERT (Community Emergency Response Team) program is funded by the Federal
May 26, 2026, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 4 of 7 Emergency Management Agency. I have been unable to find any evidence this is the case. My understanding
is
FEMA
sets
guidelines
and
standards,
and
may
provide
training
materials,
but
funding is usually local. The City’s most recent Single Audit of federal grants for the year ended June 30, 2025, lists “Emergency Management Performance Grants” totalling $7,011. It is impossible
to
tell
if
they
are
related
to
CERT,
but
even
if
they
were,
this
would
do
little
to
offset
what the City’s proposed Budget Detail appears to list as $570,006 of anticipated CERT expenditures and no expected revenue. The Budget Detail (Fire Department accomplishments) does
suggest
the
City
receives
up
to
7,000
volunteer
service
hours
a
year
from
CERT-trained
volunteers
in
return
for
its
investment.]
Agenda packet page 41 , paragraph before Public Comment: This, again, appears to be reported
out
of
sequence,
making
it
difficult
to
distinguish
Council
comments
that
came
after
public
comment
from
those
that
came
before.
This
new
practice
of
putting
comments
out
of
order
makes
the
context
and
logic
of
them
unnecessarily
difficult
to
follow.
Additionally,
significant
comments
by
both
Council
members
and
the
public
have
been
selectively
omitted
here
and
elsewhere
in
the
minutes.
Agenda packet page 41 , Public Comment, paragraph 3: “ An unidentified speaker urged that the
word
"advisability"
be
added
alongside
"feasibility"
in
the
committee's
charge,
so
that
the
committee
could
address
whether
the
Civic
Center
park
site
is
a
good
idea,
not
merely
whether
it
is
technically
possible
.”
[comment:
The
“unidentified
speaker”
was
Walter
Stahr.]
Agenda packet page 42 , end of Motion by Mayor Kleiman: “... and change deadline for applications from date of publication of the notice to two (2) weeks .” [comment: This appears to be a fictionalized version of Mayor Kleiman’s actual First, the video shows her comment was not about a “deadline for publication of the notice,” but rather about the time after publication allowed
for
submission
of
applications.
Second,
while
she
said
“one
week”
was
too
short,
she
did
not
say
how
much
longer
it
should
be.
I
do
not
see
the
word
“two
(2)”
anywhere
in
the
video.
Item 2. Ordinance No. 2026-04: Amending Newport Beach Municipal Code
Section
3.36.030
Related
to
Cost
Recovery
Percentages
As I said when this ordinance was introduced on May 12, I think there are a number of problems with NBMC Section 3.36.030. For example, there would seem to be numerous instances in which the City provides services to individual
constituents,
at
their
request,
at
less
than
cost,
yet
nothing
can
be
found
in
Exhibit
“A”
allowing
less
than
100%
cost
recovery.
Examples
I
provided
on
May
12 included
tree
decision
appeals,
for
which
fees
have
never
been
charged
even
though
Exhibit
“A”
would
seem
to
require
50%
recovery
unless
the
appellant
is
successful
(not
to
mention
the
initial
request
being
appealed), and participation in programs such as CERT and the Citizens Police Academy, for which as best I can tell, nothing is charged, even though the rather similar Junior Lifeguards program
is
deemed
a
“user
service”
transitioning
toward
100%
recovery.
Regarding the Junior Lifeguards fee recovery, that may be contrasted with the many Recreation and
Senior
Services
programs
for
which
Exhibit
“A”
provides
only
a
broad
range
of
possible
cost
May 26, 2026, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 5 of 7 recoveries, leaving it completely unclear what recovery percentages are actually chosen, by whom
and
on
what
basis.
On May 12, the Junior Guards were characterized as a bargain child care opportunity, yet it is being
proposed
at
85%+
cost
recovery,
while
Exhibit
“A”
indicates
other
less
safety
education
oriented
after
school
and
summer
camps
are
expected
to
recover
only
20 to
50%
of
costs.
The
logic
escapes
me.
