From: City Clerk' s Office
Sent: July 31, 2026 12: 59 PM
To: Mulvey, Jennifer
Subject: FW: Public comment for the city council meeting From: Alex Brown < Alex9355b@outlook. com>
Sent: Friday, July 31, 2026 12: 57: 32 PM (UTC-08: 00) Pacific Time ( US & Canada) To: City Clerk' s Office < CityClerk@newportbeachca. gov> Subject: Public comment for the city council meeting
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.
This city has wisely chosen not to use the county animal shelter OC Animal Care).
Well done!
The latest news is a good reminder why the city did well to stay away from OC Animal Care. The OC Animal Care director appears to reside in Texas. You can't make this stuff up.
Voice of OC, July 30, 2026
Does Orange County' s Animal Care Director Live in
California?
httDS:// voiceofoc. orL/ 2026/ 07/ does- oranLe- countvs- animal- care- director- live- in- california/
The head of Orange County' s embattled animal shelter isfacing questions over remote work, with questions about how much time she spends between Texas and California.
FOR EVEN MORE INFORMATION:
OCShelter. com has a collection of recent articles and a complete list you can download.
Below is just a sample.
lies many times before.
Advocates have caught the shelter director in flagrant
There' s a pattern here.
From: Jay Taylor < jaytaylor@lawjay. com>
Sent: August 06, 2026 10: 30 AM
To: City Clerk' s Office; Kleiman, Lauren; Harp, Aaron
Subject: FORMAL CITY COUNCIL CORRESPONDENCE — PA2024- 0135 ( temporarily withdrawn) — Bayside Village Tenancy Renewal Rights and AB 1128 Attachments: AB_ 1128_ Statewide_ Continuity_ Request_ to_ Assemblymember_ Dixon- 1 1). pdf
EXTERNALEMAIL] DO NOT CLICKlinks or attachments unlessyou recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Reportphishusingthe PhishAlertButtonabove.
Dear Mayor Kleiman and City Attorney Harp:
Please accept this submission as formal correspondence to the Mayor and Newport Beach City Council. We respectfully request that the City Clerk:
1. Distribute this email and its attachment to every Councilmember and the City Attorney;
2. Include the submission in the City’s official correspondence records;
3. Associate it with the records concerning Back Bay Landing/ Bayside Village, PA2024- 0135 (with special processing in light of the fact that project has been temporarily withdrawn);
4. Route a copy to the Community Development Department and assigned project planner; and
5. Confirm receipt and distribution by reply email.
Attached is our constituent policy request concerning AB 1128 and the approaching January 1, 2027 renewal of the long- term “Golden Lease” tenancies at Bayside Village Mobilehome Community. ( Note: AB 1128 is currently on the Senate floor, thus, this email is both timely and urgent)
California Civil Code section 798.55 protects mobilehome owners against termination or refusal to renew their tenancies except for reasons specifically authorized by the Mobilehome Residency Law. This statutory protection reflects the Legislature’s recognition that mobilehome owners face unique risks of actual and constructive eviction because they own their homes but generally cannot relocate them without extraordinary cost, substantial risk of damage, and loss of equity.
The unresolved problem is renewal pricing. Although section 798.55 protects the continuity of the tenancy, a park owner may claim unilateral authority to disregard the economic structure of a 30-year renewable lease— including its established rent- escalation provisions— and condition renewal upon acceptance of a replacement rental agreement imposing a dramatically higher market- reset rent.
This produces a classic bilateral- monopoly problem. The park owner controls the irreplaceable homesite, while the homeowner owns a structure that cannot realistically be moved. The parties therefore do not negotiate in an ordinary competitive rental market. If unrestricted rent- reset authority can be used as the price of renewal, the statutory right to renew may become economically illusory and produce the practical equivalent of constructive eviction.
At Bayside Village, this is not an abstract concern. Homeowners remaining in the same residences on the same spaces face proposed replacement rents that would fundamentally alter the affordability, assignability, equity, and long- term economics of their homeowner- owned residences.
