January 13, 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 II. STUDY SESSION From the agenda notice, it appears City staff has some very specific code and policy changes it plans to present to the City Council under this heading. Most likely they will involve revising Municipal Code Chapter 20.49 (and possibly Chapter 21.49) and City Council Policy L-23. It is unfortunate staff has not provided any preview of their presentation, so that the Council members
and
the
public
could
research
their
suggestions
and
not
have
to
make
snap
decisions
as
to
which
should
be
advanced.
There is not even a reference to Item VI at the November 18, 2025, meeting, where as a future agenda item, the Council voted to direct staff to more specifically: “ As part of the City’s update of the Municipal Code related to wireless communications, direct City
staff
to
prepare
amendments
to
the
Municipal
Code
as
well
as
associated
policies
and
procedures
to
streamline
the
permitting
and
deployment
of
wireless
communication
facilities.
Staff’s
updates
and
recommendations
should
include,
but
not
be
limited
to,
simplifying
the
permitting
process
for
wireless
facilities
on
both
public
and
private
property;
establishing
clear,
predictable,
and
expedited
review
timelines;
implementing
standardized
application
requirements
and
processes;
and
reducing
carrier
costs
associated
with
deploying
wireless
facilities
.”
As I indicated then, the creation of NBMC Chapter 20.49 in 2014 was an effort to improve the transparency
of,
and
assure
public
participation
in,
decisions
about
the
location
of
cell
sites.
I
fear
the
revisions
will
diminish
that
transparency.
As to City Council Policy L-23 (“The Siting of Wireless Telecommunications Equipment on City-Owned
Land”),
that
was
not
revised
as
part
of
the
2014
effort
to
increase
transparency.
It
was changed as part of Item 5 on the Council’s August 14, 2018, consent calendar, which was itself part of former Mayor O’Neill’s push to reduce the volume of City regulations. The redline changes made at that time start on page 176 of the staff report. Those changes had previously been reviewed, but with no additional explanation, as part of Item 4 at the June 21, 2018, Planning Commission meeting. The minutes of that meeting indicate I pointed out, among other things, that the policy continues to imply on its last page that there is something about “Encroachment Permits (Telecom)” in NBMC Chapter 13, even though the word “Telecom” does not seem to appear anywhere in that chapter. Much more importantly, Policy L-23 continues to enshrine
a
highly
problematic
process
by
which
contracts
for
siting
wireless
facilities
on
public
property
are
approved
by
a
process
of
private
inaction
by
the
City
Council.
In
effect,
the
City
Manager
is
instructed
to
seek
approval
through
a
private
hub-and-spokes
polling
of
the
Council,
unknown
to
the
public.
It
is
the
opposite
of
a
transparent
public
process
January 13, 2026, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 2 of 10
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON AGENDA AND NON-AGENDA ITEMS
1. See “PUBLIC COMMENTS ON CONSENT CALENDAR,” below for two items expected, but not
found
on
the
consent
calendar.
2. The absence of an item number for this agenda item suggests, once again, a need for the Council to revise its Policy A-1 to show an accurate and predictable sequence of events for it and the public to expect at Council meetings. While the “ frequently asked questions, City Council Meetings 101 ” link on the City’s City Council Meetings page seems to have gone missing, those who read the “ City Council Meeting Information ” at the bottom of the City Manager’s On the Agenda page will find a description of the Council meeting format that bears increasingly little resemblance to the reality, including its reference to the regular meetings
starting
at
“6
p.m.”
and
its
instruction
to
look
for
the
consent
calendar
as
Item
XIII
on
the
agenda.
3. Another matter of concern regarding Policy A-1 is the lack of clarity from the Council as to the desired
level
of
accessibility
to
Council
agenda
materials
in
Newport
Beach.
The
boilerplate
at the bottom of the first page of the current agenda continues to say “ staff reports are available in the City Council Chambers lobby .” For most of the City’s history this meant the City
Clerk
made
paper
copies
of
the
reports
freely
available,
so
the
public
could
follow
along
with
what
the
Council
was
deliberating.
This
is
still
the
case
at
most
City
board,
commission
and
committee
meetings.
However, the new City Clerk feels this is not in alignment with state law and has chosen to provide
the
public
with
a
single
shared
printed
copy
located
in
a
“Do
Not
Remove”
binder
in
the
lobby,
and
insists
any
additional
copies
must
be
paid
for
by
those
asking
for
them
(even
though
there
does
not
appear
to
be
a
mechanism
for
making
such
requests
at
the
meeting).
Although
in
theory
people
attending
the
meetings
with
electronic
devices
in
tow
can
access
the
materials
online,
the
electronic
device
most
audience
members
are
likely
to
have
is
a
cell
phone,
and
the
electronic
versions
of
the
agenda
documents
are
hardly
planned
for
readability
on
one.
The
predictable
result
is
the
public
attending
Council
meetings
will
be
even
more
in
the
dark
than
ever
on
what
they
are
witnessing.
