June 23, 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 1. Approval of Minutes The passages shown in italics below are from the draft minutes of the June 9, 2026, Regular City Council Meeting, with suggested corrections shown in strikeout underline format. The draft
minutes
have
been
posted
as
a
10-page
PDF.
The
page
numbers
refer
to
those
printed
at
the
lower
left
of
each.
4:00
p.m.
”
Islamic
Educational
Center
of
Orange
County
.”
[Essentially,
all
references,
including
the
IECOC website, indicate the Imam’s last name begins with “al-”.] Page 2 , paragraph 4: “ Councilmember Weigand recommended geo-fencing social media advertisements
to
reach
visitors
in
and
around
Newport
Beach,
noted
the
Oceanfront
area
near
Handle’s Handel’s Homemade Ice Cream as a prior year flashpoint, and acknowledged
the
increased
camera
presence
as
a
deterrent
”
consent
calendar
vote,
City
Manager
Seimone
Jurjis
provided
the
government code
Government
Code-required oral summary of salary ranges and fringe benefits for the Police
Chief
and
Fire
Chief
employment
agreements
(Item
9).
”
Jim
Mosher,
who
raised
a
correction
to
minutes
(spelling
of
Findlay Finley Tract) , …”
Item 2. Ordinance No. 2026-08: Updating Title 1 (General Provisions) of
the
Newport
Beach
Municipal
Code
Related
to
City
Employees'
Enforcement
of
the
Municipal
Code
and
State
Law
I continue to think that for the success of government of, by and for the people, the legislative role
of
an
elected
city
council
is
an
important
one,
and
that,
as
a
result,
the
introduction
and
adoption
of
staff-suggested
new
ordinances
on
the
consent
calendar
with
minimal
explanation
and
no
public
discussion
is
a
bad
idea.
Citizen
oversight
seems
particularly
important
when
changes
are
proposed
to
the
police
powers
of
public
employees.
From the redline, it appears that Park Patrol Officers currently have a limited and well-defined role.
How
will
this
expand
that?
What provisions of Divisions 1, 1.5 and 2 of the California Harbors and Navigation Code will this allow numerous City employees to write citations for that they previously could not? Does this mean
“Harbor
Safety
Officers”
will
be
taking
over
the
functions
of
the
Sheriff’s
Harbor
Patrol?
June 23, 2026, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 2 of 9 The inclusion of Division 1 is particularly puzzling because unlike Division 1.5 and Division 2, which define rules and offenses, Division 1 appears to consist solely of administrative regulations
creating
and
empowering
the
Department
of
Boating
and
Waterways
and
the
Boating
and
Waterways
Commission.
What
citations
would
City
employees
be
writing
to
enforce
HNC
Division
1?
As to the proposed revisions to existing NBMC existing NBMC Subsection 1.12.020.D, why shouldn’t the City Clerk be required to post the “designated position list” online? Why should residents
have
to
request
a
copy?
Note : Per an announcement posted by the City’s codifier, the above link to “existing Subsection 1.12.020.D” is to a new platform, “ecode360,” hosting the City’s Municipal Code, and replacing the same firm’s previous “General Code” platform, on which the same code was found at old platform Subsection 1.12.020.D. I am sure the new platform has many useful features. However, it generates an arguably less readable display of the code text, and it generates shorter
but
less
intuitive
URL’s
incorporating
a
number
unrelated
to
the
code
section
being
cited:
https://ecode360.com/50125904 vs. https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/NewportBeach/#!/NewportBeach01/NewportBeach0112.html#1.12.020. More importantly, as currently deployed it appears to be lacking the advanced search capabilities
that
made
the
old
platform
particularly
useful.
And
it
provides
“Help,”
much
of
which
appears
to
relate
to
things,
including
the
new
“Advanced
Search.”
that
may
be
unavailable
without
a
“login,”
and
the
login
looks
to
be
available
only
to
City
employees.
An
inability
to
easily
search
the
City’s
codes
would
be
a
serious
loss
for
the
public.
Still more importantly, neither the old nor the new code platform appears to reflect any of the ordinances
adopted
by
the
Council
in
the
last
six
or
seven
months,
including
the
one
from
December
restructuring
the
City’s
departments.
Hence,
it
has
become
an
unreliable
guide
to
Newport
Beach’s
current
laws.