We are not asking the City to adjudicate a private contractual dispute. We respectfully ask the City to recognize the municipal and public- policy consequences of this issue, evaluate the relationship between statutory renewal rights and renewal pricing, and support statewide legislation that gives practical economic effect to Civil Code section 798.55.
Specifically, we ask the Mayor, City Council, and City Attorney’s Office to support preservation of AB 1128’s statewide application and oppose any geographic limitation that would exclude Newport Beach mobilehome homeowners from its protections.
We would welcome an opportunity to meet with the Mayor, City Attorney, Councilmembers, and appropriate City staff concerning the Bayside Village tenancy transition, Back Bay Landing PA2024-0135, and the urgent need to protect established Newport Beach homeowners from constructive economic displacement.
Thank you for your consideration and confirmation of delivery.
Respectfully,
JayR. Taylor and Lisa Taylor
Bayside Village Mobilehome Community
Newport Beach, California
Attachment: Constituent Policy Request— Protect Statewide Mobilehome Tenancy Continuity in AB 1128
CC:
Joselyn Perez, Senior Planner — jperez@newportbeachca. gov Lena Shumway, City Clerk — lshumway@newportbeachca. gov Grace Leung, City Manager — gleung@newportbeachca. gov
JayR Taylor
Law offices of JayR Taylor
3345 Newport Blvd Ste 216
Newport Beach California 92663
949) 887-7373
CONSTITUENT POLICY REQUEST
ProtectStatewideMobilehome
TenancyContinuity in AB 1128
JointMunicipalandAssemblyRequestif theSenateNarrowstheBill toDistrict66 TO The Honorable Lauren Kleiman, Mayor, City of Newport Beach 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, California 92660 The Honorable Diane B. Dixon, California State Assembly, District 72 P.O. Box 942849, Sacramento, California 94249-0072
FROM
DATE
RE
statewidecoverage
THE CENTRAL POINT
AB 1128should be understood not merely as a rent-limitation measure, but as a statewide continuity-of-tenancy protection that gives practical effect to Civil Code section798.55's commandagainstactual and constructiveeviction.
Dear Mayor Kleiman and Assemblymember Dixon:
WewriteasNewportBeachresidents, District72constituents, andhomeownersatBaysideVillageMobilehome Community. We respectfullyrequestMayor Kleiman's municipalsupport and AssemblymemberDixon's leadershipin protectingthestatewideapplicationof AssemblyBill 1128. If theSenatelimitsthebill to Assembly District 66 or the Torrancearea, we askAssemblymemberDixon to opposeconcurrencein that geographic restrictionandwork to restorestatewidecoveragethroughAssemblyamendments, negotiation, or conference.
WeaskMayorKleimanto supportthateffort on behalfof affectedNewportBeachmobilehomehomeowners.
AB1128Is FundamentallyAbout Continuity, Not the Creationof a New Tenancy
The formalmechanismusedby AB 1128is a limitationon annualspace-rent increases. But describingthebill only as a 'rent cap' obscuresthe underlyingproblemit is designedto address. The legislationprotectsthe continuityof anestablishedmobilehometenancywhenthehomeownerownsthedwelling, remainslawfullyin possessionof the samehomesite, andcannotrealisticallyrelocatethe structurewithout extraordinaryexpense, riskof damage, andlossof accumulatedequity.
Civil Codesection798.55suppliesthegoverningpolicy. TheLegislaturehasexpresslyfoundthatthehighcost of movingmobilehomes, thepotentialfor damage, installationrequirements, andlandscapingor lot-preparation costsrequire 'uniqueprotectionfrom actualor constructiveeviction.' The statutefurther providesthat park managementmaynot terminateor refuseto renewa tenancyexceptfor a reasonspecifiedin theMobilehome ResidencyLaw. Expirationor replacementof awrittenleaseisnot itselflistedasalawfulgroundfor termination or refusalto renew.
