City Council
Meeting Minutes
August 18, 2026, 5:00 PM
I. ROLL CALL - 5:00 p.m.
Present: Mayor Lauren Kleiman, Mayor Pro Tern Noah Blom, Councilmember Michelle Barto, Councilmember Robyn Grant, Councilmember Joe Stapleton, Councilmember Sara J. Weber, Councilmember Erik Weigand
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON AGENDA AND NON -AGENDA ITEMS
The following members of the public addressed the City Council on agenda and non - agenda items:
Rick Weiss (Newport Heights resident) opposed the proposed undergrounding project in Newport Heights (District 118-2), arguing it represents a repeated, costly, and failed effort — the eighth such attempt in 13 years — imposing an unnecessary $50,000 - plus assessment on approximately 600 properties, totaling an estimated $30 million burden on residents.
Brigitte Ahrens (Newport Heights resident) opposed the undergrounding project, citing financial hardship for fixed -income residents and historic cottage owners, low fire risk, earthquake vulnerability concerns, and prolonged street disruption as primary reasons.
Portia Weiss (Newport Heights resident, 33 years) opposed the undergrounding project, raising concerns about a mailer distributed by an organization called "Safer Newport Heights" that she characterized as misleading, and emphasized that the project is aesthetic in nature rather than a genuine safety improvement.
Witold Bik (Newport Heights resident) opposed the undergrounding project, citing Newport Heights' very low fire risk rating of 0.2 on a scale of 5, the high cost and engineering complexity of undergrounding in narrow alleys, Southern California Edison's own acknowledgment that overhead lines allow faster restoration after earthquakes, and the existence of far less expensive alternatives such as covered conductors.
Coeli Hylkema (Newport Beach homeowner and mooring permit holder) opposed the City's proposed elimination of general public mooring permit transfers, arguing it constitutes discriminatory treatment of mooring permit holders relative to residential pier permit holders who continue to benefit from permit transfers and private dock rentals generating significant personal financial gain.
Adam Leverenz raised concerns about the Harbor Commission's stewardship of tidelands management, including a $16,500 residential pier appraisal withheld from public records, an ongoing $28,000 yacht club mooring appraisal, and advocated for adoption of the State Lands Commission Southern California Category 1 benchmark rate to ensure fairness and minimize litigation risk.
Valerie Carson (Newport Beach artist and resident) opposed the undergrounding project, expressing an aesthetic appreciation for utility poles as subjects of art and
noting her personal experience with the prolonged disruption caused by undergrounding on Balboa Island.
Linda Adams (Newport Heights resident) opposed the undergrounding project and raised concern that the "Safer Newport Heights" group appears to have been granted undue standing by City staff in co -developing a cost deferment program for lower - income homeowners, a level of engagement not extended to opponents in prior efforts.
Jim Nault (Newport Heights resident) opposed the undergrounding project, stating that his family is on a fixed income and cannot afford the assessment, and expressed concern that financial pressure is effectively forcing long-time residents to sell.
Following the public comments, City Manager Seimone Jurjis offered a clarification, stating that the City is not advocating for, sending petitions about, or sponsoring any undergrounding program; the outreach materials and petition are the work of a private community -based organization, not the City.
II. CONSENT AGENDA
1. Resolution No. 2026-59: Supporting the Adoption of House Resolution 1188 and Senate Concurrent Resolution 192
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
b) Adopt Resolution No. 2026-59, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach, California, Supporting the Adoption of House Resolution 1188 (Expressing Support for the Work of Open Water Lifeguards as First Responders and Emergency Response Providers) and Senate Concurrent Resolution 192 (Open Water Lifeguards).
Jim Mosher questioned why staff recommended supporting only House Resolution 1188 rather than House Concurrent Resolution 27, which would demonstrate support from both the House and Senate.
Laura Curran questioned the adequacy of the staff report's "no fiscal impact" finding, noting that a change in employee classification could carry implications for salaries, bargaining units, and pension obligations, and urged the Finance Committee and City Manager to apply greater scrutiny to fiscal analyses.
Adam Leverenz echoed concerns about the "no fiscal impact" finding, questioning whether reclassifying lifeguards could affect public safety pension eligibility, which carries significantly greater cost than standard city pensions.
