September 8, 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 1. Approval of Minutes The passages shown in italics below are from the draft minutes, with suggested corrections shown
in
strikeout underline format. The draft minutes for the August 25, 2026, Regular City Council
Meeting
and
for
the
August
18,
2026,
Special
City
Council
Meeting
have
been
posted
as a 13-page PDF and a 4-page PDF. Neither has page numbers. The page numbers below refer to the page numbers in this meeting’s 596-page agenda packet PDF. 2026-08-25 CC minutes
Board
Chair
of
the
Library
Foundation
of
Newport
Beach,
presented
a
check
in
the
amount
of
$182,500
to
the
City
Council
in
support
of
the
Newport
Beach
Public
Library, noting total
annual
contributions
from
the
Foundation—including
literacy
funds
and
programming—exceeded
$400,000. Jerold Kappel, CEO of the Library Foundation, expressed
appreciation
for
the
City's
continued
support
and
encouraged
its
growth, noting
total
contributions
from
the
Foundation
this
year
—including
literacy
funds
and
programming—exceeded
$400,000.” [ Note/Comment: The video indicates the part of this sentence highlighted in bold was actually made by Mr. Kappel, and is misattributed to Ms. Krahe in the draft minutes. It might
also
be
noted
that
“Library
Foundation
of
Newport
Beach”
is
a
“Doing
Business
As”
name. The organization’s official name, as shown on their financial statements, which they are very forthright about posting, is the “Newport Beach Public Library Foundation.” The choice
to
use
this
new
DBA
seems
strange
to
me
since
it
implies
the
organization
exists
to
support
libraries
in
general
and
just
happens
to
be
located
in
Newport
Beach,
rather
than
existing
solely
to
support
one
specific
library
system:
the
Newport
Beach
Public
Library
(which
I
believe
it
is
restricted
to
doing
by
its
founding
documents).]
from
the
August
20th
court
hearing
in
which
Judge
Bancroft raised the possibility of an
obstruction
finding
against
the
City,
and
argued
that
the
City's
own
delays
caused
the
compressed
timeline
now
cited
as
a
reason
to
postpone
the
vote
to
2028
.”
[ Note : With the exception of omitting the judge’s name, the minutes are correct as to what the video shows was said. However, the court hearing referenced was actually on August 19.]
interest
on
Item
3 due
to
a
real
property
interest
at
4104 4100 /4110 MacArthur Boulevard .”
September 8, 2026, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 2 of 8 [ Note : Councilmember Stapleton did not say “4104 MacArthur” and there appears to be no
such
address
in
Newport
Beach.]
three
charter
amendment
initiatives
on
the
November
7,
2028,
ballot
includes
direction
for
the
City
Attorney
to
prepare
the
impartial
analyses.
I
believe
questions
have
been
raised
as
to
whether
the
City
Attorney
can
perform
that
service
for
the
Transparency
Initiative
since
it
has
been
argued
that
if
approved
it
would
improperly
infringe
on
the
operations
of
his
office,
creating
a
conflict
of
interest.]
responded
to
my
public
comment
on
the
closed
session.
My
comment
was
that
the
City
had
filed
appeals
in
the
two
lawsuits
being
discussed,
yet
I
did
not
remember
seeing
anything
indicating
which
Councilmembers
had
authorized
that.
Mr.
Harp
said
all
required
announcements
had
been
made.
He
was
correct
about
this.
The
reason
I
had
not
seen
the
announcement
was
it
appeared
at
the
end
of
the
August
18 minutes
which
had
not
yet
been
prepared
or
posted
(see
“Closed
Session
Report”
on
page
28 of
the
present
agenda
packet).]
2026-08-18 CC minutes
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.
