July 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. MATTERS WHICH COUNCILMEMBERS HAVE ASKED TO BE PLACED
ON
A
FUTURE
AGENDA
(NON-DISCUSSION
ITEM)
The six separate requests for future agenda from the same Council member regarding what look
to
be
related
issues
is
an
unusually
large
number
to
consider
without
explanation
or
discussion.
I
fear
staff’s
response
will
all
come
back
for
adoption,
again
without
discussion,
as
a
single
consent
calendar
item.
That
seems
to
me
like
a
poor
way
for
a
council
to
guide
the
legislation
it
is
elected
to
oversee.
Shouldn’t
the
Council
discuss
the
revisions
it
wants
to
see
before
directing
staff
to
prepare
something?
Item 1. Approval of Minutes The passages shown in italics below are from the draft minutes of the July 14, 2026, Regular City Council Meeting, with suggested corrections shown in strikeout underline format. The draft
minutes
have
been
posted
as
a
13-page
with
page
numbers
in
the
lower
right.
The
page
numbers
below
are
those.
outgoing
Commission
and
Committee
members:
Ira
Beer
(Harbor
Commission),
Hassan
Archer
(Parks,
Beaches
&
Recreation
Commission),
Diane
Daruty
(Parks,
Beaches
&
Recreation
Commission),
Allen
Cashion
(Finance
Committee),
Bill
Callopy Collopy (Finance
Committee),
Don
Yahn
(Harbor
Commission),
and
J.R.
Waltz
(Building
and
Fire
Board
of
Appeals).
”
Head
of
U.S.
and
State
Government
Affairs
for
TikTok,
who
addressed
the
Council.
”
[?]
forming
as
early
as
11:00
AM
and
recommended
checkpoint
breath-testing,
backpack
checks,
suspension
of
the
trolley
on
the
Fourth
of
July,
and
engaging
legislators
to
hold
social
media
platforms
accountable
.”
11,
with no changes to the minutes, was made by Mayor Pro Tem Blom and seconded by Councilmember
Weber
.”
[ comment : It is unclear to me why the Council would want to approve minutes with easily-corrected
errors.]
July 28, 2026, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 2 of 11
Municipal
Code
Related
to
City
Employees'
Enforcement
of
the
Municipal
Code
and
State
Law
d a) Find the adoption of this ordinance is exempt from the California Environmental Quality
Act
(CEQA)
pursuant
to
Sections
15060(c)(2)
and
15060(c)(3)
of
the
CEQA
Guidelines
because
this
action
will
not
result
in
a
physical
change
to
the
environment,
directly
or
indirectly;
and
e b) Waive full reading of an Ordinance, read by title only, conduct a second reading and adopt
Ordinance
No.
2026-08,
An
Ordinance
of
the
City
Council
of
the
City
of
Newport
Beach,
California,
Amending
Section
1.12.020
(Authority
of
Public
Officers
or
Employees
to
Issue
Citations),
Chapter
1.12 (Citations
and
Warrants),
Title
1 (General
Provisions)
of
the
Newport
Beach
Municipal
Code
Related
to
City
Employees’
Enforcement
of
the
Municipal
Code
and
State
Law
.”
Manage
Certain
Activities
within
Newport
Harbor
f a) Find this project statutorily exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
pursuant
to
Sections
15060(c)(2)
and
15060(c)(3)
of
the
CEQA
Guidelines
because
this
action
will
not
result
in
a
physical
change
to
the
environment,
directly
or
indirectly;
and
g b) Waive full reading of an Ordinance, read by title only, conduct a second reading and adopt
Ordinance
No.
2026-09,
An
Ordinance
of
the
City
Council
of
Newport
Beach,
California,
Amending
Title
10 (Offenses
and
Nuisances),
Title
11 (Recreational
Activities),
and
Title
17 (Harbor
Code)
of
the
Newport
Beach
Municipal
Code
to
Regulate
and
Manage
Certain
Activities
within
Newport
Harbor
.”
Phase
XI
of
the
Sculpture
Exhibition
in
Civic
Center
Park
h a) Determine this action is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
pursuant
to
Sections
15060(c)(2)
and
15060(c)(3)
of
the
CEQA
Guidelines
because
this
action
will
not
result
in
a
physical
change
to
the
environment,
directly
or
indirectly;
and
i b) Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute a Professional Services Agreement with
Arts
Orange
County
for
Sculpture
Exhibition
-
Phase
XI
in
the
Civic
Center
Park
for
a
total
amount
not-to-exceed
$135,080
.”