We were also told the anti-discrimination provision in the Beacon Bay Bill prevents our city from charging less for participation by residents than for non-residents. Yet, Newport Beach formerly did so, and nearby cities continue to do so, such as Laguna Beach, Huntington Beach, Seal Beach and Oceanside, to name a few, despite identical anti-discrimination language in their granting statutes (for those that have granting statutes: Laguna Beach and Oceanside).
Item 9. Set Public Hearing Date to Adopt Fiscal Year 2026-2027 Budget This item is slightly ironic in that a notice that a public hearing regarding adoption of a “Proposed Budget for the 2026-27 Fiscal Year, pursuant to Section 1102” would be held on June 9 has been posted on the City’s Legistar/Granicus noticing site since perhaps May 8. I don’t know when or if that notice has already been physically published in the Daily Pilot , but if City Charter Section 1102 allows only the Council to set the date, who decided June 9 should be announced as the date before the Council has made a decision? Adding additional confusion to what is already a process confusingly communicated to the public,
the
Fiscal
Impact
portion
of
the
staff
report
implies
that
what
the
Council
is
being
asked
to
set
a
date
for
is
a
hearing
regarding
the
“proposed
FY
2026-27
General
Fund
budget”
which
it
describes
as
involving
the
receiving
and
spending
around
$350
million,
with
“an
estimated
$2.5
million
surplus.”
These
numbers
have
no
obvious
correlation
to
anything
in
the
currently
posted
notice,
which
says
the
Council
will
be
considering
a
$523,364,532
budget.
It might also be noted that citizens wishing to prepare for the hearing are invited to inspect copies
of
this
proposed
budget
at
the
City
Clerk’s
Office
or
the
Central
Library.
Offering
two
locations
within
approximately
200
feet
of
each
other
hardly
seems
a
great
effort
to
make
inspection
convenient
to
residents,
many
of
whom
live
more
than
5 miles
from
those
locations.
Alternatively,
the
notice
suggests
inspection
is
available
on
the
City’s
website,
but
fails,
as
best
I
can
tell,
to
provide
any
guidance
as
to
where
on
the
City’s
website
the
documents
can
be
found.
Finally, for those who do find the links to the PDF budget books on the City website, the PDF’s lack (the last I looked) the customary digital bookmarks equivalent to the tabs in the physical copies,
making
them
unnecessarily
difficult
to
navigate.
Since
their
original
posting,
I
see
City
staff
has
added
a
feature
that
causes
the
website’s
links
to
PDF’s
to
open
in
an
AI-assisted
“DocAccess”
window
which,
after
some
thinking,
produces
a
“Document
Outline”
and
invites
viewers
to
“Ask
a
Question.”
This
might
help,
but
the
outline
is
not
consistent
or
entirely
reliable
(links
to
department
budgets
may
land
in
the
middle
of
the
section)
and
I
have
yet
to
formulate
a
question
it
can
provide
an
answer
to
(either
about
the
viewer
or
the
document).
May 26, 2026, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 6 of 7 Item 12. Ordinance No. 2026-5: Amending Title 21 of the Newport Beach
Municipal
Code,
and
Resolution
No.
2026-30:
Implementing
the
Housing
Element
and
Establishing
the
Housing
Opportunity
(HO)
Overlay
Coastal
Zoning
District
(PA2022-0245)
It seems important to note that the redline provided in Attachment J does not reveal all the changes to Title 21 that the Council is being asked to approve. It highlights only the Coastal Commission’s
requested
changes
to
the
much
larger
set
of
changes
originally
submitted
by
the
Council
to
the
CCC
for
their
certification.
Item 14. Ordinance No. 2026-06: Amending Title 5 (Business Licenses and
Regulations)
and
Title
20 (Planning
and
Zoning)
for
Tobacco
Retailer
Businesses
and
Cigar
Lounges
This remains a complex and difficult-to-review piece of legislation, particularly with the City no longer
distributing
printed
copies
for
public
review.
2 Additionally,
since
the
staff
report
says
changes
have
been
made
to
the
text
reviewed
by
the
Planning
Commission,
it
is
surprising
no
redline
to
the
text
seen
by
the
Planning
Commission
is
provided
to
clarify
exactly
what
has
been
changed
compared
to
what
they
saw.
For
those
who
followed
the
previous
hearing,
this
makes
it
unnecessarily
difficult
to
verify
what
was
responded
to,
and
how.
