From: Jim Mosher <[email protected]>
Sent: September 10, 2026 3:57 PM
To: City Clerk's Office
Cc: Dept - City Council
Subject: Comments of Sept. 11, 2026, Council agenda
[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,
I have just learned there will be a special City Council meeting tomorrow morning.
In very quickly reviewing the proposed resolutions, I notice a discrepancy between the staff report which says the City's requests for stays were denied on September 9 and the Whereas clauses of the resolutions which say that occurred on September 10 (today).
More importantly, near the end of each resolution I have looked at, there is a (usually final) section saying something like "The City Council hereby repeals all resolutions in conflict herewith including City Council Resolutions Nos. 67, 68, and 69 ..." (with various similar numbers cited). The City's Laserfiche records indicate resolutions with those low numbers were adopted in the 1917 timeframe, and are unrelated to the present matters.
I am guessing what the present resolutions are intended to repeal are things like "City Council Resolutions Nos. 2026-67, 2026-68," etc.
Also, isn't there a question of whether an independent outside counsel (and one unrelated to the litigation) is needed to write the impartial analyses, especially for the "Public Meetings, Public Records, Oversight, and Enforcement" measure? I seem to recall one of the objections in court was it imposed requirements on the City Attorney that the City Attorney objected to. It would likely affect the City Clerk's operations as well. So an impartial review by either of those officials would seem difficult.
Yours sincerely,
Jim Mosher
From: City Clerk's Office
Sent: September 10, 2026 8:57 PM
To: Mulvey, Jennifer
Subject: FW: Public Comment – September 11, 2026 Special City Council meeting Attachments: 2026-09-10 Rebuttal to City's Argument_Sunshine.pdf; 2026-09-10 Rebuttal to City's Argument_District Voting.pdf; 2026-09-10 Rebuttal to City's Argument_Term Limits.pdf
From: Grunbaum, Lucas <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2026 8:56:35 PM (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: City Clerk's Office <[email protected]>; Stapleton, Joe <[email protected]>; Barto, Michelle <[email protected]>; Weigand, Erik <[email protected]>; Grant, Robyn <[email protected]>; Blom, Noah <[email protected]>; Kleiman, Lauren <[email protected]>; Weber, Sara <[email protected]>
Cc: Harp, Aaron <[email protected]>; Ihrke, Bill <[email protected]>; Dhillon, Navi <[email protected]>; Stromberg, Winston <[email protected]>; Peters, Grayson A. <[email protected]>; Carr, Chris <[email protected]>; Crosby, Dylan <[email protected]>
Subject: Public Comment – September 11, 2026 Special 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.
Dear Madame Clerk and Council Members –
Please see attached for Newport Beach Stewardship Association’s draft rebuttal arguments for the three initiative measures that will be before the City Council at tomorrow’s special meeting. We ask that these materials be included in the record for tomorrow’s meeting.
Best.
Lucas Grunbaum | Of Counsel
Paul Hastings LLP | 101 California Street, Forty-Eighth Floor, San Francisco, CA 94111 | Direct: +1.415.856.7021 | Main:
+1.415.856.7000 | [email protected] |
www.paulhastings.com
****************************************************************************************** This message is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments.
If you reply to this message, Paul Hastings may collect personal information including your name, business name
and other contact details, and IP address. For more information about Paul Hastings’ information collection, privacy and security principles please click HERE. If you have any questions, please contact [email protected].
REBUTTAL TO ARGUMENT AGAINST MEASURE ___
Something stinks at City Hall. The politicians behind the opposition want to keep us in the dark.
The backroom deals need to stop.
Public records belong to us, not the politicians.
No more backroom deals.
The career politicians behind the opposition hired fancy law firms to file lawsuits to block a vote on government transparency. The flimsy arguments from the City Council failed.
Sunshine is the best disinfectant. Let’s clean up City Hall.
Vote YES on Measure ____.
REBUTTAL TO ARGUMENT AGAINST MEASURE ___
Don’t believe the spin from politicians behind the opposition! Measure ___ ensures elected officials are directly accountable to residents from their own districts.
The current City Council opposes district voting because they want to dodge accountability. That is the truth.
Don’t let politicians off the hook.
Newport Beach deserves accountability.
Vote YES on Measure ____.
REBUTTAL TO ARGUMENT AGAINST MEASURE ___
Surprise, surprise. The career politicians behind the opposition want you to vote against term limits.
The current City Council will say and do anything to cling to power. For example, the opposition filed multiple lawsuits—wasting our money on fancy law firms—trying to block you from even voting on term limits. The Superior Court of California rejected the City Council’s frivolous arguments.
After wasting taxpayer dollars and losing in court, the City Council tells you a different story, claiming term limits already exist. If that were true, why was the City Council filing lawsuits? Terms limits do not exist, and politicians want to keep it that way. We all know why.
You can’t trust these career politicians.
Close the loophole.
Let’s take back our city.
Vote YES on Measure ____.