July 28, 2026, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 3 of 11
observing
recurring
commercial
activity
through
the
Zenith
driveway
over
a
five-month
period
and
argued
that
the
driveway
is
no
longer
functioning
as
a
controlled
emergency
access
point,
contrary
to
the
intent
of
the
Santa
Ana
Heights
Specific
Plan
.”
recalled
being
told
when
the
building
was
first
constructed
that
the
driveway
would
be
blocked
and
used
only
for
emergencies,
and
stated
that
the
adjacent
building
does
not
have
two driveways on Bristol as the appellant claimed .” [see correspondence] Item 2. Ordinance No. 2026-10: Approving Amendment to Newport Place
Planned
Community
Development
Plan
(PC-11)
Related
to
the
Minimum
Percentage
of
Inclusionary
For-Sale
Housing
within
the
Residential
Overlay
(PA2025-0196)
This pending action by the Council has been the subject of articles in Voice of OC (July 16) and the LA Times (July 24), both of which mistakenly reported the amendment had been “approved,” even though it had only been introduced. As I noted in my written comments submitted in advance of the July 14 meeting, where this possible action was introduced as Item 13, it is rendered largely moot by staff’s questionable interpretation that the newer Housing Opportunity (HO) Overlay Zoning Districts, which are silent on the need to provide any affordable units at all, if applied to a property, negate any underlying
zoning
requirements,
such
as
the
affordable
housing
requirements
of
the
PC-11
Residential
Overlay,
which
is
the
subject
of
this
ordinance
(despite
the
newer
HO
regulations
saying
“
Unless
otherwise
modified
by
this
section,
all
applicable
development
standards,
including
any
adopted
objective
design
standards,
shall
apply
”).
Since the premise of the present action is that building affordable units in Newport Beach is “infeasible,”
it
seems
worth
noting
that
for
three
brief
years
Newport
Beach
had
a
citywide
inclusionary requirement, beginning with Ordinance No. 2010-09, adopted on May 11, 2010, which required housing subdivision projects to provide 15% affordable units (with those of 50 units
or
less
given
an
option
to
pay
a
fee
to
an
affordable
housing
fund
in
lieu
of
constructing
them themselves), until the measure was repealed with Ordinance No. 2013-28, adopted on December 10, 2013. During that brief window, the Uptown Newport project was approved. 1 According to the
Affordable
Housing
Implementation
Plan,
the
developer
promised
that
of
the
base
units,
they
would
provide
some
combination
of
11%
affordable
to
very
low
income,
20%
to
lower
income
or
40%
to
moderate
income
households.
Phase
1A,
known
as
“One
Uptown
Newport,”
was
reportedly
completed
with
91,
or
20%,
of
462
base
units
affordable
to
low
and
very
low
income
households
(with
the
bonus
units
that
allows
to
be
used
in
later
phases
of
construction).
So it seems that what is deemed “infeasible” can become feasible when it is required. 1 See Item 10 from the February 26, 2013, Council agenda, on which it might be noted the Consent Calendar
contained
far
fewer
items
than
it
would
today,
with
many
items
presented
as
“Current
Business”
even
though
they
did
not
require
a
public
hearing.
July 28, 2026, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 4 of 11 Item 4. Resolution No. 2026-55: Supporting and Opposing Various Propositions
on
the
November
2026
Ballot
My understanding is that once a measure has been placed on a ballot for voters to decide, cities and
other
public
agencies
can
provide
factual
information
about
the
potential
impacts
of
passage
or
rejection
of
the
measure
on
their
operations,
but
cannot
use
any
public
resources
at
all,
no
matter
how
minor,
for
express
advocacy
for
a
vote
for
or
against
the
measure.
Based on the principles that “ The public funds entrusted to the board belong equally to the proponents
and
opponents
of
the
proposition
”
and
that
“
the
use
of
the
public
treasury
to
mount
an
election
campaign
which
attempts
to
influence
the
resolution
of
issues
which
our
Constitution
leave[s]
to
the
`free
election'
of
the
people
.
.
.
present[s]
a
serious
threat
to
the
integrity
of
the
electoral
process
”
and
that
“
A
fundamental
precept
of
this
nation's
democratic
electoral
process
is
that
the
government
may
not
"take
sides"
in
election
contests
,”
the
California
Supreme
Court
has
consistently
found
that
“
at
least
in
the
absence
of
clear
and
explicit
legislative
authorization,
a
public
agency
may
not
expend
public
funds
to
promote
a
partisan
position
in
an
election
campaign .”
2 And as to legislative authorization, since at least 2000, California Government Code Section 54964 has established a bright line that the expenditure of public funds “for communications that expressly advocate the approval or rejection of a clearly identified ballot measure,
or
the
election
or
defeat
of
a
clearly
identified
candidate,
by
the
voters”
is
clearly
impermissible.
