City Council- Special
Meeting Minutes
September 11, 2026, 10:00 AM
I. ROLL CALL - 10:00 a.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
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Councilmember Barto. A brief moment of silence was observed in remembrance of those who fell on September 11, 2001, on the 25th anniversary of the attacks.
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON AGENDA AND NON -AGENDA ITEMS
Walter Stahr invoked the 25th anniversary of September 11th and quoted William Henry Seward's 1860 call for magnanimity across political lines, urging that Americans remember their shared citizenship above partisan differences.
Jim Mosher raised concerns about the City's public notification process, stating he had not received City Council meeting notices in over a year despite being subscribed, and that the City Manager's "On the Agenda" communications were outdated and incomplete.
Lynn Swain stated that over 30,000 Newport Beach residents had signed petitions to place measures before voters, and expressed outrage that the City was spending taxpayer funds on litigation to prevent those same residents from voting.
Andrew Gerken criticized the Council's opposition to the initiatives as contrary to democratic principles and argued the Council had no standing to cite inadequate public notice given its own poor communication record.
Lynn Lorenz expressed longstanding frustration with the Council voting as a block and stated support for the district voting initiative as a means of fostering independent representation.
Nancy Skinner appealed to the Council to work collaboratively with residents rather than in opposition, expressing personal confusion about the Council's resistance to letting residents vote.
II. CURRENT BUSINESS
1. Confirmation of the Acceptance of the Certification of the Orange County Registrar of Voters Regarding the Verification of Signatures for the Public Meetings, Public Records, Oversight, and Enforcement Initiative; the Lifetime City Council Term Limits Initiative; and the District -Only Voting Initiative; and Calling a Special Municipal Election for the Consideration of the Three Initiatives by the Voters for November 3, 2026.
a) Determine that 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 the action will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment and is not a project as defined in Section 15378 of the CEQA Guidelines;
b) Confirm the City Council's previous acceptance of the certifications of the Orange County Registrar of Voters regarding the verification of signatures for the Public Meetings, Public Records, Oversight, and Enforcement Initiative; Lifetime City Council Term Limits Initiative; and District -Only Voting Initiative; c) By motion, decide whether to submit an argument against each of the Three Initiatives (pursuant to Elections Code Section 9282) and, if submitting such an argument against any of the Three Initiatives, designate up to three Councilmembers to author the argument;
e) Adopt the following Resolutions: Resolutions 2026-77 through 2026-83 of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach, California, Calling for and Giving Notice of a Special Municipal Election to be held on November 3, 2026 to Submit to the Voters Initiative Measures Proposing to Amend the City Charter to add/modify City Charter provisions related to: (1) Public Meetings, Public Records, Oversight, and Enforcement; (2) City Council Member Term Limits; and (3) Council Members Being Elected Only by Voters Residing within the District the Council Member Represents; and a Resolution Requesting the Orange County Board of Supervisors Authorize the County Elections Official to Render Services Relating to the Conduct of a Special Municipal Election, as well the Accompanying Resolutions Directing the City Attorney to Prepare an Impartial Analysis of an Initiative Measure to Be Submitted to the Voters at the Special Municipal Election to be Held on November 3, 2026, and Establishing the Deadline for the Filing of the Impartial Analysis and Written Arguments For and Against the Initiative Measures;
f) Authorize the City Manager, City Clerk and City Attorney to enter into any and all agreements, execute any documents and take any action necessary to conduct the Special Municipal Election on November 3, 2026, without the need to comply with any City Council Policy or any City Council adopted Resolution; and g) Authorize City staff to prepare and execute a budget amendment, as needed, to appropriate sufficient funds to cover election and administrative costs associated with the Special Municipal Election.
City Clerk Shumway and Election Consultant Jessica Blair of the Stellara Group participated in an extensive question -and -answer session with the Council regarding the logistics of conducting a standalone special municipal election concurrent with the countywide general election on November 3, 2026. Key facts established during this discussion included:
• The City of Newport Beach has not conducted its own election since 1982, when the charter was amended to require consolidation with the County. • The election would be conducted entirely by mail -in ballot, with domestic ballots targeted for mailing by October 19 and military/overseas ballots by September
18. • An informational mailer to all registered Newport Beach voters explaining the existence of two separate ballots was planned for distribution within approximately ten days.
• The City's standalone ballot would be designed to look visually distinct from the County ballot to minimize voter confusion.