CONTINUITY PRINCIPLE
When the same homeowner remains lawfully on the same space, a lease renewal, extension, restatement, or replacement should not be used to convert an existing protectedtenancyinto an unrestrictednew market transaction.
WhyStatewideCoverageIsNecessary
Theconditionsidentifiedin section798.55 arestatewideconditions. Thecostandimpracticabilityof movinga mobilehomedo not changeat a districtboundary. Neitherdo the risksof constructiveeviction, displacement, lossof homeequity, or lossof a homeowner's abilityto sellthehomein place. LimitingAB 1128to District 66 wouldprotectsimilarlysituatedhomeownersin Torrancewhileleavinghomeownersin NewportBeach, Orange County, andtherestof Californiaexposedto thesameharm.
A geographicallylimited bill would thereforecreatean arbitrarydiscontinuityin a statewidestatutorysystem.
California's MobilehomeResidencyLaw alreadyestablishesa uniform policy favoringtenancystabilityand protectionfrom constructiveeviction. AB 1128shouldimplementthatpolicyconsistentlyacrossthestate.
BaysideVillageShowsthe ImmediateConsequences
BaysideVillagecontainsapproximately280mobilehomespaces. Homeownersowntheirhomes; theparkowner ownsthe underlyingland. For decades, the community's GoldenLeaseframeworkhasbeenunderstoodto providea renewablelong-term tenancywith CPI-basedeconomics, sale-in-placeand assignmentprotections, family-transfer rights, and defined treatment of non-family transfers. Those protectionsare central to affordability, marketability, andthevalueof thehomeowner-ownedstructures.
The presentJanuary1, 2027 transition illustrateswhy statewidecontinuity protection is urgent. In our documentedexample, monthlyspacerentof $1,515.61wouldbereplacedwith a proposedrentof $3,300. That is anincreaseof $1,784.39permonth, or approximately $21,412.68peryear, beforefutureescalatorsandother charges. Thehomeownerdoesnot receiveanewhomesite, anewdwelling, or anewlydeliveredhousingservice.
The homeownerremainsin the samehomeon the samespace. Treatingthat continuationasan unrestricted newtenancywouldpermittheeconomicequivalentof evictionwithoutrelyingon oneof thestatutorygrounds allowedbysection798.55.
EXISTING TENANCY PROPOSEDREPLACEMENT ANNUAL CONSEQUENCE 1,515.61per month $ 3,300.00per month +$ 21,412.68before escalators Connectionto BackBayLandingandthe PublicInterest
The BaysideVillagetenancytransitionalsointersectswith the continuingpublicplanninghistorysurrounding BackBayLanding, includingPA2024-0135andrecordedland-useprotectionsassociatedwith the mobilehome communityandwaterfrontproperty. Wedo not askyouto decideaprivatecontractualdispute. WeciteBayside Villagebecauseit demonstratesthepublic-policystakeswhenhundredsof establishedtenanciesmaybereplaced atthesamehorizonwhilehomeownersremainin placeandownthestructuresthatprovidetheirhousing.
ThestatewideLegislatureis uniquelypositionedto preventtheexpirationor restatementof awrittenagreement from beingusedasamechanismfor constructivedisplacement. A clearstatewiderulealsosuppliespredictability to responsiblepark owners: reasonable, indexedincreasesremainavailable, while suddenresetsthat defeat tenancycontinuityareconstrained.
TheAssemblyHasthe Powerto RestoreStatewideProtection
If theSenatepassesa District 66-onlyversion, AB 1128will returnto theAssemblybecauseit is anAssembly bill amendedin the secondhouse. The Assemblymayconcurin the Senateamendments, in which eventthe geographicallylimitedversionwouldproceedtowardenrollment. Or theAssemblymayrefuseconcurrenceand pursuerestorationof statewidelanguagethroughfurtheramendments, negotiation, or conference. Any restored textwouldrequireSenateapprovalbecausebothhousesmustultimatelypassidenticallanguage.