Regarding the Tobacco Retailer Businesses : 1. One comment I made when this was before the Planning Commission was that when similar
separation
requirements
were
proposed
to
be
added
to
the
code
regulating
Tattoo Establishments (see Item 25 from November 30, 2021), some effort was made to demonstrate there would still be locations where such businesses could be established.
If
I
am
reading
the
staff
report
correctly,
it
says
that
if
this
is
adopted
as
proposed,
every
existing
Tobacco
Retailer
Business
in
the
City
will
become
legally
non-conforming.
I
do
not
see
a
statement
about
whether
there
will
be
any
locations
where
a
future
Tobacco
Retailer
Business
could
be
legally
established.
2. Given its continued inclusion of sale of any “tobacco-related item,” I do not see any changes
to
the
definition
of
“Tobacco
Retailer
Business”
that
would
prevent
many
businesses
from
being
inadvertently
caught
up
in
its
web.
Especially
if
“Convenience
stores”
are
no
longer
excluded,
I
see
nothing
excluding
a
drug
store
or
pharmacy
selling
smoking-cessation
devices
(unless
they
have
a
side
business
selling
alcohol
qualifying
them
as
an
exempted
“Alcohol
Sales
(off-sale).
Accessory
Only”
business.
And
how
about
a
bookstore
selling
books
related
to
tobacco?
3. Moreover, the proposed definition in Title 20 seems to rely on terms, such as “tobacco product”
(anything
derived
from
the
tobacco
plant?)
and
“tobacco
paraphernalia”
that
are
not
defined
in
Title
20. While
at
least
some
of
those
seem
to
be
defined
in
the
proposed
Chapter
5.55,
that
chapter,
oddly,
refers
to
Title
20 for
the
definition
of
“Tobacco
Retailer
2 It is surpassingly strange that paper copies are distributed to the public in conjunction with the Planning Commission’s
preliminary
review,
but
not
in
conjunction
with
the
City
Council’s
final
review
and
potential
adoption.
May 26, 2026, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 7 of 7 Business,” but Title 20 does not return the compliment by referring back to Chapter 5.55.
We
seem
to
be
creating
an
unnecessarily
complex
web.
As
I
said
at
the
Planning
Commission,
if
the
intent
is
to
regulate
“smoke
shops”
shouldn’t
we
be
defining
“smoke
shop”
and
not
some
other
thing
so
hard
to
understand?
4. With regard to the location requirements of proposed Subsection 5.55.015.D, I see no changes
clarifying
if
properties
with
Mixed
Use
or
Housing
Opportunity
Overlay
designation
qualify
as
“residential
zoning
districts”
or
how
the
CIty’s
many
“Planned
Communities”
are
proposed
to
be
treated.
Since
Title
5 is
separate
from
Title
20,
what
“residential
zoning
districts”
means
in
its
context
is
not
at
all
obvious.
If
this
is
meant
to
apply only to “residential zoning districts” as defined in Chapter 20.18, shouldn’t it say so? 5. Assuming there are locations in the City where, after enactment of the proposed code, a Tobacco
Retailer
Business
could
be
legally
established,
it
is
unclear
what
their
status
would
be
if
(as
seems
likely)
a
residential
use
is
subsequently
established
within
1000
feet.
Proposed
Subsections
5.55.015.E
and
F
appear
only
a
business
operating
prior
to
enactment
to
continue,
not
one
established
later.
Is
that
the
intent?
6. In proposed NBMC Subsection 5.55.025.B.1, shouldn’t “shall” be “must”? Regarding the Cigar Lounges : 1. The proposed definition of “Cigar Lounge” is baffling to me. How can a “person” (even given the broad definition of “person” in Title 20) be a “lounge”? 2. Shouldn’t the definition of “Smoking Lounge” be revised to exclude a “Cigar Lounge”? Otherwise,
won’t
this
introduce
a
contradiction
in
the
code,
such
that
we
will
have
zoning
districts
where
all
“smoking
lounges”
are
prohibited,
yet
“cigar
lounges”
(which
would
seem
to
be
a
kind
of
“smoking
lounge”)
somehow
are
not.