July 8, 2025, 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. Minutes for the June 24, 2025 City Council Meeting The passages shown in italics below are from the draft minutes with suggested corrections shown in strikeout underline format. The page numbers refer to Volume 66.
The video shows Item III consisted solely of a reading of the notice regarding public comments by the Interim City Clerk, and seems to have been relocated in the agenda sequence by the Mayor. The clock visible on the wall confirms the reading took place after the Council returned at 4:30 p.m. from a brief recess and was not part of the earlier study session. It occurred between Items “VI. ROLL CALL” and “VII. INVOCATION.” and should be so indicated in the minutes, not at the location shown in the draft.
The public comment listed under the “III. PUBLIC COMMENTS” heading in the draft was not in response to the Item III reading. It occurred before 4:30 p.m. and was part of study session Item SS2. Moving the Item III heading (but not the comment) to its proper location later in the agenda will correct that error.
sentence: “He also noted, independent of his role on the General Plan Advisory Committee, that there are additional materials linked at the end of the AAM staff report that are there is a link to a page with very helpful additional information, including a link to a video of a symposium held in Palm Springs containing an in-depth discussion about AAM.” [comment: I suspect the reason the staff report did not directly link to the additional materials, but, insteading, linked to a separate webpage (“newportbeachca.gov/AAM”) containing links to the material is that, for reasons unknown to me, when staff reports (and comments such as this) get archived to the City’s Laserfiche permanent storage system, the hyperlinks within them continue to display as hyperlinks, but become non-functional and (frustratingly) cannot be used unless the URL is spelled out in full for copying and pasting into a web browser. In the case of the AAM video, the URL is 81 characters long and likely could not have been displayed, in full, on a single line of the staff report.]
“3. Interim City Clerk Perry read the ballot votes for the City Arts Commission as follows:
David Anastos – Barto, Blom, Grant, Kleiman, Stapleton, Weber, Weigand Rita Goldberg - Grant, Kleiman, Weigand
Melissa Kandel - Barto, Blom, Grant, Kleiman, Stapleton, Weber, Weigand Tiare Meegan - Barto, Blom, Kleiman, Stapleton, Weber, Weigand Laurel Tipett Tippett - Barto, Blom, Grant, Kleiman, Stapleton, Weber, Weigand Interim City Clerk Perry announced that David Anastos, Melissa Kandel, Tiare Meegan, and Laurel Tippett were appointed to the City Arts Commission.” Received After Agenda Printed
July 8, 2025
Written Comments
July 8, 2025, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 2 of 5 [ comment : As of this writing, the ballots have not been copied to the meeting agenda’s Laserfiche archive, but the votes shown in the draft minutes differ from those read at the meeting (as recorded in the video) as shown. In addition to correcting the misspelling of “Tippett” and the votes, it might be noted that the staff report indicated three of the City Arts Commission appointments were for terms ending in 2029 and one for a term ending in
2026.
1 Neither
the
Council
nor
the
Clerk
indicated
which
appointees
were
being
appointed
to
which
terms.
The
tradition
seems
to
have
been
the
appointee
with
the
least
votes
gets
the
shortest
term.
In
this
case,
that
would
be
Tiare
Meegan.
However,
since
this
was
not
discussed
it
is
not
clear
that
was
the
intent
here.]
Item 4. Resolution No. 2025-41: Adopting a Memorandum of Understanding
with
the
Newport
Beach
Professional
and
Technical
Employees
Association
and
Associated
Salary
Schedule
It is a bit confusing since there may be more than one version of the Council agenda posted in more
than
one
place,
but
it
appears
that
as
of
July
7,
the
MOU
being
presented
for
approval
on
July
8 as
Attachment
A
to
Resolution
No.
2025-41
and
promised
to
be
“available
for
viewing
prior
to
the
meeting”
is
not
yet
available
for
viewing.
This is particularly strange since a version of what purported to be the MOU was presented for review
at
the
June
24 Council
meeting.
