Residents urge Newport Beach to halt wireless-ordinance changes that would remove public notice
March 25, 2026 | Newport Beach City, Orange County, California
This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »
Several Newport Beach residents urged the City Council on Tuesday to reconsider proposed changes to the city’s wireless facilities ordinance that they say would remove public notice, hearings and appeal rights for many cell-site installations.
Public commenter David Brown told the council the Planning Commission recommended sweeping changes that would “allow the city to grant administrative approval for new cell towers anywhere in the city with no public notice, no public hearing, and no opportunity to appeal.” Brown said the changes were being rushed with minimal public outreach and urged the council to “stop and rethink this.”
Other residents raised related concerns. Catherine Young said neighbors near Surrey Drive saw utility crews and received notices about conduit work that they believe was connected to a proposed cell facility on adjacent county land and asked the city to explain its role. Donovan Aakus, a longtime resident and veteran, said federal assurances about tower safety do not erase residents’ worries. Dana Marce asked whether the draft ordinance would apply only to small cells or also to larger 40–60-foot installations and noted the draft appears to lack setback requirements and does not preserve zoning-commission review and public appeal for many installations.
The clerk and staff explained that public comment is not a forum for debate and that the mayor may briefly respond within the Brown Act’s limits; staff offered to follow up offline with concerned residents. No council action was taken on the ordinance at the meeting.
Why it matters: Speakers said the proposed administrative approvals could transfer effective permitting power away from elected review, limiting residents’ ability to learn about, challenge or appeal large or insensitive installations near homes and parks. Several callers requested clearer notice, setbacks for large towers, and more time for public input before the council acts.
What’s next: Council members did not vote on the ordinance at Tuesday’s meeting. Staff indicated they would follow up with residents and counselors but did not outline a timeline for returning the ordinance to the council.
Public commenter David Brown told the council the Planning Commission recommended sweeping changes that would “allow the city to grant administrative approval for new cell towers anywhere in the city with no public notice, no public hearing, and no opportunity to appeal.” Brown said the changes were being rushed with minimal public outreach and urged the council to “stop and rethink this.”
Other residents raised related concerns. Catherine Young said neighbors near Surrey Drive saw utility crews and received notices about conduit work that they believe was connected to a proposed cell facility on adjacent county land and asked the city to explain its role. Donovan Aakus, a longtime resident and veteran, said federal assurances about tower safety do not erase residents’ worries. Dana Marce asked whether the draft ordinance would apply only to small cells or also to larger 40–60-foot installations and noted the draft appears to lack setback requirements and does not preserve zoning-commission review and public appeal for many installations.
The clerk and staff explained that public comment is not a forum for debate and that the mayor may briefly respond within the Brown Act’s limits; staff offered to follow up offline with concerned residents. No council action was taken on the ordinance at the meeting.
Why it matters: Speakers said the proposed administrative approvals could transfer effective permitting power away from elected review, limiting residents’ ability to learn about, challenge or appeal large or insensitive installations near homes and parks. Several callers requested clearer notice, setbacks for large towers, and more time for public input before the council acts.
What’s next: Council members did not vote on the ordinance at Tuesday’s meeting. Staff indicated they would follow up with residents and counselors but did not outline a timeline for returning the ordinance to the council.
View the Full Meeting & All Its Details
This article offers just a summary. Unlock complete video, transcripts, and insights as a Founder Member.
✓
Watch full, unedited meeting videos
✓
Search every word spoken in unlimited transcripts
✓
AI summaries & real-time alerts (all government levels)
✓
Permanent access to expanding government content
30-day money-back guarantee
