September 22, 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.
2026-09-08 CC minutes
Harvest
Food
Bank,
paragraph
2,
sentence
2:
“
Councilmember
Stapleton Weigand noted
that
the
No
Lunch,
Lunch
event
features
a
quality
lunch
and
encouraged
community
members
to
attend,
describing
it
as
a
meaningful
and
inspiring
event
held
at
the
Great
Park
in Irvine .” [see video] Page 2 , paragraph 4: “ Birute Ranes (Newport Beach and Newport Heights resident) opposed the
undergrounding
effort,
citing
low
wildfire
risk
and
risks
associated
with
underground
utilities,
and
separately
urged
the
Council
not
to
locate
the
new
police
station
on
Civic
Center
Park land .” [note: The same person is listed as “Brigitte Ahrens” on page 1 on the August 18, 2026, minutes.] Page 2 , paragraph 5: “Linda Lynda Adams (Newport Heights, 50-year resident) cited California
Election
Code
Section
9306,
asserting
that
the
180-day
window
for
filing
the
undergrounding
petition
had
elapsed
as
of
the
meeting
date,
rendering
the
petition
void
.”
[see
2016 undergrounding letter] Page 3 , Council Announcements, paragraph 2: “ Councilmember Barto also praised Public Works,
police,
fire,
and
lifeguard
staff
for
their
work
during
the
challenging
holiday
weekend,
and
recognized
Water
Quality
and / Coastal Tidelands Committee member Sharon Ray for securing
a
$1.8
million
grant
for
Upper
Newport
Bay
restoration
.”
“ The City Clerk read the title of the ordinance adopted under the Consent Calendar: Ordinance No. 2026-14, An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach, California,
Amending
Chapter
5.95 (Short
Term
Lodging
Permit)
of
the
Newport
Beach
Municipal
Cod
e”
[Comment: The minutes correctly document what happened. However, reading the title after the Council has voted to adopt the ordinance is contrary to the intent of City Charter Section 412. The intent is clearly that the reading take place before consideration of the item so the Council and public know they have a final chance to debate the ordinance before it is adopted.]
September 22, 2026, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 2 of 7 2026-09-11 CC minutes (The draft minutes do not have page numbers, so the numbers below refer to the 697-page agenda packet.) Page 23 , Public Comments, paragraph 5: “ An unidentified speaker 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
.”
[ note : The unidentified speaker was Lynn Lorenz (frequently identified in other minutes).]
voters
explaining
the
existence
of
two
separate
ballots
was
planned
for
distribution
within
approximately
ten
days.”
[ comment : It is now ten days since this statement was made.] 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
The history of this ordinance is a bit disturbing. It seems to be based on direction given to staff by Mayor Kleiman at a July 14, 2026, Study Session (see video). The purpose of study sessions is presumably for the Council to “study” and become informed about issues before being asked (on a later agenda) to make decisions about them.
Even
if
study
sessions
were
for
making
decisions,
Mayor
Kleiman
appeared
to
be
presenting
her
personal
laundry
list
of
desired
actions
rather
than
summarizing
issues
emerging
from
public
discussion
by
the
Council.
Six of Mayor Kleiman’s ordinance requests came back as an “A-1 Item" on the July 28, 2026, Council agenda, where the Council unanimously supported further consideration of them, but without
even
a
possibility
of
discussion
at
that
time.
Staff's recommendation for adopting the present single ordinance appeared as Item 2 on the September 8, 2026, Council consent calendar, where it was expected to be approved without any
Council
discussion.
The
September
8 staff
report
did
not
mention
of
the
July
28 “A-1
Item”
or
explain
how
the
proposed
single
ordinance
related
to
the
six
requested
ordinances,
More importantly, since no Council discussion had taken place up to that point, it did not explain why
the
suggested
approach
was
being
recommended
or
present
any
alternative
approaches
to
the
problem
for
the
Council
to
consider.
Nor
does
it
disclose
any
possible
problems
with
the
recommended
approach.
As
a
result,
the
public
(and
likely
the
Council)
is
left
entirely
in
the
dark
as
to
what
internal
staff
discussions
took
place:
what
was
considered,
what
was
rejected
and
why
and
by
whom.
While the item was pulled from the consent calendar on September 8, the stated purpose of pulling it was solely to compliment staff, and the draft minutes confirm no substantive Council
September 22, 2026, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 3 of 7 discussion occurred, and certainly none of the details were questioned and no alternatives to them
debated.