Where has the City Council found the authority to direct staff to spend public money researching arguments
in
support
of
three
statewide
ballot
propositions,
and
against
a
fourth,
and
more
concerningly,
to
prepare
a
resolution
urging
“a
"YES"
vote”
on
the
first
three
and
“a
"NO"
vote”
on
the
fourth?
The Council might counter that a resolution is not a “communication,” but then what is it? I frankly don’t know what the Council expects to do with this resolution. Is it to be sent to someone?
if
so,
who?
And
if
it
is
not
a
communication
and
no
one
is
supposed
to
read
or
quote
the
resolution’s
section
urging
Californians
to
vote
“YES”
or
“NO,”
then
what
has
it
been
prepared
for?
Since 1996’s Resolution No. 96-66, urging Californians to oppose “ Proposition 211, the Securities Litigation Initiative under which securities lawyers win and California business, seniors
and
investors
lose
,”
public
resources
have
been
used
to
prepare
approximately
15 resolutions
allowing
the
Council
to
state
a
position
supporting
or
opposing
ballot
measures,
but
has
always
refrained
from
exhorting
the
public
to
cast
votes
for
or
against
them
as
a
result
of
the
Council
members’
position.
As
recently
as
recently
as
November
18,
2025,
according
to
the
official minutes of Item 17 the Council designated three members to file arguments against the “Responsible Housing Initiative” (a measure which the City is currently suing the Orange County Registrar
of
Voters
to
have
removed
from
the
November
3,
2026,
ballot),
3 but
refrained
from
asking
staff
to
use
public
resources
to
produce
the
arguments
for
them.
3 Orange
County
Superior
Court
Case
No.
30-2026-01580961-CU-WM-CJC
2 Mines v. Del Valle (1927) 201 Cal. 273; Stanson v. Mott, 17 Cal.3d 206 (1976); Vargas v. City of Salinas, 46 Cal.4th 1 (2009)
July 28, 2026, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 5 of 11 Why is the City now abandoning that restraint? Will staff next be asked to use public resources to
prepare
resolutions
urging
voters
to
cast
ballots
for
or
against
the
federal,
state
and
local
candidates
the
Council
favors
or
dislikes?
Item 8. Accepting the Newport Transportation Center Relocation Term Sheet
Related
to
the
Executed
Cooperative
Agreement
with
the
Orange
County
Transportation
Authority
It would have seemed helpful to private a link to the OCTA July 27, 2026, agenda Item 17 staff report and associated materials alluded to in the present report. They provide a more complete picture, including earlier drafts of the agreement that were considered, an 8-slide presentation, and the fact that the OCTA board discussed this at their June 22 meeting. It would seem OCTA staff sees public discussion of what they are doing as being more important
than
City
staff
does,
which
might
strike
some
as
a
bit
odd,
since
under
the
proposed
terms,
the
City,
not
OCTA,
would
be
responsible
for
100%
of
the
relocation
costs.
In view of that, it is curious that under “FISCAL IMPACT” the City staff report says “ There is no fiscal
impact
related
to
this
item.
The
cost
of
studying
additional
sites
will
be
covered
by
OCTA
.”
Where
is
that
in
the
proposed
Term
Sheet?
And
considering
the
proposed
promise
for
the
City
to
“
fund
100%
of
Project
costs,
to
relocate
and
replace
the
NTC
with
a
functionally
equivalent
transit
facility
,”
shouldn't
there
be
some
estimate
made
of
the
cost
of
pursuing
the
agreement
before
its
approval
is
considered?
It also seems telling the City staff report (unlike the OCTA one) does not even, as best I can, that
the
City’s
interest
in
paying
to
relocate
the
existing
Transportation
Center
is
its
possible
use
as
a
new
site
for
the
Newport
Center
Fire
Station.
As may or may not be known to OCTA, relocation of the Fire Station is intimately connected to reconstruction of the City’s Police Headquarters. In that connection, the most optimistic estimate of the time frame for completing relocation of the OCTA Transportation Center is the end of 2031,
which
would
seem
to
render
infeasible
reconstruction
of
the
Police
Headquarters
at
its
present
site,
since
construction
of
that
appears
slated
to
start
in
Fiscal
Year
2028-2029,
and
most
scenarios
require
moving
the
Fire
Station
No.
3 early
in
the
process.
It might be noted this is not the first time a Newport Beach City Council has had its eyes on the OCTA
site.