• Signature verification data from the Orange County Registrar of Voters had not yet been secured; Ms. Blair stated she would not mail ballots without confirming a mechanism to verify and count returned ballots.
• The County of Orange had not agreed to render assistance, and its Board of Supervisors could not place the City's item on their agenda sooner than September 29 at the earliest —after the military ballot mailing deadline. • Ms. Blair confirmed she would not indemnify the City against claims of voter disenfranchisement, only against her own professional errors and omissions.
Councilmember Weigand raised extensive questions regarding drop boxes, ballot mailing timelines, language translation requirements under the Voting Rights Act, conditional voter registration, signature curing, overseas and military ballot handling, and election security, expressing serious concern that the City could not conduct a fair and complete election within the accelerated timeframe without disenfranchising at least some voters.
Councilmember Barto questioned whether the County had indicated any willingness to consolidate the election at a later feasible date, and raised concerns about the training of County volunteer poll workers who might be unequipped to answer voters' questions about the separate City ballot.
Councilmember Stapleton acknowledged the difficult position but expressed support for moving forward per the court order, noting the City had been unsuccessful at every prior legal step and that any missteps could be reassessed after Monday's court hearing.
Councilmember Grant stated that, despite discomfort with the compressed timeline and potential legal conflicts, the thorough questioning of Ms. Blair had given her increased confidence in the operational plan, and she expressed support for proceeding in two parallel tracks —complying with the writ while continuing to seek judicial guidance.
Councilmember Weber stated she found the prospect of conducting a mail -only election in this accelerated timeframe deeply troubling, characterizing it as being forced to break certain laws in order to comply with other laws, and expressing primary concern for resident trust in the process.
Mayor Pro Tem Blom expressed discomfort with acting in violation of state law without clearer judicial guidance, and initially proposed continuing the meeting to the following Tuesday to await clarification from the court.
Mayor Kleiman summarized the fundamental dilemma: the Council was being asked to potentially violate the City Charter and state election law to comply with a court order, while the sole consultant willing to attempt the election had never done so in this manner before, the County's cooperation was uncertain, and ballots could be mailed before the County's position was even known.
Public Comment:
Walter Stahr expressed general support for the resolutions but admonished the Council that the predicament was of its own making, and suggested that City facilities
among the County's ballot collection locations should facilitate a productive conversation with the County about allowing City informational tables.
Carole King, resident, expressed strong frustration at what she described as unnecessary obstruction of the voters' right to vote, criticized the Council's communication practices, and disputed the premise that voters would be confused by two ballots.
Jim Mosher expressed surprise that the Council had nearly proceeded without a staff report, reiterated that the City's difficult position was a consequence of its own opposition to the initiatives, questioned why no resolution on rebuttal arguments had been included, and asked how voters would receive the impartial analysis and arguments given the compressed mailing schedule.
City Attorney Harp disclosed mid -deliberation that Ms. Blair had clarified via email that her indemnification would cover only her own professional errors and omissions, and would not extend to voter disenfranchisement claims.
First Motion — To Deny All Items (Failed)
A motion was made by Councilmember Weigand to deny all items in the staff report. The motion failed for lack of a second.
Second Motion — To Continue to Tuesday (Failed)
A motion to adjourn the meeting to Tuesday at 4:00 p.m. was made by Mayor Pro Tem Blom and seconded by Councilmember Weber. The motion failed 2-5, with Mayor Pro Tem Blom and Councilmember Weber voting in favor.
Third Motion — To Approve Items (a), (b), (e), (f), and (g), Excluding Resolutions on Impartial Analysis and Arguments (Passed)
A motion to accept the full staff recommendation on items (a), (b), (e), (f), and (g) —excluding the resolutions dealing with the impartial analysis and arguments for and against the measures —was made by Councilmember Grant and seconded by Councilmember Stapleton. The motion passed 4-3, with Mayor Pro Tern Blom, Councilmember Weber, and Councilmember Weigand voting in opposition.
Fourth Motion — Arguments Against and Impartial Analysis (Passed Unanimously) A motion to move forward with an impartial analysis and arguments against all three initiatives, using the arguments previously drafted by Mayor Pro Tern Blom for the August 25 meeting, and designating Mayor Pro Tern Blom, Councilmember Weber, and Councilmember Weigand as the three authoring Council members, was made by Mayor Pro Tern Blom and seconded by Councilmember Weber. The motion passed 7—0.
Ill. MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
No motions for reconsideration were made.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 12:00 p.m.