Is
the
present
“Attachment
A”
any
different
from
that?
Why
has
it
not
been
provided?
Item 5. Resolution No. 2025-42: Adopting a Memorandum of Understanding
with
the
Newport
Beach
Police
Management
Association
and
the
Associated
Salary
Schedule
Unlike agenda Item 4, the MOU being presented for possible adoption is included in the packet. What is peculiar about this one is that the document history on page 5-38 indicates the Mayor signed
it
on
July
3,
without
the
Council
having
acted
on
the
item
or
having
given
the
Mayor
authority
to
sign.
1 Retaining the ending dates of the board & commissioners’ 4-year terms is important to ensuring a gradual
replacement
of
position
holders
rather
than
a
wholesale
replacement
in
any
one
year.
The
original
City
Charter
Section
702, approved by voters on June 8, 1954, required the original members of 5-member
boards
to
arrange
themselves
into
something
like
a
1-1-1-2
pattern
of
yearly
appointment
numbers,
and
7-member
boards
into
a
1-2-2-2
pattern.
Apparently
in
connection
with
a
measure
to
expand
the
Planning
Commission
to
nine
members,,
this
was
changed
less
than
a
year
later
when,
at
the
April 10, 1955, Municipal election, voters approved an amendment requiring at least 1 appointment each year,
but
allowing
up
to
3. When
the
seven-member
City
Arts
Commission
was
created
by
a
Charter
amendment
that
was
part
of
Proposition
1 at
the
April 9, 1974, election, the original members may have used
that
to
organize
their
terms
into
a
1-1-2-3
annual
appointment
structure
(an
additional
Charter
amendment
in
1992
gave
the
Council
discretion
to
change
the
number
of
members
of
the
Arts
Commission
–
and
only
it
–
by
ordinance
or
resolution,
but
it
is
unclear
if
that
has
ever
been
used).The
massive
Charter
changes
wrought
by
Measure EE in 2012 rewrote Section 702, vaguely leaving the appointment
rotation
structure
of
new
boards
and
commissions
completely
to
the
discretion
of
the
Council
at
the
time
of
the
initial
appointments.
July 8, 2025, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 3 of 5 Item 6. Resolution No. 2025-43: Requesting a CalPERS Contract Amendment
to
Eliminate
Section
20516(a)
Cost
Sharing
for
Citywide
Miscellaneous
Tier
I
Employees
The staff report indicates that getting this amendment initiated “is a matter of great urgency” because
of
pending
contract
negotiations,
but
is
less
clear
about
the
status
of
the
cost
sharing
between
now
and
when
the
amendment
is
completed,
which
it
anticipates
will
be
“at
least
a
few
months”
away
(and
it
says
nothing
about
the
amendment,
if
approved,
being
retroactive).
Who will be paying the cost sharing amounts between now and then if the contracts with the employee
groups
say
one
thing
and
the
contract
with
CalPERS
says
something
different?
Or
are
the
employee
contracts
being
written
in
such
a
way
that
they
will
pay
whatever
the
CalPERS
contract
says
(in
other
words,
make
no
change
in
cost
sharing
obligations
until
after
a
change
to
the
CalPERS
contract
is
completed)?
Item 7. Approval of a Professional Services Agreement with Arts Orange
County
to
Manage
Phase
X
of
the
Sculpture
Exhibition
in
Civic
Center
Park
The staff report implies the contractor will be working to a timeline set by the City Arts Commission.
Since the contract does not seem to have been posted in a machine-readable format, it is a little difficult
for
me
to
verify,
but
I
don’t
think
the
expectation
that
the
contractor
will
be
working
to
an
Arts
Commission
dictated
timeline
is
part
of
the
contract.
Another concern is with the agreement, in the Scope of Services on page 7-17, of the Community
Input
process
by
which
applications
for
inclusion
in
the
exhibition
become
part
of
the
public
survey
determining
the
final
selections.