In
the
early
2000’s,
when
the
City
was
considering
the
future
of
the
City
Hall
at
3300
Newport
Boulevard
(currently
the
Lido
House),
the
Transportation
Center
emerged
as
a
leading
contender
for
an
alternative
site,
with
a
minority
of
the
Council
favoring
putting
it
in
the
Civic
Center Park, then being developed. Under a plan unveiled as part of Item 20 at the July 24, 2007, meeting, the Transportation Center would have been relocated to a site in the area under what
is
now
the
north
abutment
of
the
San
Miguel
Bridge,
making
way
for
a
new
City
Hall
at
the
current
OCTA
site.
4 4
See Item 21 from the same meeting for the separate park plans then being considered.I believe both both
City
Hall
concepts
were
supplanted
by
The
Irvine
Company’s
offer
of
land
on
their
headquarters
parcel,
only
for
that
to
itself
by
supplanted
by
narrow
voter
approval
of
a
City
Hall
in
the
Park
plan
2008’s
Measure
B).
July 28, 2026, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 6 of 11 Item 10. Approval of On-Call Professional Services Agreements for Architectural
Design
Services
It would have been helpful to provide an estimate of the total expenses the Public Works Department
expects
to
spend
on
these
five
not-to-exceed
contracts
in
aggregate.
Sometimes
staff
does
not
anticipate
using
all
to
their
limits.
Or
is
this
a
case
where
it
does,
and
might
even
come
back
within
the
three
years
asking
to
increase
the
limits
of
some
or
all?
Item 16. Approval of Maintenance/Repair Services Agreement with Superior
Property
Services,
Inc.,
for
Sidewalk
Steam
Pressure
Washing
Services
(Contract
No.
9832-1)
There has been some controversy in the past as to whether all areas of the city are being treated
equally
in
access
to
City-provided
steam
cleaning
services.
With
the
increasing
tendency
of
all
City
business
to
be
approved
without
discussion
on
the
consent
calendar,
the
opportunity
for
public
debate
is
increasingly
being
lost.
Item 17. Approve Amendment No. One to Professional Services Agreement
with
LAZ
Parking
California,
LLC
for
Parking
Management
and
Enforcement
It seems doubtful that all residents would be fully onboard with beefed up enforcement of street sweeper
parking
violations,
farmed
out
to
a
third
party
vendor
who
might
be
motivated
to
issue
as
many
citations
as
possible.
It would have seemed helpful for the staff report to provide some assurance the compensation being
offered
to
the
contractor
is
not
based
on
citations
written,
5 and
also
to
provide
some
indication
of
the
amount
of
revenue
the
contract
is
expected
to
produce
for
the
City.
Item 18. Approval of Professional Services Agreement with LPA, Inc. for
Police
Headquarters
Architectural
Services
-
Contract
No.
10129-1
Despite the staff report Abstract beginning “ The Police Headquarters Advisory Committee is evaluating
multiple
potential
locations
for
the
future
Newport
Beach
Police
Department
headquarters
,”
this,
and
the
two
contracts
that
follow,
suggest
the
City
has
all
but
made
up
its
mind
to
focus
on
the
new
Police
Headquarters
in
the
Park
concept
to
the
practical
exclusion
of
other
possibilities.
The staff report provides scant justification for why approval of a $12,459,820 contract is being sought
when,
at
present,
only
preliminary
concept
plans
are
needed.
What if the City is unhappy with the concepts and wants to switch to a different architect for the actual
project?
5 Even without such a provision, one might expect the contractor would still want to generate citations to demonstrate
they
are
assiduously
pursuing
their
work.
July 28, 2026, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 7 of 11 Item 19. Professional Services Agreement with EPD Solutions, Inc. for Preparation
of
a
Subsequent
EIR
Related
to
the
Possible
Relocation
of
the
Police
Headquarters
to
the
Civic
Center
Campus
and
Amendment
No.
One
to
the
PSA
with
LSA
Associates,
Inc.
for
On-Call
Professional
and
Technical
Environmental
Services
This contract is explicitly directed to the Civic Center site alone. Isn’t it possible that other sites that
might
be
considered
by
the
Advisory
Committee
could
have
unexpected
environmental
concerns
that
would
need
to
be
investigated?
Item 20. Professional Services Agreement for On-Call Police Station Strategic
Communications
with
Westbound
Communications,
Inc.
It is good to see that Kearns & West, which seemed to have been the City’s go-to firm for public outreach,
did
not
bid
on
this
contract.
At the same time it is strange the staff report does not cite any examples of successful outreach efforts
that
Westbound
Communications
claims
to
have
completed,
or
the
satisfaction
of
other
municipal
clients
with
their
work,
or
actually
anything
about
why
they
received
the
top
score.
Much of the public, as staff is undoubtedly aware, fears the purpose of this contract is to sell the public
on
a
particular
approach,
rather
than
seeking
input
as
to
what
the
City’s
direction
should
be.