”
[ Note : I am unable to find anything in the video showing the City Manager stating that the undergrounding petitions were “the work of” a private organization, prepared without City involvement. If he did, it would appear to be a misstatement, for the City’s Undergrounding FAQ page says the petition, including a cost estimate, is prepared by the City in response to a Letter of Interest. Indeed, several commenters had complained about the proponents not
including
the
full
City-prepared
petition
with
the
outreach
materials
they
were
circulating.
The
City
Manager
did
say
the
City
was
not
itself
mailing
or
circulating
the
petitions.]
question
from
Councilmember
Weigand,
that
the
term
limit
initiative
looks
back
in
time
and
September 8, 2026, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 3 of 8 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
.”
[ Comment : The minutes omit that I also said I disagreed with City Attorney Harp’s interpretation
of
the
term
limit
initiative,
and
thought
that
the
inclusion
of
“January
31,
2027”
in
it
was
intended
to
“reset
the
clock”
as
of
that
date.
I
have
since
reread
the
measure
and
believe
City
Attorney
Harp’s
reading
is
correct:
the
intent
is
to
count
terms
served
prior
to
the
measure’s
adoption,
and
the
date
is
included
only
to
ensure
members
serving
on
that
date
will
not
need
to
be
kicked
off
the
Council
even
if
completing
that
term
would
cause
their
total
years
on
the
Council
to
exceed
eight.
It
is
not
intended
to
reset
the
clock
and
count
only
terms
started
after
that
date.]
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.”
[ Comment : This is the announcement I had not seen at the time of the August 25 Closed Session
because
these
minutes
had
not
yet
been
posted.
That
said,
the
City
has
since
filed
appeals
in
these
cases
related
to
issues
other
than
their
compliance
with
initiative
publication
rules.
It
remains
unclear
when
or
if
the
Council
authorized
those
other
appeals.]
Item 2. Ordinance No. 2026-15: Amending the Newport Beach Municipal
Code
to
Address
Illegal
Activity
and
Public
Safety
During
High-Risk
Periods
and
Other
Significant
Crowd
Events
See related comments on Item 7 (Resolution Creating the Ad Hoc Public Safety Committee), below.
At its July 28 meeting, the City Council unanimously requested staff to bring back six distinct ordinances addressing public safety issues, apparently intended to mitigate the crowd control problems
encountered
on
the
most
recent
4th
of
July.
The present single ordinance appears to address a number of the issues intended to be addressed
by
the
six
separate
ordinances,
but
since
the
staff
report
does
not
mention
the
July
28 direction,
or
which
specific
issues
it
is
targeted
to,
it
is
unclear
if
this
is
intended
as
staff’s
complete
response
to
all
six
problem
issues,
or
only
a
first
installment
with
additional
ordinances
to
come.
It
is
also
unclear
how
his
ordinance
relates
to
Item
7 on
the
agenda,
in
which
a
three
Councilmember
committee
may
(or
may
not)
be
formed
to
study
much
the
same
issues
and
formulate
recommendations
of
its
own.
September 8, 2026, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 4 of 8 Although it says it is “narrowly tailored,” the proposal for a 6:00 p.m. curfew on all persons who are
under
the
age
of
18 and
unaccompanied
by
an
adult
throughout
the
entire
West
Newport
Safety
Enhancement
Zone
on
every
Memorial
Day,
4th
of
July
and
Labor
Day
seems
particularly
broad
brush
and
draconian,
especially
when
one
realizes
the
“West
Newport”
Safety
Enhancement
Zone
is
no
longer
confined
to
a
small
area
in
West
Newport,
but
now
has
added
to
it
(without
changing
the
name)
almost
the
entirety
of
the
Peninsula.
I do not live in either the original or expanded area, so I don’t know, but I might guess that not every
Memorial
Day,
4th
of
July
or
Labor
Day
produces
equally
intense
public
safety
issues.
Is the intent to enforce the 6:00 p.m. curfew in the entire expanded area on every specified day independent
of
whether
there
are
problems
in
that
place
and
at
that
time?
If
so,
what
is
the
justification?