Accordingly, Assemblyleadershipis consequential. TheAssemblypreviouslypassedAB 1128by avoteof 79-0.
A clearAssemblypositionin favorof statewidecontinuitywouldprovideboth a proceduralpathanda strong negotiatingmandate.
OurRequestfor YourLeadership
Werespectfullyaskthatyou:
Publiclyaffirm thattheprotectionsimplementedthroughAB 1128addresscontinuityof existing mobilehometenanciesandprotectionfrom constructivedisplacementunderCivil Codesection798.55, not merelyconventionalapartmentrentregulation.
OpposeAssemblyconcurrencein anySenateamendmentthatlimitsAB 1128to District66, Torrance, or anothernarrowgeographicarea.
Workwith thebill'sauthors, Assemblyleadership, theOrangeCountydelegation, andSenatecounterparts to restoretheJune10, 2026statewideframeworkor anequallyeffectivestatewidecontinuityprovision.
Seekexpressstatutoryclarificationthatcontinuedpossessionbythesamehomeowneron thesame homesiteisnot a 'newtenancy' merelybecauseanagreementexpires, renews, extends, isamended, restated, or replaced.
Requestanimmediatelegislativestrategymeetingwith affectedDistrict72homeownersbeforethe January1, 2027transitiondate.
REQUESTED POSITION
Statewidecontinuity for the same homeowner on the same homesite; no District 66- only limitation; no artificial conversionof renewalinto an unrestrictednew tenancy.
Conclusion
Civil Codesection798.55 recognizesthat mobilehomeownershipis structurallydifferent from an ordinary apartmenttenancy. Homeownerscannotsimply pick up their dwellingsand move when the written lease reachesitsstatedenddate. Thestatutethereforeprotectsagainstboth actualandconstructiveevictionandlimits management'sabilityto refuserenewal. AB 1128givesthatprotectionpracticaleconomicmeaning.
We respectfullyrequestthat you lead the Assemblyeffort to preservethat protection for all California mobilehomehomeowners, includingtheresidentsof BaysideVillageandothercommunitiesthroughoutDistrict
72. Respectfullysubmitted, JayR. TaylorandLisaTaylor
Authorities & LegislativeRecord
The following official sourcessupportthe statutoryandproceduralstatementsin this request.
California Civil Codesection798.55
Legislativefindingconcerningthehighcostandriskof movingmobilehomes; uniqueprotectionfrom actualor constructiveeviction; prohibitionagainstterminationor refusalto renewexceptfor reasonsspecifiedin theMobilehome ResidencyLaw.
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=CIV§ionNum=798.55.
AB 1128 - Official Bill Status
ActiveAssemblybill in theSenatefloor process; lastamendedJune10, 2026; orderedto third readingJuly2, 2026. https:// leginfo. legislature. ca.gov/faces/ billStatusClient. xhtml? bill_id=202520260AB1128 AB 1128 - June10, 2026Bill Text
Statewideapplicationof Civil Codesection798.30.5; annualincreaselimitedto thelowerof 3 percentpluscost-of-living changeor 5 percent; operativeJanuary1, 2027for newlycoveredparks. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260AB1128 AB 1128 - Official Vote Record
Assemblypassage79-0 on June2, 2025; SenateJudiciaryCommitteeapproval8-2 on June30, 2026. https:// leginfo. legislature. ca.gov/faces/ billVotesClient. xhtml? bill_id=202520260AB1128 California StateAssembly - Legislative Process
Explanationthatbillsmaybeamendedduringthelegislativeprocessandthatrefusalto concurin second-house amendmentsmayleadto conferenceandfurthernegotiation.
https://www.assembly.ca.gov/resources/legislative-process AssemblymemberDiane B. Dixon - Official Member Page
AssemblyDistrict72; CapitolandNewportBeachdistrict-officeinformation. https:// www.assembly. ca.gov/assemblymembers/ 72
City of Newport Beach - Mayor and City Council
Official identificationof LaurenKleimanasMayorandofficialCitycontactinformation. https://www.newportbeachca.gov/government/city-council
OfficialDeliveryInformation
Usethe mailingblocksbelowfor formal transmission. The Newport Beachdistrict office mayreceivea courtesy copy.