Nothing
in
the
staff
report
dispels
that
fear.
Item 21. Response to Grand Jury Report: “California Housing Mandates:
The
Unintended
Reshaping
of
Orange
County
Neighborhoods”
I agree with the Grand Jury and the City that the state’s RHNA process is deeply flawed. That said, the Grand Jury’s report and the City’s proposed response to it seem more exercises in
self-congratulation
and
mutual
commiseration
than
anything
else.
Greater and more active participation by OCCOG, as recommended by the Grand Jury, would be
welcome,
but
I
see
little
probability
it
will
have
much
effect
in
generating
a
better
outcome
in
the
7th
Cycle.
Item 22. Response to 2025-2026 Orange County Grand Jury Report “PFAS
and
Public
Awareness,
a
Closer
Look
at
Orange
County
Drinking
Water”
The proposed response is apparently referring to the City webpage, under “Utitlities… Water Services… “ entitled Newport Beach's Drinking Water and PFAS. I would somewhat agree with the Grand Jury that it could be better. For example, it says that the water from the City’s “low-producing”
shallow
wells
contain
measurable
levels
of
PFAS,
but
blending
with
water
from
the
City’s
“higher-producing”
deep
wells
results
“
in
undetectable
levels
of
PFAS
in
the
City’s
water
system
(i.e.,
water
delivered
to
homes
or
businesses)
.’
However,
“undetectable”
does
not
mean
“zero,”
and
if
the
degree
of
dilution
is
known,
it
should
be
possible
to
state
a
level
of
July 28, 2026, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 8 of 11 concentration that must continue to exist in the water delivered, whether it can easily measured or
not.
It
would
seem
helpful
for
the
public
to
know
their
water
contains
at
least
that
concentration
of
PFAS.
Additionally, while the page discloses standards, it does not say how the City’s test results compare
to
those
standards.
That
is
left
to
an
inconspicuous
link
at
the
very
end
of
the
page:
“ please view City of Newport Beach Quarterly PFAS Testing Results.” And when opens that page, one no longer sees the standards, so it is not easy to know how the City’s results compare
to
them.
It
would
seem
possible
to
relieve
the
public
of
this
burden
by
using
colors
or
or
other
highlighting
to
flag
the
results
that
exceed
levels
of
concern
(the
“Report”
and
“Response”
levels).
It
might
also
be
noted
that
the
most
recent
data
displayed,
for
“APRIL,
2026”
lacks
units
for
the
Tamura
Shallow
well.
The
numbers
are
presumably
still
parts
per
trillion
(“ppt”).
Finally, it is commendable that the page does not attempt to downplay the importance of something
measured
in
“parts
per
trillion”
solely
because
the
number
used
to
describe
it
sounds
so
small
(as
we
downplay
contaminants
in
the
harbor
measured
in
“parts
per
billion”).
The
fact
that
such
low
levels
are
of
concern
could
simply
mean
the
thing
being
measured
is
thought
to
be
extremely
potent.
Item 23. FY 2025-26 Annual District Discretionary Grant Report and the
Grants
and
Donations
Report
for
the
Quarter
Ending
June
30,
2026
The June 23, 2026, revision of the City’s Discretionary Grants Policy (now called Policy A-13) 6 obliterated the history notations that normally appear at the end of Council policies, making it appear
that
these
slush
funds
to
be
dispensed
by
individual
Council
members
without
meaningful
oversight
are
a
new
invention.
The program appears to have actually begun with the May 22, 2001, revision to the former policy, where it was introduced as part of agenda Item 19, and like so many bad things, adopted without debate or discussion on the consent calendar. Under that original version, each Council member
was
supposed
to
orally
report,
in
a
timely
fashion,
the
gifts
they
had
bestowed
from
their
slush
funds
–
a
requirement
that
was
almost
universally
ignored,
leading
to
the
current
version
in
which
the
reporting
is
handled
by
staff
and
comes
after
the
close
of
the
fiscal
year
in
which
the
gifts
were
made.
These funds have seemed wrong to me for as long as I have known of them. I believe they are inconsistent
with
our
form
of
government,
in
which
the
seven
Council
members
are
elected
to
act
by
collective
decisions
at
public
meetings,
and
not
to
individually
or
privately
decide
how
public
money
should
be
distributed.
It
also
reinforces
the
idea
that
the
Council
members
are
representatives
for
a
particular
district
(with
special
responsibility
over
its
affairs),
when
they
are
only
representatives
from
a
district,
to
ensure
geographic
diversity
on
the
Council,
each
representing
the
entire
city
equally.