While
there
may
be
a
need
to
reduce
the
entries
to
a
manageable
number
for
the
public
to
evaluate,
I
believe
that
at
one
time
the
Commission’s
role
in
that
was
limited
to
eliminating
entries
that
were
unsuitable
for
objective
reasons
(such
as
use
of
materials
not
suitable
for
2-
or
3-year
outdoor
display).
As
has
happened
in
recent
years,
Section
3.2 of
the
proposed
Scope
of
Services
appears
to
give
the
Commission
unlimited
authority
to
restrict
the
public
survey
to
pieces
that
meet
the
Commission’s
tastes.
To avoid the public being given no real choice, shouldn’t the contract set a minimum number of entries
to
be
presented
for
consideration
by
the
public?
Item 8. Irrigation Controller Replacement Phase 2 - Notice of Completion
for
Contract
No.
9735-1
(25P02)
This contract seems remarkable in that it was completed, according to this report, at the exact original
contract
price
(not
a
penny
more
or
less).
That contract, as approved as Item 5 at the March 25, 2025, meeting, included a 5% contingency, but did not allow extra compensation for unforeseen difficulties. Usually there are either
cost
savings
found
or
change
orders
made,
but
apparently
there
were
none
here.
It also seems remarkable that the work was completed in 29 days when 120 were allowed.
July 8, 2025, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 4 of 5 Item 9. Tentative Memorandum of Understanding with Newport Beach Lifeguard
Management
Association
(NBLMA)
The effort to provide a redline of the proposed MOU for review prior to final action on it at a future
meeting
is
commendable.
However, and while I may be confused due to possibly different versions of Council agenda posted
at
different
locations,
as
of
July
7,
I
have
been
unable
to
find
the
proposed
MOU,
but
only
a
promise
it
“
will
be
available
for
viewing
prior
to
the
meeting
.”
Item 14. General Plan Update Steering Committee (GPUSC) Bi-Monthly
Update
to
the
City
Council
As a member of GPAC, but commenting as a private citizen, I would observe, as must be obvious,
that
it
has
been
more
than
two
months
since
the
last
GPUSC
“bi-monthly”
update
to
the
City
Council.
As
the
report
alludes
to,
I
suspect
the
delay
may
have
been
due,
in
part,
to
the
Council’s
decision
in
January
and
February
to
terminate
all
the
existing
GPAC
appointments
and
re-appoint
24 of
them.
I
can
say
personally
that
this
had
a
quite
demoralizing
effect
and
significantly,
and
unnecessarily,
delayed
the
effort.
It
also
resulted
in
the
loss
of
two
of
the
most
highly
engaged
members.
Partially as a result of this, I believe the Council will ultimately be receiving a largely staff and consultant
written
General
Plan,
with
relatively
small
pieces
subjected
to
citizen
review.
Absent
so
far
has
been
any
real
effort
to
compare
the
staff/consultant
proposals
to
the
current
plan,
highlighting
what
is
new
and
what
has
been
removed,
and
why.
I
hope
that
will
be
included
when
something
eventually
gets
to
the
Council.
Speaking as a citizen who attended all but one of the workshops detailed in Attachment B, I would
observe
participation
was
considerably
less
“robust”
than
it
may
appear
from
the
report.
At
the
earlier
workshops,
the
few
unaffiliated
citizens
in
attendance
were
far
outnumbered
by
staff,
consultants
and
GPAC
members.
And
even
counting
better
attendance
at
the
final
one,
the
fraction
of
the
Newport
Beach
population
providing
input
remains
extremely
small.
Participation through the Newport, Together website also appears to have been minimal, suggesting most of the public may not even be aware of the update effort. It looks like no comments have been added through it since December, and very few before that.
Item 17. Fourth Amended and Restated Employment Agreement for City
Manager
This proposed Agreement, which was apparently developed in closed session, strikes me as fiscally
irresponsible.