So
while
in
this
item
the
Council
is
being
asked
to
adopt
references
to
the
new
“Administrative
Services
Department”
and
“Municipal
Operations
Department,”
those
reading
either
of
these
versions
of
the
City’s
codes
do
not
see
either
those
departments listed in Chapter 2.12 (“Administrative Departments”). That is certainly confusing, and I do not recall such long delays in the past.
Item 3. Ordinance No. 2026-09: Amending the Newport Beach Municipal
Code
to
Regulate
and
Manage
Certain
Activities
within
Newport
Harbor
Again, I do not think it is a good idea for the Council to introduce and adopt new and revised laws
on
the
consent
calendar
without
public
discussion,
even
if
their
adoption
is
recommended
by
an
appointed
commission,
as
these
purportedly
are.
June 23, 2026, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 3 of 9 While some attempt at a written explanation of “[t]he most notable changes” is made, I do not see
any
explanation
of
the
extensive
redlining
that,
if
adopted,
would
add
a
new
NBMC
Section
17.10.022
(Issuance
of
Administrative
Subpoenas).
As to the other proposed revisions, the revised Subsection 17.10.020.A would appear to require a
marine
activities
permit
for
advertising
an
activity
subject
to
a
marine
activities
permit.
Does
that
mean
a
publication
(whether
or
electronic)
that
carries
ads
for
rental
or
charter
boat
services
will
itself
need
a
MAP
(
in
addition
to
the
new
Subsection
Section
17.10.020.C
requirement
for
the
ad
to
display
the
advertiser’s
MAP
number)?
Regarding the revised hearing notification requirements of proposed Subsection
17.05.140,B.2.a.ii,
the
exclusion
of
“intervening
rights-of-way
and
waterways”
is
a
quite
common
feature
of
noticing
requirements.
With
the
Harbor’s
wide
channels
(some
more
than
1000
feet),
the
exclusion
of
waterways
does
lead
to
notices
being
sent
to
quite
distant
addresses
that
may
have
little
interest
in
the
matter
being
noticed,
and
clearly
would
benefit
from
reform.
However,
why
is
the
exclusion
for
public
rights-of-way
also
being
removed?
And
shouldn’t
the
radius
being
notified
be
increased
to
compensate
for
including
the
width
of
rights-of-way
and
waterways
in
the
measured
distance?
300
feet
would
already
seem
to
be
at
the
lower
end
for
notification.
Newport
Beach
must
not
be
the
only
agency
facing
this
problem.
Were
other
solutions
to
how
to
word
the
noticing
requirement
considered?
How
does
the
Community
Development
Department
handle
this
for
their
notices?
And
if
it
is
a
problem
for
them,
as
well,
does
their
code
need
to
be
revised
as
well?
Item 4. Ordinance No. 2026-07: Updating Titles 13 (Streets, Sidewalks and
Public
Property)
and
20 (Planning
and
Zoning)
of
the
Newport
Beach
Municipal
Code
Related
to
Personal
Wireless
Service
Facilities
I am pleased to see staff’s request to postpone the possible adoption of this ordinance, even if that
postponement
is
not
for
the
reason
I
would
hope:
which
is
that
this
is
a
deeply-flawed
proposal
in
need
of
revision.
Even
the
name
“personal
wireless”
is
misleading,
since
it
does
deal
(except
incidentally)
with
private
facilities
an
individual
person
might
want
to
install,
but
rather
with
corporate
facilities
intended
to
serve
customers,
whether
the
customers
are
persons
or
not.
At the June 9 meeting where this ordinance was introduced, the staff report said it is adopting an approach used in Santa Monica. While it is true Santa Monica puts the approval of sites in the public right-of-way with its Public Works Department, Santa Monica does not exempt from its
codes
all
non-public-right-of-way
city-owned
property.
As
I
read
this
a
proposal
for
a
new,
undisguised
wireless
tower
on
any
City
property
outside
the
coastal
zone,
including
in
the
middle
of
a
City
park,
would
fall
completely
outside
the
Municipal
Code
and
would,
at
most,
need
sign-off
from
the
City
Manager.
In
the
absence
of
some
other
regulations,
it
would
certainly
not
require
any
public
knowledge
that
an
application
or
construction
was
pending.
June 23, 2026, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 4 of 9 Item 5. Community Programs Grants, Community Event Assistance and
Strategic
Sponsorship
Recommendations
for
Fiscal
Year
2026-27
THIS SHOULD NOT BE ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR. The City’s Finance Committee does not normally review the proposed Community Grants applications.
However, as Item VI.A at their May 14 meeting , staff asked the committee to review the financial documentation provided by grant applicants, to assist with staff’s recommendation to substantially
reduce
the
amount
of
taxpayer
money
being
contributed
to
private
organizations.