6 The staff report continues to refer to it under its former number, Policy A-12.
July 28, 2026, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 9 of 11 In addition, the new form of reporting has been less than transparent since half the fiscal years, the
person
representing
a
particular
district
can
change
mid-year,
and
since
the
date
of
the
gift
is
not
listed,
it
is
impossible
for
the
public
to
tell
if
the
gift
was
made
by
the
current
representative
from
the
district
or
by
the
former
one.
This is one of the years in which no such transitions of officeholders occur. So, assuming the reporting
is
complete,
it
seems
appropriate
to
recognize
Council
members
Barto
and
Blom
for
dispensing
less
than
the
full
allotment
they
were
allowed.
Item 24. Ordinance No. 2026-11: Amending Newport Beach Municipal Code
Section
3.36.030
Related
to
Cost
Recovery
Percentages,
and
Resolution
No.
2026-56:
Adopting
Certain
Fees
Within
the
Schedule
of
Rents,
Fines
and
Fees
I am pleased to see staff recommends retaining the availability of a no cost path to overturn an incorrectly-issued
administrative
citation,
although
the
imposition
of
a
fee
for
unsuccessful
appellants
will
likely
deter
legitimate
grievances
from
being
aired.
I am less thrilled with the proposal to revamp NBMC Chapter 3.36 (Cost Recovery) to eliminate the cost recovery table presently in Section 3.36.030. Having the recovery percentages in the table
(even
when
they
are
vague,
as
with
many
of
the
Recreation
and
Senior
Services
fees
covering
a
large
range
of
possibility)
that
could
be
changed
only
by
the
first
and
second
reading
and
publication
of
an
ordinance
gave
far
more
visibility
to
and
scrutiny
of
possible
changes
than
will
be
possible
if
they
are
buried
in
resolution.
It
will
be
challenging
to
determine
from
the
posted
Schedule
of
Rents,
Fines,
and
Fees
if
cost
recovery
percentages
are
being
applied
uniformly,
and
largely
impossible
to
tell
if
the
percentages
being
applied
are
those
consciously
intended
by
the
Council.
The proposed revision to Subsection 3.36.030.E are particularly disturbing. That subsection codifies
for
all
to
see
under
what
circumstances,
by
what
amounts,
and
by
whom
the
established
fees
can
be
waived.
That
seems
a
quintessentially
Municipal
Code
matter,
but
staff
is
recommending
it
be
relegated
to
a
resolution
where
it
can
be
very
easily
modified
and
even
more
easily
lost
track
of.
This
seems
poor
practice.
Also, among the appeal fees, most of the departments show a decreasing fee when and if the appeal
works
its
way
up
the
chain
of
command.
For
example,
the
feel
to
appeal
from
the
Harbor
Commission
to
the
Council
is
less
than
the
amount
to
appeal
from
the
Harbormaster
to
the
Harbor
Commission,
presumably
because
most
of
the
staff
effort
to
analyze
the
appeal
has
been
expended
at
the
first
step
and
does
not
need
to
be
repeated
at
later
steps.
Yet
for
the
Community
Development
Department,
there
is
no
reduction
in
the
fee:
appealing
from
the
Planning
Commission
to
the
Council
costs
just
as
much
as
appealing
from
the
Zoning
Administrator
or
Community
Development
Director
to
the
Commission,
even
though
most
of
the
work
would
not
need
to
be
repeated
in
the
second
appeal
of
the
same
matter.
This
seems
strange
and
inconsistent
with
the
fees
representing
some
percentage
of
actual
costs.
And unless I am missing something, staff appears to continue to ignore the need to establish a fee for the e-bike violation diversion program in accordance with the last sentence of NBMC
July 28, 2026, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 10 of 11 Subsection 12.56.080.C (Penalties, Impoundment, and Diversion), adopted by Ordinance No. 2025-35 in December. There could well be other ordinances stating the Council will establish a fee
by
resolution,
in
which
the
fee
has
never
been
established.
Item 25. Ordinance Nos. 2026-12 and 2026-13 and Resolution Nos. 2026-57
and
2026-58:
Approving
the
1300
Dove
Street
Townhome
Project
(PA2025-0170)
Since this is a proposal to build for-sale residential units in the Residential Overlay portion of the Newport
Place
Planned
Community
Development
Plan
(PC-11),
one
might
think
it
is
related
to
Item
2 on
the
present
agenda,
which
reduces
the
minimum
percentage
of
inclusionary
for-sale
housing
needed
for
projects
within
that
area.
But
at
least
in
staff’s
view,
it
is
not,
for,
in
their
view,
if
the
owner
has
it
rezoned
as
a
Housing
Opportunity
Overlay
site,
as
is
being
requested
here,
that
completely
removes
any
prior
development
constraints,
and
since
the
HO
overlay
says
nothing
about
an
affordable
units
requirement,
there
is
none.