MAYOR - CITY HALL
TheHonorableLaurenKleiman
Mayor, Cityof NewportBeach
100CivicCenterDrive
NewportBeach, California92660
ASSEMBLY - OFFICIAL MAILING
TheHonorableDianeB. Dixon
CaliforniaStateAssembly, District72
P.O. Box942849
Sacramento, California94249-0072
ASSEMBLY - CAPITOL OFFICE
TheHonorableDianeB. Dixon
CaliforniaStateAssembly, District72
1021O Street, Suite5330
Sacramento, California95814
Telephone: (916) 319-2072
COURTESY COPY - DISTRICT OFFICE
DistrictOfficeof AssemblymemberDianeB. Dixon
4100MacArthurBoulevard, Suite340
NewportBeach, California92660
Telephone: (949) 798-7221
From: ����������������������������������������City Clerk's Office Sent: ������������������������������������������August 17, 2026 4:11 PM To: ����������������������������������������������Mulvey, Jennifer Subject: ������������������������������������FW: Save City Center Park
From: Zdeba, Benjamin <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 17, 2026 4:10:50 PM (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: Vic Paglia <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Save City Center Park
Hello, Mr. and Mrs. Paglia,
I hope you had a nice weekend and thank you for taking the time to write and share your photos. The City greatly appreciates your interest and input.
The City Council has established the Newport Beach Police Headquarters Advisory Committee to review potential locations and provide recommendations. The Committee includes three City Council members and four Newport Beach residents. It held its first two meetings on July 7 and July 21, 2026. You can access meeting materials here:
https://ecms.newportbeachca.gov/WEB/Browse.aspx?id=3251234&dbid=0&repo=CNB&c r=1.
Multiple options remain under evaluation, and no single site has been identified.
The Committee serves in an advisory capacity only. It will make recommendations for the City Council�s consideration � it does not make final decisions. The Committee is subject to the Brown Act, so agendas are posted at least 72 hours in advance, meetings are conducted publicly, and meeting minutes are prepared.
Community members are encouraged to attend meetings and participate by providing public comment. The next one will be held on Wednesday, September 2, at 3 p.m. in the Civic Center Community Room.
I�d also like to share that the City recently launched a website devoted to this effort, which you can visit at NewportBeachPoliceHQ.com. This website serves as a central information hub and will be frequently updated along the way.
In the meantime, please feel free to contact me directly with any questions.
Thank you again,
Ben Z.
From: Vic Paglia <[email protected]>
Sent: August 15, 2026 5:32 PM
To: Dept - City Council; City Clerk's Office
Subject: Save City Center Park
[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.
My wife and I have lived full time in two locations in Newport since 2018: the Peninsula and Newport Coast. Every year since then we have visited the park even during Covid when restaurants were either closed or or unsafe our social life continued at the giant benches.
Whenever we were visited with out-of-state family and friends we always took them to this unique and beautiful park with interesting native fauna and sculptures that rotated every two years. We have visited many of Newport’s parks/open spaces and this the only one with Wetlands. We have witnessed many people visit this park especially during lunchtime and families visit it on weekends year round. Please find another location for the police station. We have been to council meetings and Speak Up Newport to know that there is considerable opposition to placing the station at this park. Surely there are 3 acres of city land somewhere in Newport for this purpose
Respectfully Vic and Harela
Sent from my iPhone
From: Vic Paglia <[email protected]>
Sent: August 15, 2026 5:39 PM
To: Dept - City Council; City Clerk's Office
Subject: Save Civic Center Park
[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.