Particularly
for
certain
major
events,
staff
planned
to
cut
funding
recommendations
by
half
based
on
a
principle
“that
such
events
should
not
become
dependent
on
continued
City
funding
when
the
event
is
showing
a
profit.”
Some Finance Committee members, including some with ties to organizations benefitting from the
contributions,
recommended
the
City
should,
instead,
substantially
increase
the
grants,
especially
the
largest
ones.
No minutes from that meeting are provided to allow the Council members or the public to review what
was
said
or
what
might
have
been
recommended.
Instead, with no redlining or clear explanation of what is being proposed, staff is recommending adoption
of
completely
rewritten
and
renamed
grant
policies,
including
what
was
formerly
Council Policy B-12 (“Co-Sponsorship of Annual Fireworks Events”) becoming a much broader new “Strategic Sponsorship Policy.” And then, based on these new policies, none of which were previously seen, reviewed or approved
by
the
Finance
Committee
or
anyone
else,
staff
is
asking
for
the
existing
budget
allocation
for
the
coming
year’s
taxpayer
giveaways
to
be
increased
by
$217,697.
I completely disagree with the idea of plowing taxpayer money into activities that do not need it to
survive,
and
I
particularly
object
to
taxpayer
funding
of
private
ticketed
events.
Item 8. Public Bathroom Gate Fabrication and Installation Notice of Completion
for
Contract
No.
9761-1
I appreciate that staff, through the contractor, was doing what the Council had ordered, but I think
the
logic
of
the
idea
that
blocking
access
to
public
restrooms
is
a
public
good
is
questionable.
Item 11. Approval of Professional Services Agreement with GMU Geotechnical,
Inc.
for
Pavement
Management
Program
and
Inspection
Services
(Contract
No.
9966-1)
(27R01)
It is not clear from the staff report if the scores presented represent technical qualifications, only. If they dodn’t include cost, since the two top bidders ranked so closely, shouldn’t cost have been a
consideration
in
choosing
between
them.?
June 23, 2026, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 5 of 9 Item 17. Amendment No. One for an Agreement with Interior Office Solutions,
Inc.
DBA
PeopleSpace
Inc.
for
Space
Planning
and
Freestanding
Modular
Furniture
Installation
Services
(Contract
No.10127-1)
Staff evidently entered into this contract about two months ago at an amount not needing Council approval. The staff report does not indicate what new, unanticipated tasks have arisen since
then
that
now
require
such
public
approval.
If the scope of the work now being requested could have been predicted, shouldn’t this contract have
come
to
the
Council
in
the
first
place?
Item 19. Visit Newport Beach, Inc. Fiscal Year 2027 and 2028 Destination
Business
Plan
Budget,
Leisure
Marketing
(TOT)
Fiscal
Year
2027-
28 Budget
and
Performance
Standards
Report
This item involves a large amount of public money. I wish I had time to review it before the meeting,
but
I
do
not.
Item 20. Appointments to Police Headquarters Advisory Committee I think it commendable that the Council is returning to former Mayor Stapleton’s original proposal
to
include
citizen
members
on
the
committee
exploring
options
for
rebuilding
the
Police
Headquarters.
I continue to find fault with the way members are selected. Our City Charter places power in the Council
collectively,
not
in
individual
members.
I
do
not
think
it
proper
for
a
committee
of
three
to
make
the
selections,
and
for
even
their
selections
to
be
potentially
overridden
by
a
single
person,
the
Mayor.
While, as Council member Weigand has repeatedly pointed out, the members who were not part of
this
process
can
suggest
different
appointments.
But
that
does
not
make
it
an
open
or
transparent
process.
What criteria were used for sifting through the 31 applications? How many applicants were interviewed?
Why
were
the
interviews
not
conducted
in
public?
What
questions
were
asked?
How
were
the
selections
made?
Were
the
recommendations
unanimous?
The public has answers to none of those.
Item 21. Planning Commission Agenda for the June 18, 2026, Meeting With regard to Item No. 2 Westcliff At Dover Residential Development (PA2025-0254) Site Location:
1501
16th
Street,
the
statement
that
“
The
Planning
Commission
conducted
a
public
hearing,
considered
public
input,
and
approved
the
project
with
amendments
to
the
Conditions
of
Approval,
including
the
addition
of
new
conditions
primarily
related
to
site
and
building
design
”
does
not
adequately
describe
the
hearing
of
an
application
to
construct
30 townhomes
in
buildings
44-feet
tall
on
a
property
abutting
the
Environmental
Nature
Center
and
its
preschool.