Or is the intent to only enforce it when and where there is a problem? If so, shouldn’t the ordinance
say
that?
Or,
better,
should
it
be
rolled
into
the
new
section
allowing
Public
Safety
Orders
when
and
where
needed?
After
all,
the
latter
will
allow
curfews
to
be
imposed
when
and
where
a
public
safety
need
can
be
documented.
Item 3. Ordinance No. 2026-16: Updating the Military Equipment Use Policy
for
the
Newport
Beach
Police
Department
The staff report is very thin compared to the 81 pages of attachments, leaving the public to wonder
what
the
significance
of
this
item
is.
For example, a major change (according to the staff report) is the deletion of BRINC drones and the
addition
of
Skydio
ones.
The
BRINC
drones
were
introduced
with
great
fanfare.
Does
the
deletion
mean
the
City
no
longer
owns
them?
Or
only
that
they
are
no
longer
considered
“military”
equipment?
If
they
are
being
replaced,
why?
No answers or insights are provided on this or anything else.
Item 7. Resolution No. 2026-76: Creating the Ad Hoc Public Safety Committee
Since the staff report notes that when the request to consider this matter was presented at the August
25 Council
meeting,
only
three
of
the
seven
Councilmembers
wanted
to
see
this
item
on
a
future
agenda,
it
is
curious
to
see
it
on
the
consent
calendar,
where
staff
now
seems
to
expect
unanimous
assent.
What
has
changed
since
August
25?
As to the substance of the item, I think developing a response to the July 4th events is wise, and appointing
a
committee
to
assist
with
developing
the
response
is
valuable,
although
creating
a
committee
with
no
obligation
to
meet
and
deliberate
in
public
seems
a
poor
approach.
Moreover, the intended process is extremely confusing. At the July 28 meeting, the Council unanimously directed staff to come back on its own with a slate of six public safety ordinances proposed by the Mayor (see page 3 of July 28 minutes), which the present staff report describes as four. And the Council is expected to introduce,
September 8, 2026, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 5 of 8 without discussion, an ordinance addressing several of those (exactly which of the six or four is hard
to
tell)
as
Item
2 on
the
present
consent
calendar.
How these two parallel but apparently independent efforts (staff preparing ordinances on its own and
a
Council
committee
making
recommendations
on
the
same
subjects)
are
expected
to
mesh
is
quite
unclear.
For
example,
the
staff
report
says
“
The
scope
of
the
Committee's
work
encompasses,
at
a
minimum,
the
four
regulatory
areas
confirmed
by
straw
poll
at
the
July
28,
2026,
City
Council
meeting
,”
but
whether
it
is
four
or
six,
the
resolution
I
see
in
Attachment
A
makes
no
mention
of
any
of
this.
It
says
only
“
The
purpose
and
responsibility
of
the
Committee
is
to
provide
a
recommendation
to
the
entire
City
Council
regarding
public
safety
strategies
for
holidays
and
other
City
needs
.”
That is a very broad mandate, especially the request for “other City needs” recommendations, which
one
can
only
guess
from
the
name
of
the
committee
would
be
public
safety
related.
One also guesses from the “Ad Hoc” in the name that this is not a committee intended to last forever.
However,
unlike
the
resolutions
creating
other
ad
hoc
committees,
no
date
within
which
to
complete
the
task
is
specified.
Only
a
statement
that
the
committee
“
shall
expire
upon
making
a
recommendation
to
the
entire
City
Council
.”
Usually
that
would
say
“
final
recommendation,”
so
this
implies
there
will
be
only
one.
But
is
it
expected
in
one
month?
One
year?
One
hundred
years?
Meanwhile, are the six or four public safety ordinances staff was directed to prepare by the Council’s
straw
vote
at
the
July
28 meeting
going
forward?
Or
are
they
on
hold
until
the
committee
makes
its
recommendation?