Councilmember Weigand clarified that the item simply adds the City's support to the legislative platform and does not itself trigger any fiscal change, and moved to include House Concurrent Resolution 27 as an additional supported measure per the suggestion of Mr. Mosher.
Motion: to approve the Consent Agenda, including adoption of Resolution No. 2026-59 as modified to add support for House Concurrent Resolution 27, was made by Councilmember Weigand and seconded by Councilmember Barto.
The motion carried by unanimous vote, 7-0.
III. CURRENT BUSINESS
2. Proposed Ballot Questions for Three Citizen -Sponsored Charter Amendment Initiatives
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
b) Determine that this action is being taken to comply with the court's orders and does not: (1) determine that the proponents complied with the Elections Code posting and publication requirements; (2) determine that any initiative petition contains sufficient valid signatures; (3) call an election or place any measure on a ballot; (4) request consolidation of an election; or (5) waive the City's positions concerning timing, procedure, or authority as set forth in its motion for reconsideration; and
c) Approve the following proposed ballot questions, which will be presented to the City Council for the election -related actions at a regular City Council meeting if the measures qualify for the ballot: (1) Public Meetings, Records, Oversight, and Enforcement Initiative: "Shall the measure amending the City of Newport Beach Charter to establish new Charter requirements governing public meetings, public records, government oversight, and enforcement, be adopted?"; (2) Lifetime City Council Term Limit Initiative: "Shall the measure amending the City of Newport Beach Charter to impose a lifetime two -term limit on City Council service, for a maximum of eight years of service on the City Council, regardless of any break in service, be adopted?"; and (3) District -Only Voting Initiative: "Shall the measure amending the City of Newport Beach Charter to require that City Council members be elected by voters residing within the district the Council member represents, instead of by all City of Newport Beach voters, be adopted?" City Attorney Aaron C. Harp presented the three proposed ballot questions, which were jointly developed by the City Attorney's Office and counsel for the Newport Beach Stewardship Association pursuant to a court order requiring the parties to work together on agreed -upon language. City Attorney Harp clarified that approval of the ballot questions does not call for an election, consolidate elections, or constitute a determination on the validity of petition signatures or compliance with publication requirements. He also confirmed, in response to a question from Councilmember Weigand, that the term limit initiative looks back in time and would not reset the clock for currently serving Councilmembers.
Jim Mosher suggested clarifying language for all three ballot questions to improve voter comprehension, including specifying "enforcement of these provisions" in the first measure, and offering a revised formulation for the district voting measure.
Councilmember Grant initially proposed a substitute motion to incorporate Mr.
Mosher's suggested clarification into the first measure, but subsequently withdrew the amendment after City Attorney Harp advised that modifications not agreed to by the Newport Beach Stewardship Association could potentially violate the court's order.
Mayor Pro Tem Blom acknowledged the Council's position as elected stewards of the City and expressed that while compliance with the court order was not always comfortable, it was the appropriate course of action.
Motion: to approve the staff recommendation for Item 2 in its entirety was made by Councilmember Grant and seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Blom.
The motion carried by unanimous vote, 7-0.
IV. MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
No motions for reconsideration were brought forward.
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON CLOSED SESSION
No public comments were received on the closed session items.
V. CLOSED SESSION
3. Conference with Legal Counsel — Existing Litigation
Government Code § 54956.9(d)(1): 2 matters.
A. City of Newport Beach v. Newport Beach Stewardship Association & Newport Beach Stewardship Association v. Lena Shumway et al., Orange County Superior Court Case No. 30-2026-01559183
B. City of Newport Beach et al. v. Robert Page et al., Orange County Superior Court Case No. 30-2026-01580961
The City Council adjourned to closed session at approximately 5:44 p.m. and reconvened to report out at 6:05 p.m.
Closed Session Report: City Attorney Harp reported that in regard to Items 3.A and
3.B, the City of Newport Beach vs. Newport Beach Stewardship Association and the City of Newport Beach v. Robert Paige, which actions are related to the question of whether the Newport Beach Stewardship Association complied with the mandatory Election Law initiative publication rules prior to the gathering of signatures, a motion was made by Mayor Pro Tem Blom and seconded by Mayor Kleiman to authorize the filing of appeals, if necessary. All Council Members voted in favor of the appeals. af.1I11►TiI II
The meeting was adjourned at 6:07 p.m.