While
that
is
a
possible
reading
of
the
City’s
adopted
regulations,
it
does
not
seem
to
me
to
be
at
all
the
most
obvious
one,
especially
since
the
HO
overlay
code
says
it
supplants
the
underlying
code
only
when
there
is
an
inconsistency
between
the
two.
How
can
the
HO
overlay
create
an
inconsistency
when
that
overlay
says
nothing
about
affordable
units,
and
hence
nothing
inconsistent
with
the
underlying
zoning
being
modified
by
agenda
Item
2 to
impose
a
6 or
8%
affordable
unit
requirement?
And while the applicant is proposing 5% affordable units, this is for the different purpose of obtaining
substantial
fee
reductions
and
other
development
standard
concessions.
It also raises questions about staff’s claim that the applicant is proposing “ 132 dwelling units that assist
the
City
in
meeting
its
share
of
RHNA
.”
To the best of my knowledge, the City has already entitled enough market rate residential units on
other
properties
to
fulfill
its
6th
Cycle
obligation
of
1,409
new
market
rate
units.
Where
it
falls
short
in
the
promise
it
has
a
plan
to
produce
3,426
units
affordable
to
households
with
moderate
and
below
incomes.
And
that
plan
was
predicated
on
entitling
8,174
units
on
the
assumption
that
2,707
of
them,
or
33%
of
them
would
be
affordable
to
households
with
those
incomes
(and
the
claim
it
was
reasonable
to
expect
40%
of
the
8,174
to
be
developed
in
that
way).
The 7 very-low-income units, 5% of the 132 units being proposed here, is a drop in the bucket toward
the
City’s
affordable
housing
RHNA
requirement,
and
flies
in
the
face
of
the
claim
that
redevelopment
with
33%,
much
less
40%,
affordable
units
is
a
realistic
expectation
for
a
plan
to
be
certified.
Moreover,
each
successive
approval
of
projects
of
this
type
places
an
ever
more
unrealistic
burden
on
the
remaining
HO
properties
to
develop
at
even
more
than
40%
to
meet
our
affordable
unit
obligations
by
the
end
of
the
cycle.
How
unrealistically
high
a
percentage
of
affordable
units
the
remainder
of
the
8,174
units
would
have
to
provide
appears
to
be
a
number
City
staff
is
not
tracking,
since
reporting
to
the
state
requires
only
disclosing
how
many
opportunity
sites
remain.
And
in
that
reporting,
the
number
looks
large,
but
that
does
not
account
for
the
fact
we
have
a
cap
on
the
total
units
that
can
be
approved,
which
means
only
a
small
fraction
of
what
looks
like
a
large
reservoir
of
remaining
sites
remain
available.
Likely staff and the Council will come back to the public with a claim that the state is requiring us to
raise
the
8,174
limit
to
make
possible
approval
of
the
promised
but
missing
affordable
units
–
July 28, 2026, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 11 of 11 and that the increase cannot be subject to a Greenlight vote. It looks like a recipe for unending expansion
without
voter
approval.
As to the claim that under California Density Bonus Law, providing 5% of units affordable to very low-income
households
entitles
the
applicant
to
waivers
and
concessions,
isn’t
the
law
called
“density
bonus”
because
it
is
intended
to
reward
applicants
wanting
to
exceed
the
maximum
density
allowed
by
the
local
zoning?
And
isn’t
this
applicant
proposing
the
lowest
density
allowed,
not
the
highest?
From: City Clerk"s Office
To: Mulvey, Jennifer
Subject: FW: Council Meeting 7/28/2026, Items 18-20
Date: July 27, 2026 4:06:54 PM
Attachments: Attachment B - Agreement with EPD Solutions Inc (1).pdf
From: Elizabeth R <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 1:56:09 PM (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: City Clerk's Office <[email protected]>
Subject: Council Meeting 7/28/2026, Items 18-20
[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.
Re: Approval of On-Call Professional Services Agreements for Architectural Design Services (item 10), Civil Engineering Services (item 11), and Traffic/Transportation Engineering & Wayfinding/Mobility Sign Design (item 12)
a) Determine this action is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Sections 15060(c)(2) and 15060(c)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines because this action will not result in a physical change to the environment, directly or indirectly;
Elizabeth Russell
City of Newport Beach, CA
949-764-9331
7/27/26
Via Public Comment (Agenda Item 18-20) / City Clerk
City of Newport Beach
Via email: [email protected]
Re: Public Comment—Agenda Items 18-20 (CEQA Exemption / SEIR Scoping for Possible Police Headquarters Relocation to Civic Center Campus) Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council:
I am writing to oppose proceeding in a manner that effectively prejudges environmental effects of the Civic Center campus option, and to request materially stronger evidentiary support, CEQA compliance clarity, and legally meaningful safeguards regarding (i) the physical scope of authorized work and (ii) whether any such physical work occurs prior to CEQA public review and approvals.