And if those ordinances are on hold, why is the one being presented as Item 2 on the present agenda
being
considered
before
the
committee
has
made
a
recommendation
about
it?
Item 10. Budget Amendment for Replacement of Utilities Department Vehicle
Unit
9296
The staff report says the F150 truck that needs to be replaced “ was involved in an accident and determined
to
be
a
total
loss
.”
Curiously, it provides no information as to what the nature of the accident was. Was the City at fault? Is there any insurance applicable, either for the City, or if a third party was at
fault
from
them
(the
“Fiscal
Impact”
section
of
the
report
suggests
not,
but
that
is
only
a
guess).
If the City was at fault, was there damage to other property for which the City is now liable? Our City Charter originally required that claims against the City be reported to the Council for the public
to
see
at
each
of
its
meetings.
That
provision
was
later
revised
and
management
no
longer
seems
to
feel
an
obligation
to
do
so.
Like
nearly
all
cutbacks
to
transparency,
it
is
a
loss
to
the
public.
September 8, 2026, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 6 of 8 Item 12. Professional Services Agreement for On-Call Harbor Management
Community
Outreach
Services
with
JPW
Communications,
Inc
In considering this Agreement, the Council may assume from the staff report that in formulating its
recommendations
regarding
Harbor
rents,
the
Harbor
Commission
plans
to
hold
many
open
public
meetings
that
may
need
to
be
promoted
and
supported
by
this
vendor.
The
idea
that
numerous
public
meetings
would
be
held
is,
indeed,
the
impression
many
attending
the
May
27 Navigating Newport Harbor’s Future workshop at OASIS left with. However, if the Councilmembers look at this Wednesday’s Harbor Commission agenda, they will see it is actually leaning toward delegating the task to an ad hoc committee of three Commissioners
who
will
likely
be
formulating
their
ultimate
recommendations
in
private.
Is it the intention of this contract that the vendor will be communicating to the public the private discussions
of
the
Harbor
Commission
ad
hoc
committee?
Item 13. Second Amended and Restated Ground Lease with Balboa Bay
Club
Ventures,
LLC
for
the
Tidelands
Property
Located
at
1221
West
Coast
Highway
I provided written comments on the lease that is being amended here when it was being considered as Item 7 on the October 22, 2013, City Council agenda. More recently, I emailed comments to the State Lands Commission when they were considering the amendment as Item 43 at their August 25, 2026 (mistyped as “2006” in the email subject line), meeting. Given the CIty’s current interest in collecting Fair Market Value for the the tidelands assets it manages on behalf of the people of California, my recent comments to the State Lands Commission focused on when, if and how the Fair Market Value of this asset had been established,
as
well
as
how
these
repeated
mid-term
extensions
transform
this
lease,
officially
capped
at
a
maximum
of
50 years,
into
one
that
is,
in
effect,
perpetual.
While prior reports claim the revenue the City is collecting represents Fair Market Value, the State
Lands
Commission’s
one
review
suggested
the
rent
is
simply
being
continued
from
the
existing
lease.
Both
the
existing
lease
and
its
extension
promise
a
FMV
evaluation
will
come
19 years
after
signing,
but
with
each
new
signing
the
19 years
moves
ever
farther
into
the
future
and
is
never
reached.
And although valuations of the lease extension have sometimes been included, none of them cite
Exhibit
B
of
the
lease
or
purport
to
be
doing
a
fresh
FMV
analysis
using
any
of
the
methodologies
in
it.
The lease seems to assume some percentage of rents and revenues collected will, almost by definition,
be
FMV.
But
I
have
no
idea
if
the
Club’s
tenants
are
getting
a
sweetheart
deal
or
being
overcharged.
As to my 2013 Council comments, they all still seem relevant to me.
September 8, 2026, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 7 of 8 I would call particular attention, once again, to the continuing provision that allows the lessee, should
they
choose
to
sublease
some
portion
of
the
leased
property
for
a
cell
tower,
to
retain
85%
of
the
rent
and
pass
only
15%
on
to
the
City.