The most obviously troubling part of the staff proposal is its recommended new “curfew”: a permanent prohibition on persons under the age of 18 being present on the ocean-facing side of 3.3 miles of the Peninsula, from 54th Street to B Street, including the beaches, after 6:00 p.m. on every Memorial Day, Fourth of July and Labor Day. With respect to preemptively excluding persons from the public beaches, it appears to be in direct conflict with multiple provisions of Section 21.48.055.E of our existing Municipal Code, which is the portion of our California Coastal Commission certified Local Coastal Program establish
hours
to
ensure
beach
access.
Those provisions require CCC approval to modify the hours, which does not appear to have been
secured
here,
and
even
to
address
emergencies
and
nuisances,
temporary
restrictions
are
allowed
only
for
the
duration
of
the
emergency
or
nuisance.
Using
such
powers
to
preemptive
address
an
emergency
or
nuisance
that
may
happen
on
some
specified
future
date,
months
or
years
hence,
and
to
apply
the
restrictions
whether
any
problem
occurs
on
those
dates
or
not,
seems
consistent
with
neither
the
code
nor
experience.
For
example,
police
management
has
uniformly
said
that
despite
preparation
of
trouble,
the
most
recent
Labor
Day
was
completely
“uneventful”
with
no
need
for
a
curfew.
Yet
this
ordinance,
if
adopted,
would
mandatorily
impose
one.
It is disturbing that in her July 14 comments, Mayor Kleiman said she had a planned meeting with the Coastal Commission, and in this September 8 thank you’s, Mayor Pro Tem Blom thanked the Mayor on vetting the ordinance with the CCC. Yet when public speakers brought the pending Newport Beach curfew up at the televised CCC meetings on September 10 and 11, senior Coastal Commission staff said it was the first they’d heard of it. It is also disturbing that the Council members do not seem to have read carefully the ordinance they
are
being
asked
to
adopt.
For
example,
Mayor
Pro
Tem
Blom
appeared
assured
his
normal
concerns about government prohibiting people from doing things were alleviated by reading from the September 8 staff report that the curfew would only be in effect “ when large crowds and unsupervised gatherings create heightened risks of criminal activity .” But there is no such provision
in
the
proposed
ordinance,
under
which
the
curfew
is
absolute
and
will
be
in
force
every
future
Memorial
Day,
Fourth
of
July
and
Labor
Day,
whether
there
is
any
need
for
it,
or
not.
Similarly, Councilmember Weigand, although appearing to have read the present ordinance more
carefully,
and
acknowledging
it
contained
no
such
exception,
seemed
to
assume
police
officers could read into it an exception for kids doing no harm (such as carrying a surfboard to the beach). But having a law that is enforced against some and not others, and only when officers choose to enforce it, would seem to lead to issues with selective enforcement, making it unenforceable
when
actually
needed.
Is there really an intent to enforce this curfew on a peaceful holiday? And even on a crowded one,
is
the
intent
to
enforce
it
against
all
minors?
Or
just
those
in
areas
where
it
looks
like
trouble
might
develop?
September 22, 2026, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 4 of 7 Even if a curfew imposed without any immediate need is legal, how does the City expect to implement
this?
Are
our
police
officers
trained
in
distinguishing
17 year
olds
from
18 years
old?
Will
they
walk
the
3.3 miles
of
Peninsula
Beach
at
6:00
p.m.
on
each
of
the
three
designated
days,
however
peaceful,
verifying
the
age
and
state
of
accompaniment
of
each
beachgoer?
How
many
officers
will
it
take
to
do
this?
Will
anyone
unable
to
produce
a
government-issued
photo
ID
with
date
of
birth
be
detained?
Given these legal and practical difficulties, it seems to me that the proposed new Chapter 10.80, allowing
Public
Safety
Orders
for
the
control
of
large
gatherings,
whenever
and
wherever
they
might
develop,
not
singling
out
a
particular
age
group,
and
available
on
all
days,
not
just
three
specified
days
of
the
year,
is
a
much
more
reasonable
and
defensible
approach.
Item 3. Ordinance No. 2026-16: Updating the Military Equipment Use Policy
for
the
Newport
Beach
Police
Department
We have here, as with Item 2, another instance of an ordinance being both introduced and adopted
on
the
consent
calendar,
without
a
staff
presentation
or
Council
discussion.