CEQA Exemption Claim vs. Proposed Field Activities
The July 28, 2026 staff report for Agenda Items 18 - 20 states the actions are exempt from CEQA under CEQA Guidelines Sections 15060(c)(2) and 15060(c)(3) on the asserted basis that it “will not result in a physical change to the environment, directly or indirectly.” However, the contract scope materials contemplate on-site “field investigation” and pedestrian surveys, including:
1. a cultural and paleontological pedestrian survey involving examination of surface sediment; and
2. biological “field investigation” to document baseline conditions and jurisdictional waters, intended to support an “appropriate clearance/conservation strategy.” These components raise a threshold factual question: whether the proposed “investigation” activities—by their nature and method—may constitute physical impacts (e.g., disturbance of vegetation, soil/sediment handling, entry into sensitive habitat, or intrusive sampling). An exemption predicated on no physical change requires that the authorized work be defined with sufficient specificity to demonstrate that no physical change is possible, not merely that impacts are not intended.
Requests for Pre-Meeting Disclosure and Administrative Record Clarity Prior to July 28, 2026, or at the time of consideration, I request the City provide clear, itemized public disclosure addressing the following, including identification of the specific tasks and the corresponding methods that will be documented in the administrative record. 1) Identify all physical field activities (task-by-task) Provide a complete list of all on-site physical activities, including any actions that may cause disturbance or contact with environmental media (e.g., soil/sediment, vegetation, biological resources, jurisdictional features).
2) Specify what will physically occur during “site visit” and “field investigation” For each field component, please disclose the following:
Any vegetation removal and/or surface disturbance:
Will there be any cutting, removal, trimming, trampling beyond existing footprints, or other alteration of vegetation structure or cover? Off-path entry / access into sensitive habitat:
Will staff/consultants step off pavement/paths or otherwise enter sensitive habitat areas (including jurisdictional waters, riparian zones, wetlands, or protected habitat features)? Sediment/soil handling beyond visual examination:
Will any sediment/soil be touched, collected, transported, sifted, bagged, or otherwise handled/removed beyond visual observation? Intrusive methods (trenching, sampling, or destructive techniques):
Will there be any trenching, augering, coring, hand digging, subsurface sampling, or other invasive methods? If the answer is no, state this explicitly by instrument/method type. 3) Boundaries, walking/stop points, and minimization protocols Disclose:
the survey boundaries (mapped if available);
the expected walking/stop points (i.e., whether surveyors will access areas beyond existing paths/roads); the protocols designed to minimize disturbance, including explicit limitations such as “stay on existing paths only,” “no contact with sensitive habitats,” and “no soil disturbance;” whether any “clearance” is contemplated and, if so, whether any clearance would occur only after completion of the relevant CEQA environmental review stages and issuance of required approvals/findings. 4) Timing relative to CEQA public review stages
Confirm whether any physical field activities will occur before public release of any CEQA informational document (e.g., Initial Study/Draft SEIR or any equivalent CEQA public document stage). If field activities are scheduled prior to CEQA release, identify the environmental constraints and controls that will govern those activities during the pre-release period.
Park and Open-Space Recreation Impacts Must Be Fully Analyzed This is a feasibility effort for a major public facility proposal with potential to substantially affect Civic Center Park and adjacent public green space. The City must ensure that later CEQA documentation (including the feasible range of alternatives) adequately evaluates:
realistic alternatives (including alternatives outside the Civic Center campus); a robust “no project” alternative;
impacts on park recreation, public access, aesthetics, and open-space function; and mitigation measures sufficient to preserve public recreational value to the greatest extent feasible.
No Irreversible Commitments; No De Facto Pre-Approval
The City should commit that it will not take actions that effectively commit the project to eliminating or materially diminishing park open-space function prior to completion of CEQA review and adoption of any required findings. Examples include clearing, grading, construction staging, demolition preparation, habitat-disrupting activities, or other steps that would narrow the range of feasible CEQA outcomes.
Accordingly, I respectfully request that the City Council either:
1. remove or narrow the exemption basis to align with the physical realities and methods of the authorized work; and/or
2. adopt conditions requiring strict no-disturbance limitations (including off- path and soil/vegetation contact restrictions) and requiring full public disclosure of the fieldwork plan and safeguards before any on-site activities occur.
Thank you for your time and for considering this comment.
Sincerely,
Elizabeth Russell
Newport Beach, CA