As
I
understand
it,
the
costs
associated
with
a
cell
tower
are
borne
entirely
by
the
telecom
carrier
who
installs
it,
and
the
person
allowing
it
on
“their”
property
makes
zero
investment
in
it.
Since
the
public
owns
the
Bay
Club
property,
I
have
trouble
seeing
what
would
justify
their
keeping
a
single
penny
of
the
cell
tower
revenue,
let
alone
85%
of
it.
How
can
this
perpetual
lease
and
this
particular
provision
be
fair
to
the
people
of
California?
Item 14. Professional Services Agreement with Lincoln Property Company
for
Property
Management
Services
at
1201
Dove
Street
The staff report cites a vacancy rate for the building, but does not compare it to the vacancy rate in
other
office
buildings
in
the
area.
Is
it
high,
low
or
average?
The Agreement appears to provide Lincoln Property with an incentive to generate revenue for the
City
(giving
them
a
management
fee
of
2%
of
the
gross
monthly
revenues
if
that
would
exceed
their
guaranteed
base
fee
of
$7,500
per
month),
yet
the
staff
report
indicates
they
have
never
generated
enough
revenue
to
qualify
for
anything
more
than
the
base
fee.
Might
some
other
property
manager
be
more
aggressive
in
generating
revenue
for
the
City?
Item 16. City Hall and Limited Off-Site Holiday Closure (Beginning Thursday,
December
24,
2026,
through
Friday,
January
1,
2027)
In considering this item, the Council should be mindful that the closing of city halls is not something
with
a
long
historical
precedent
or
tradition.
And
it
seems
contrary
to
a
city’s
purpose
of
providing
services
to
its
residents.
It
is
good
to
see
our
City’s
library
system
continuing
to
resist
this
trend
by
remaining
open
and
serving
the
public,
albeit
with
slightly
reduced
hours.
Item 17. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL EXISTING
LITIGATION
The part of the Brown Act, California Government Code Section 54956.9, being used to justify a City Council discussion with its legal counsel in closed session regarding two named pieces of existing
litigation
allows
such
private
meetings
only
“
when
discussion
in
open
session
concerning
those
matters
would
prejudice
the
position
of
the
local
agency
in
the
litigation
.”
In the first of the two cases cited, the City is facing an order to place on a November 3, 2026, ballot
three
charter
amendment
initiative
measures
which
the
Council
had,
at
its
August
25 meeting,
placed
on
a
November
7,
2028,
ballot.
While the Council may wish to privately confer with its legal counsel regarding opportunities to challenge
the
order,
and
possibly
the
legal
difficulties
of
complying,
it
would
seem
to
me
that
the
principal
person
responsible
for
developing
the
plan
to
comply
would
be
the
City
Clerk,
who
is
our
Elections
Official
and
who
is
not
a
“legal
counsel.”
It
is
disturbing
to
see
the
Council
not
scheduling
any
open
session
time
on
the
present
agenda
to
discuss
with
the
City
Clerk
the
September 8, 2026, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 8 of 8 options available for, and the logistics involved in, conducting the court-ordered November 3, 2026,
election.
Since the Brown Act is required to always be interpreted in favor of openness, it seems inappropriate
to
use
a
narrowly-allowed
“conference
with
legal
counsel”
as
an
indirect
conduit
for
a
never-allowed
private
discussion
with
the
City’s
Elections
Official.
And given the hard deadline, it will be even more disturbing if the purpose of delaying the needed
open
discussion
with
the
Elections
Official
regarding
the
plan
to
comply
is
to
make
its
implementation
so
late
and
hasty
as
to
give
the
City
even
more
reasons
to
challenge
its
own
court-ordered
election
before
or
after
it
happens.
The November 3, 2026, election date is very rapidly approaching. When will the open session discussion
as
to
how
to
make
that
election
happen
occur?