The City already has a contract for Grace Leung’s services through December 30, 2026. That contract
provides
for
no
extra
or
continuing
compensation
in
the
event
she
voluntarily
ceases
to
provide
those
services;
that
is,
if
she
retires
prior
to
its
end,
such
as
on
December
30,
2025.
While
it
is
true
the
existing
contract
provides
an
extremely
generous
severance
package
should
the
Council
involuntarily
terminate
Ms.
Leung
prior
that
Agreement’s
normal
end,
Council
members
have
repeatedly
praised
her
performance.
July 8, 2025, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 5 of 5 The present proposal allows Ms. Leung to leave at the end of 2025, yet be paid, in effect, through
the
end
of
calendar
year
2026,
without
having
to
provide
any
services
to
the
City
during
that
final
year
of
the
current
contract
–
a
year
in
which
City
taxpayers
will
have
to
pay
a
different,
and
possibly
higher-paid
City
Manager
to
provide
the
services
that
Ms.
Leung
will
effectively
be
paid
for
but
not
providing.
Given the Council’s public praise of Ms. Leung, I see no reason to alter the existing contract and put
taxpayers
to
this
extra
expense.
If
Ms.
Leung
wishes
to
retire
on
December
26,
that
is
her
choice,
but
neither
the
Council,
nor
Newport
Beach
taxpayers,
should
be
under
any
obligation
to
pay
her
anything
extra
for
doing
so.
Should the Council, alternatively, regard this as a retirement gift – a bonus for extraordinary service
during
her
tenure
here
–
I
believe
that
would
run
afoul
of
the
California
Contsitution’s
Article XI, Section 10 prohibition against cities, including charter cities, 2 granting extra compensation for work contracted for and already performed. As we have been frequently reminded,
California
courts
have
carved
out
exceptions
to
this
rule
allowing
retroactive
adjustments
during
a
time
of
contract
negotiation,
but
that
is
not
the
circumstance
here,
since
this
does
not
seem
in
any
way
related
to
retaining
or
continuing
service.
Similarly,
we
have
been
reminded
that
charter
cities
are
not
prohibited
from
making
gifts
of
public
funds
unless
such
a
restriction
is
self-imposed
in
its
charter.
But
not
being
prohibited
in
general
does
not
mean
they
are
allowed
to
make
a
gift
expressly
precluded
by
the
Constitution.
Given all this, if the public praise was insincere, and the Council has found some reason it wants
to
terminate
Ms.
Leung,
but
cannot
do
so
“for
cause,”
3 then
the
staff
report
should
clearly
lay
out
the
options
available.
Of
particular
interest
would
be
how
the
cost
to
taxpayers
of
an
involuntary
separation
on
December
26,
2025
(or
some
earlier
or
later
date),
subject
to
the
existing
severance
provisions,
compares
to
the
cost
of
the
present
proposal.
Item 18. Eighth Amended and Restated Employment Agreement for City
Attorney
It would have been helpful to provide a redline of the current agreement (contract C-7034-5) compared to this proposed one. I also have trouble deducing from either the staff report or Attachment C how the annual cost of the
proposed
agreement
compares
to
the
cost
expected
under
the
existing
agreement.
In view of the previous agenda item, the Council might wish to reconsider the extremely generous
severance
packages
it
is
offering
its
employees.
In
the
present
case,
the
proposal
will
apparently
roll
back
to
12 months
the
existing
promise
of
18 months
severance,
which
roll-back,
without
the
amendment,
would
not
have
happened
until
March
2026.
However,
one
might
wonder
why
even
12 months
is
being
offered?
It
seems
to
significantly
restrain
the
Council’s
ability
to
change
employees
even
when
it
thinks
a
change
would
benefit
the
City.
3 Under
the
current
Agreement,
a
“for
cause”
separation
requires
no
additional
compensation
of
any
kind
to
be
paid
beyond
the
separation
date.
2 The otherwise plenary authority to set employee compensation granted to charter cities by Section 5 is expressly
limited,
in
that
section,
by
the
other
provisions
of
Article
XI.