Public and attorneys flag notice issues; city to meet in closed session on potential Brown Act litigation
Loading...
Summary
Speakers said an ordinance amending the municipal code (short‑term lodging and shade coverings) may have been misleadingly noticed; the city attorney announced closed‑session consultation on potential Brown Act litigation and an existing case: Newport Beach Stewardship Association v. City of Newport Beach.
Members of the public and several commenters raised concerns that prior agenda language did not accurately describe the substance or scope of certain ordinances, which they said could trigger Brown Act or notice issues.
Adam Leverens reviewed an earlier meeting video and questioned whether a February agenda accurately described an ordinance labeled as addressing "illegal activity during high risk periods" when speakers later discussed year‑round measures. He said the discrepancy raised questions about notice and process.
Jim Mosher urged the council to reintroduce or correct portions of an ordinance he said were not properly noticed, noting that descriptions appearing in past staff reports or agenda language could be misleading.
City Attorney Harp announced the council would adjourn to closed session to consult with legal counsel about potential Brown Act litigation relating to an ordinance on shade coverings (referring to events of 02/10/2026), to consider initiation of litigation on one matter, and to discuss existing litigation titled Newport Beach Stewardship Association v. City of Newport Beach.
No open‑session action was taken; the council moved to closed session for attorney‑client discussion as announced by the city attorney.