June 23, 2026, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 6 of 9 Even after limiting speakers to 2-minutes each, the Commission heard nearly one hour of testimony,
nearly
all
in
opposition
to
the
project.
It seems notable to me that several of the Commissioners suggested the government in Sacramento
had
wrested
local
control
from
the
City
and
forced
it
to
approve
projects
the
citizens
might
not
like,
and
would
even
allow
a
worse
project
on
the
site.
In
fact,
I
believe
the
speakers
were
right
to
object.
By
failing
to
solicit
their
input
earlier,
the
City
had
squandered
the
control
it
does
have.
Although
the
state
does
require
that
the
City
entitle
new
housing,
no
one
required
the
City
to
identify
1501
16th
Street
as
a
“housing
opportunity
site,”
and
no
one
required
it
to
place
a
“housing
overlay”
on
the
property,
allowing
up
to
75 housing
units
in
buildings
up
to
65-feet
tall.
And
no
one
is
requiring
it
to
entitle
more
market
rate
housing
than
it
has
already
entitled.
Item 22. Resolution Nos. 2026-48 and 2026-49: Overriding the Orange County
Airport
Land
Use
Commission
and
Adopting
the
Newport
Beach
2050
General
Plan
It will not be possible to comment adequately on this item in writing, and even less so in three minutes
orally.
As someone who served on the General Plan Advisory Committee, it was disappointing to find staff
urging
the
disbanding
of
that
body
after
its
January
meeting,
when
so
much
seemed
unfinished
and
imperfect.
Throughout
the
process,
the
committee
was
under
the
impression
the
key
to
the
plan’s
success
would
be
the
creation
of
a
better
Implementation
Plan,
but
in
the
end,
apparently
driven
by
the
consultant’s
contract
terminating
on
July
1,
the
GPAC
was
asked
to
approve
the
Implementation
Plan
in
concept
only,
leaving
all
its
details
to
staff,
and
never
saw
the
proposed
Glossary
(which
could
define
in
unexpected
ways
the
words
the
committee
members
had
seen)
at
all.
The GPAC also did not see staff’s recent changes to Table LU-1 (Anomaly Locations), which creates
exceptions
to
the
more
general
land
use
designations,which
oddly
appear
in
a
later
Table
LU-2
even
though
in
the
text
the
land
use
designations
are
described
before
the
exceptions
to
them.
Those
changes
consisted
of
adding
columns
for
“Tracking
Updates”
and
“Reference
Numbers/
Documents.”
While
those
are
certainly
helpful
notations,
most,
if
not
all,
of
these
document
transfers
of
development
“rights.”
I
believe
at
least
some
of
these
prior
land
use
changes
were
made
to
avoid
Greenlight
votes.
Those
are
especially
the
ones
that
note
“converting”
allocations
for
hotel
rooms
into
dwelling
units.
Greenlight
does
not
allow
such
conversions,
but
it
counts
the
new
units
only
when
they
are
added
by
amendment
to
the
General
Plan,
and
the
transfers
were
not
regarded
as
amendments.
This
raises
the
interesting
question
of
whether
the
present
General
Plan
Update
requires
a
Greenlight
vote,
since
it
appears
staff
is
seeking
to
amend
the
General
Plan
to
include
those
converted
units
.
However that may be, it is interesting to see, among other curiosities, that Anomaly 46, for the “Tennis
Club
at
Newport
Beach”
property,
grants
an
allocation
for
some
housing,
but
no
hotel
development,
while
Anomaly
43,
for
the
VEA
hotel
property,
grants
an
allocation
for
hotel
rooms,
June 23, 2026, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 7 of 9 but no residential units, even though a previous Council may have approved a massive residential
tower
there.
Regarding the plan as a whole, it is good to see the Table of Contents indicates it will include the
Circulation
Element
and
Housing
Element,
even
though
those
do
not
appear
to
be
part
of
what
the
Council
is
being
asked
to
approve.
I have previously commented on how the present process with a single Planning Commission and
a
single
Council
hearing
contrasts
with
the
previous
comprehensive
update
in
2006,
when
there
were
months
of
solid
hearings
on
each
piece
by
both.
The staff report (page 4) continues to say the vision for the various General Plan components and
elements,
is
that
“
While
they
are
provided
in
format,
it
is
intended
that
the
Newport
Beach
2050
General
Plan
will
primarily
be
maintained
in
an
online,
interactive
format
on
the
City’s
website
.”