Friends from NJ
Sent from my iPhone
From: Shumway, Lena
Sent: August 17, 2026 1:06 PM
To: Mulvey, Jennifer
Subject: FW: Assessment District 118-2
Attachments: AD 118-2.pdf
Lena Shumway
City Clerk
City Clerk’s Office
Office: 949-644-3007
100 Civic Center Dr
Newport Beach, CA 92660
From: Sherwin Kim <[email protected]>
Sent: August 17, 2026 12:32 PM
To: Jurjis, Seimone <[email protected]>
Cc: Sinacori, Mike <[email protected]>; Harp, Aaron <[email protected]>; Shumway, Lena <[email protected]>; Dept - City Council <[email protected]>
Subject: Assessment District 118-2
[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.
August 17, 2026
Re: Assessment District 118-2
To: Seimone Jurjis and Michael J. Sinacori
Dear Mr. Jurjis and Mr. Sinacori,
I am writing as a Newport Beach resident since 1982 regarding the proposed undergrounding with Assessment District 118-2.
Having lived here for more than four decades, I have seen many changes in our community, and I believe this proposal deserves careful consideration of both its costs and its actual benefits to existing homeowners.
While I understand that some neighbors support undergrounding, I strongly believe that homeowners should not be required to take on an assessment averaging $50,000–$60,000 or more per property for a project that many residents view as desirable, but not essential.
I also have serious concerns about the disruption and potential problems associated with another major construction project. My own experience with City construction has not always given me confidence that large infrastructure projects will be completed without unintended consequences. For example, the City's construction of the drainage flow directly toward my front walkway has resulted in flooding and the accumulation of street debris at my entry. I have also experienced the consequences of concrete
alley construction that later had to be jackhammered to access water lines, resulting in cracks to my exterior walls and garage foundation. More recently, red no-parking paint applied to the curbs did not properly adhere and flowed down our streets.
These experiences make it difficult for me to simply assume that undergrounding will be completed without significant disruption, construction problems, additional costs, or consequences that homeowners will ultimately have to address. It also makes me question whether the claim that undergrounding is substantially safer necessarily outweighs the very real risks and costs associated with the construction itself.
Most importantly, the financial burden deserves serious consideration. An assessment of $50,000–$60,000 or more is not a minor expense. For many longtime homeowners, that money represents retirement savings, funds set aside for grandchildren, or resources needed for future long-term care. Homeowners should not be required to sacrifice those priorities for a project that is not essential to maintaining their homes or basic services.
I am also concerned about who ultimately benefits from such a substantial investment. Existing homeowners would be required to provide the funding, while increased property values could benefit future sellers, real estate interests, and the City through increased property valuations and tax revenue. If the primary justification is aesthetic improvement and increased property values, I do not believe existing homeowners should be compelled to finance that benefit.
We strongly oppose undergrounding, and I respectfully ask the City to recognize that opposition as more than simply a disagreement with a handful of neighbors. There are residents who have carefully considered the proposal and concluded that the enormous cost, construction disruption, and financial burden are simply not justified.
I am particularly concerned that the current campaign is once again creating divisions within our neighborhood. The persistent door-to-door campaigning, repeated text messages, and large mailers have contributed to an increasingly contentious atmosphere.
Our community has already experienced years of division over this issue, and it took considerable time to restore a sense of neighborhood unity after the previous undergrounding effort failed.
I respectfully urge City staff and the City Council to be extremely cautious about committing additional public resources to another ballot process unless there is clear and demonstrably broad support throughout the proposed assessment district. A small but vocal group of supporters should not be mistaken for community-wide consensus.
The City has a responsibility to be a careful steward of both taxpayer resources and the financial well-being of its residents.
Please respect the homeowners who believe that this project does not justify its enormous cost and who would rather preserve their savings for retirement, their families, and their future needs.