Some cities do not allow ordinances to be introduced on the consent calendar. So that do, publicly
read
the
titles
of
the
items
on
consent.
In this particular instance, Newport Beach’s practice of allowing ordinances to be enacted without
any
public
announcement
at
any
stage
rather
defeats
the
original
purpose
of
the
statute
requiring
this
item,
which
was
to
provide
greater
awareness
of
a
city’s
military
equipment
inventory.
Item 4. Resolution No. 2026-84: Amendments to the Records Retention
Schedule
The City’s first comprehensive Records Retention Schedule, prepared by the same consultant as the present one, was approved, as alluded to in the staff report, by Resolution No. 2003-39, approved by Item 4 on the August 12, 2003, Council agenda. Although one might think that a Records Retention Schedule would be one of a City’s most fundamental and transparent documents,
that
original
was
not
attached
to
the
staff
report
or
resolution
because
the
content
was
said
to
be
“protected
by
copyright
laws”
(apparently
for
the
benefit
of
the
consultant)
and
available
only
for
inspection
in
the
Clerk’s
Office
(apparently
with
no
copying
allowed).
Each of the pages provided here continue to bear the message “©2003-06 Gladwell Governmental
Services,
Inc.
-
all
rights
reserved
–
Do
not
duplicate
or
distribute
without
prior
written
permission
from
GGS
(909)
337-3516.”
The
idea
that
a
vendor
retains
control
over
a
public
document
produced
at
taxpayer
expense
seems
very
odd.
Beyond that, the proposed resolution will have attached 117 copyrighted revised pages with no hint
of
how
many
pages
long
the
complete
document
might
be
or
how
it
can
be
accessed
–
possibly
by
visiting
the
Clerk’s
Office
where
it
can
be
visually
observed
but
nothing
in
it
copied
without
Gladwell’s
permission?
September 22, 2026, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 5 of 7 Adding to this vast and intricate mystery, the staff report provides no insight that I can find as to what
significant
changes
have
been
made
to
the
117
pages
that
are
shown,
or
why
they
were
made.
Some past revisions, I seem to recall, included a summary table. This, as best I can tell, does not.
How does the public access a complete current copy of our Records Retention Schedule? There
does
not
seem
to
be
link
on
the
City
website.
Finally, the minutes from August 12, 2003, indicate that at that time the City faced complaints and legal complications from destroying records the public had a reasonable expectation it would
keep.
The
adoption
of
a
formal
Records
Retention
Policy
and
Schedule
might
shield
the
City
from
legal
liability,
but
has
it
ended
complaints
about
the
City
not
retaining
records
the
public
would
reasonably
expect
it
to
keep?
How
about
emails
and
recordings
of
meetings?
Item 5. Resolution No. 2026-85: Amending the Staffing Structure of the City
Manager’s
Office
and
the
Municipal
Operations
Department
The staff report indicates the new assistant management analyst position in the Municipal Operations
Department
is
“
required
to
assist
with
trash
and
recycling
services
.”
Although the staff report is vague about what exact “state-mandated recycling and landfill-diversion
requirements”
assistance
is
needed
with,
I
would
guess
some
of
this
has
to
do
with
residential
curbside
waste
stream
separation.
I know that on the street where I live misplacement of items is extremely common and instruction
from
the
City
to
help
residents
who
want
to
do
the
responsible
thing
is
completely
lacking.
By
contrast,
because
our
sewer
service
is
from
the
Costa
Mesa
Sanitary
District,
we
receive quarterly newsletters from them, whose advice regarding trash may or may not be applicable to the City’s contract with CR&R because their organic waste is treated by a different kind
of
facility
(an
"anaerobic
digester”)
than
ours
(going
to
a
composting
yard
in
Yuma).
About a year ago, a representative from CR&R (which serves both CMSD and our City) told our Water
Quality
/
Coastal
Tidelands
Committee
that
they
were
on
the
cusp
of
deploying
a
“What
Goes Where?” site similar to the “Recycle Coach” app independently deployed by CMSD. If that has happened, I am not aware of it being communicated to the City’s residents. Meanwhile, the City’s residents (unlike those in the CMSD trash servicing area) remain ignorant of
how
the
City
is
doing
toward
meeting
the
state
diversion
goals
for
either
their
own
personal
trash
or
for
commercial
refuse.