Apparently
if
this
is
approved
on
June
23,
the
consultant
will
be
able
to
throw
that
together
in
the
remaining
7 days
of
their
contract.
It
is
comforting
to
see
on
the
same
page
that
“
Printed
copies
will
still
be
available
at
various
City
locations,
including
the
Central
Library,
and
will
be
periodically
maintained
.”
That
is
a
stark
contrast
to
the
fate
of
the
printed
copies
of
the
existing
General
Plan,
which
were
assiduously
removed
from
public
view
about
a
decade
ago
(likely
in
violation
of
instructions
in
previous
adopting
resolution).
Setting aside the merit of the many policies being proposed, as a former GPAC member, it has been
frustrating
trying
to
get
even
technical
defects
corrected.
For
example,
the
Land
Use
Element
now
being
proposed
for
adoption
includes
probably
unintended
annotations
as
to
where
each
policy
came
from.
I
have
frequently
questioned
what
appear
to
be
factually
incorrect
statements
it
contains,
such
as
that
the
“
residential
community
of
approximately
84,900
residents
…
is
expected
to
reach
88,650
residents
by
2045
”
(when
much
more
population
growth
must
be
expected
based
on
the
housing
being
approved),
that
“
Newport
Beach
surrounds
Newport
Bay,
where
approximately
4,300
boats
of
all
types
are
docked
within
the
21-square-mile
Newport
Harbor
area
”
(when
the
actual
harbor
would
seem
less
than
2 square
miles,
and
the
number
of
boats
larger),
and
that
we
have
a
“487-acre”
acre
Sphere
of
Influence
(when
it
is
likely
smaller).
It
seems
impossible
to
get
them
changed.
As to the Glossary, which the GPAC never saw, it seems telling the GPAC was never asked to consider
how
the
words
in
the
text
and
policies
it
was
reviewing
might
be
defined,
nor
whether
some
of
the
words
it
was
using
needed
to
be
defined.
It seems notable staff proposes to define "feasible," a term frequently used in policies, but does not
propose
to
define
“reasonable,”
even
though
it
appears
almost
as
frequently
in
policies
and
even
forms
part
of
the
definition
of
"feasible."
The staff report (page 9) says “ The Glossary has been updated to remove definitions for terms that
are
not
present
in
the
Newport
Beach
2050
General
Plan
.”
While
that
is
commendable,
it
is
not
clear
if
there
are
new
words
that
need
definitions,
such
as
“resilience”
or
“sustainable.”
It is also not clear how thorough the cleaning of the old Glossary was. Should anyone be interested,
the
following
is
a
list
of
words
that
will
be
defined
in
the
Glossary
being
proposed
for
adoption,
but
which
likely
are
not
used
anywhere
in
the
proposed
text
or
the
Circulation
Element
June 23, 2026, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 8 of 9 or the Housing Element (the list of words that appear in the Glossary only because they are used,
sometimes
only
once,
to
define
other
words
in
the
Glossary
would
be
even
longer):
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act Bluff Top Retreat (or cliff top retreat) Breach California Least Tern Canyon Edge Charter Vessel Cluster Development Community Redevelopment Agency Congestion Management Plan Cul-de-sac Cumulative Effect (Cumulative Impacts) Dedication, In lieu of Dominant Downcoast Eminent Domain Emission Standard Energy Facility Entertainment/Excursion Vessels Ephemeral Fault, Inactive Federal Coastal Act Fire-resistive Flood Insurance Rate Map Flood, Regulatory Base Floodway Global Positioning System (GPS) Harbor Lines Harbor Regulations Historic District Hydrology Launching Facility Marine Protected Area Marine Reserve Marine Sales and Service Uses & Vessels Marine System Noise Referral Zones Non-attainment Non-conforming Structure Non-conforming Use Offer to Dedicate Oil Seep Open Coastal Waters
June 23, 2026, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 9 of 9 Para-transit Public Parking Area Parking Ratio Private Pier Public Pier Pocket Beach Regional Housing Needs Plan Resilient Infrastructure Upgrades Rill Sand Source Sandstone Seas Shore Mooring Speed, Critical Spit Substantial Repair Subtidal Temporary Event Tidal Range Total Maximum Daily Load Traffic Model Treatment Works Upcoast Urban Heat Island Effect Vernal Pools Water Course Water-Enhanced Use Wave Height Wave Period Wave Run-up