We deserve a thoughtful, fair, and financially responsible approach—not another expensive process that places a substantial financial burden on homeowners without demonstrating broad community support.
Thank you for your time and service to our community.
Sincerely,
Sherwin Kim
Resident of Newport Beach
CC’d
Siemone, Jurjis
City Manager
[email protected]
Michael J. Sinacori, P.E.
Assistant City Engineer
PO Box 1768
Newport Beach, CA 92658
[email protected]
Aaron Harp, City Attorney
City Attorney's Office
100 Civic Center Drive, Bay 2E,
Newport Beach 92660
[email protected]
Lena Shumway,
City Clerk
City Clerk's Office
100 Civic Center Drive, Bay 2E, Newport Beach 92660
[email protected]
Newport Beach City Council members
[email protected]
From: Shumway, Lena
Sent: August 17, 2026 3:00 PM
To: Mulvey, Jennifer
Subject: FW: Frustrated [IMAN-CAO.FID382365]
Lena Shumway
City Clerk
City Clerk’s Office
Office: 949-644-3007
100 Civic Center Dr
Newport Beach, CA 92660
From: Dallas M <[email protected]>
Sent: August 13, 2026 12:33 PM
To: Montoya, Jose <[email protected]>
Cc: Sinacori, Mike <[email protected]>; Harp, Aaron <[email protected]>; Shumway, Lena <[email protected]>; Dept - City Council <[email protected]>; [email protected] Subject: Re: Frustrated [IMAN-CAO.FID382365]
[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.
Mr. Montoya,
Thank you for taking the time to reply.
I feel that I am not informed, or maybe misinformed is more accurate. Can you help me understand what you know about this matter, including all of the different nuances, how it will affect each homeowner in good and or bad ways, and what your opinion is on the matter of the petition in Assessment District 118-2? I have seen so many opposing facts that I do not know what to believe. I have seen an assessment number between $50-$60,000 or more per homeowner. If this is correct, it could be very detrimental to those on fixed incomes, or those struggling to stay afloat already. If that is the case, what is the tradeoff that makes the undergrounding advantageous to our neighbors and community? It would be very helpful to know from your point of view what the accurate situation is.
Since this message is being sent to all of the members of the council, if any of you could help me understand the questions I posed to Mr. Montoya, I would appreciate
each of your individual guidance, as each of you may have a different perspective than the others.
There are those who support the measure to underground the wires, and those who are opposed. As elected officials who are working for the community, I believe you are in your position for a reason, people trust you and put you in a position to watch out for the "us" that you represent. I am fairly new to the community, I am sure you all have a much deeper understanding than myself, there is always a back-story that is not on the surface.
Can you offer guidance please?
I worry I do not have the full understanding of the matter of the petition, and feel this could be a matter of great importance in our community. The more you could light the way, the better for me, and our community.
Thank you for your time,
Dallas
On Mon, Jul 27, 2026 at 3:51 PM Montoya, Jose <[email protected]> wrote:
Mr. McKinnon,
Thank you for your email and for sharing your concerns regarding the circulation of the Assessment District 118-2 petition (the “Petition”).
Please note that, if and when the City receives the Petition, it will review it in accordance with all applicable laws and established procedures.
Sincerely,
JM
Jose Montoya
Deputy City Attorney
City Attorney’s Office
Office: 949-644-3133
100 Civic Center Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92660
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The information in this e-mail message is intended for the confidential use of the addressees only. The information is subject to the attorney-client privilege and/or may be attorney work-product.
Recipients should not file copies of this e-mail with publicly accessible records. If you are not an addressee or an authorized agent responsible for delivering this e-mail to a designated addressee, you have received this e-mail in error, and any further review, dissemination distribution, copying or forwarding of this e-mail is strictly prohibited.
Moreover, such inadvertent disclosure shall not compromise or waive the attorney-client privilege as to this communication. If you received this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately at (949) 644-3131. Thank you.