The Council may or may not still have an “Ad Hoc Refuse Committee.” It is impossible to tell from the Clerk’s committee listings since no links to Council committees are provided), but independent research suggests a recent incarnation was created by Item 4 on the March 25, 2025, consent calendar with a sunset date of December 31, 2026. Prior to that, there seems to have
been
a
Council
committee
that
existed
but
had
never
formally
been
created.
As
with
that
former
one,
the
present
committee’s
primary
accomplishment
to
date
seems
to
have
been
to
September 22, 2026, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 6 of 7 keep the public completely in the dark by shunting all discussion of any matters related to refuse disposal
out
of
the
public
eye.
Item 6. Amendment No. Three to the Purchase, Installation and Maintenance
Agreement
with
Axon
for
Skydio
Drones
and
Body
Worn
Cameras
The original five-year contract for seven BRINC drones, Item 10 on the February 25, 2025, consent calendar, was approved with excitement, high expectations and assurances by the 25-year old founder and CEO of the company producing them (see video). Evidently the expectations were not met. The staff report says the BRINC contract was terminated
on
September
9. Is
the
City
eligible
for
any
financial
recovery
for
the
poor
performance
experienced
during
that
contract’s
term?
The staff report mentions an existing contract with Axon Enterprise, Inc., which seems to be contract C-8973-1 approved as Item 9 on the October 25, 2022, consent calendar, and was originally for body-worn cameras, in-car video and Tasers. It appears to have been amended twice, once by the Council as Item 16 on the August 27, 2024, consent calendar (related to the FUSUS integrated crime software), and once by the City Manager on November 20, 2025.
Neither
amendment
seems
to
be
related
to
drone
purchases.
It is unclear from the staff report how much has been spent on the trial period with the Axon replacement
drones
since
June
and
whether
there
was
some
intermediate
amendment
to
the
contract
with
Axon
to
cover
that.
Item 16. Resolution No. 2026-86: Approving a 180-Day Wait Period Exception
Pursuant
to
Government
Code
Sections
7522.56
and
21224
for
the
Appointment
of
Retired
Annuitant
Justin
Carr
as
an
Extra
Help
Retired
Annuitant
I could be wrong, but I believe there was a time when City Managers put on the “Old” or “New Business”
section
of
the
agenda
items
of
particular
interest
to
the
public,
significantly
changing
public
policy,
involving
large
discretionary
expenditures,
or
with
regard
to
which
staff
truly
wanted
direction
from
the
Council.
That custom seems to have disappeared, and it's becoming increasingly evident that the new rule
is,
unless
absolutely
prohibited
by
some
law,
to
place
all
City
business
on
the
consent
calendar,
with
a
single
recommendation
to
be
approved
without
discussion
by
the
Council.
The present item appears to be no exception to that rule. It does not appear to have been given special prominence because of an expectation there would
be
great
public
or
Council
interest
in
it,
or
because
direction
was
truly
being
sought,
but
rather because Government Code Section 7522.56(f) prohibits putting it on the consent calendar. I strongly suspect staff and the Council would prefer it to be hidden in the consent calendar.
September 22, 2026, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 7 of 7 Nonetheless, since the CalPERS rules have forced into prominence it does seem reasonable to ask
why
the
Assistant
Chief
could
not
be
required
to
finish
his
unfinished
tasks
before
he
retired,
and
the
obvious
question,
not
broached
or
answered
in
the
staff
report,
of
whether
as
a
result
of
this
action
he
will
be
receiving
twice
his
normal
salary:
simultaneously
being
paid
as
a
retiree
and
as
working
employee.
I appreciate that the fiscal impact on the City from this proposal is the same as if the City were to
have
a
retiree
and
hire
a
new
Assistant
Chief
to
do
the
same
work
described
here,
but
I
think
many
in
the
public
will
find
something
a
bit
off
about
a
former
employee
being
both
“retired”
and
“working”
at
the
same
time,
and
being
paid
for
both.
Item 17. Community Development Block Grant Program Year 2025-26, Consolidated
Annual
Performance
and
Evaluation
Report
(CAPER)
Similar to the preceding item, I suspect this item is not being given prominence on the agenda because
City
staff
wants
direction
from
the
Council
or
thinks
it
is
a
matter
of
unusual
public
interest,
but
rather
only
because
some
law
requires
a
public
hearing
which
it
is
impossible
to
pretend
to
hold
on
a
consent
calendar.