It seems worth noting that although the Council members, unlike the audience, have desktop-sized
screens
on
which
to
view
the
proceedings,
at
least
three
appreciate
having
printed
copies,
as
well,
to
refer
to,
which
are
provided
to
them.
The
City
Attorney
also
appears
to
refer
to
a
printed
copy.
Although the Council has not set such a fee, the City Clerk refers to Government Code Section 54954.1 (part of the “Brown Act”), which allows a city council to set a fee for people asking that printed copies of the agenda materials be mailed to them.
The Clerk might be reminded of Section 54953.7, which states that: “ Notwithstanding any other provision of law, legislative bodies of local agencies may impose requirements upon themselves
which
allow
greater
access
to
their
meetings
than
prescribed
by
the
minimal
January 13, 2026, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 3 of 10 standards set forth in this chapter. In addition thereto, an elected legislative body of a local agency
may
impose
those
requirements
on
appointed
legislative
bodies
of
the
local
agency
.”
In other words, while a city may charge, they are not required to. The decision is up to the Council,
not
the
Clerk.
The Council may also wish to be aware of the Declaration of Rights in Article I, Section 3(b) of the California Constitution which guarantees the people’s “ right of access to information concerning
the
conduct
of
the
people’s
business
”
and
says
that
the
Brown
Act
shall
be
liberally
construed
to
promote
access.
The suspension of ready access to information about what is going on at the Council’s meetings
seems
inconsistent
with
that
right.
Indeed,
that
the
Brown
Act
finds
it
necessary
to
allow
a
legislative
body
to
impose
a
fee
for
mailing
agenda
packets
implies
that
imposing
a
fee
is
understood
to
be
the
exception
to
the
rule,
and
that
if
not
mailed,
there
would
be
no
fee
charged
for
obtaining
copies
of
agenda
materials.
As to the practical effects of restricting access to printed copies, I can certainly testify that at least
for
me,
printed
copies
of
materials
have
a
physical
reality
that
encourages
more
careful
review
than
is
likely
to
happen
when
something
exists
only
virtually.
An additional problem is there does not seem to be any mechanism provided for downloading
or
viewing
the
equivalent
of
the
former
paper
staff
reports:
the
electronic
versions
require
multiple
separate
files
to
be
viewed
and
those
files
lack
the
sequential
page
numbers
that
the
printed
copies
had
in
the
lower
right
of
each
page.
Item III. MATTERS WHICH COUNCILMEMBERS HAVE ASKED TO BE PLACED
ON
A
FUTURE
AGENDA
(NON-DISCUSSION
ITEM)
At the December 9 meeting, the Council unanimously requested a future study session on the topic
of
whether
surplus
funds,
including
those
currently
used
to
pay
down
CalPERS
debt,
could
be
better
directed
to
other
investments
–
a
topic
that
would
normally
first
be
(and
has
been)
discussed by the Finance Committee (but without participation by the full Council). Now the Mayor is requesting the Council consider suspending the FInance Committee meetings while a three-member
Council
ad
hoc
committee
reviews
whether
there
is
a
better
way
to
conduct
business.
While I agree that discussion and re-evaluation is almost always valuable, I do not think it’s a good
idea
to
shut
down
the
existing
Finance
Committee’s
meetings
while
that
re-evaluation
is
going on. The existing committee, which will be meeting on Thursday, has a fairly substantial work plan for the year, including a first review of the staff-proposed budget in May. Suspending the meetings will likely result in most of the things on the work plan never being publicly discussed
at
all.
That
hardly
advances
the
objective
of
increasing
transparency.
.
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON CONSENT CALENDAR
1. The consent calendar at the first Council meeting of the year, such as this meeting, normally asks
the
full
Council
to
confirm
the
Mayor’s
appointments
of
Council
members
to
the
various
January 13, 2026, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 4 of 10 committees, local and external, on which Council members serve. The City Clerk’s Roster of Boards, Commissions and Committees shows many of those appointments ending on January 13, 2026. The absence of a Council appointments item on the present agenda leaves
uncertainty
as
to
who
is
and
will
be
representing
the
Council
in
those
positions.
2. Speaking of appointments, as best I can tell, the last time the Council received on its consent calendar one of the requested “bi-monthly” reports on the progress of the General Plan Update was as Item 19 on September 9, 2025, more than four months ago. The absence of those reports from the Council agendas is not for lack of activity on the part of the 3-member General Plan Update Steering Committee or the 24-member General Plan Advisory Committee. What makes this relevant to appointments is that, despite the direction in the enabling resolutions that a decision to terminate the committees is up to the City Council,
Community
Development
staff
has
apparently
instructed
the
City
Clerk
to
not
advertise
the
vacancies
on
these
two
committees
that
are,
per
the
enabling
resolutions,
scheduled to occur at the Council’s first meeting in February. Given that Council Policy A-2 calls for scheduled vacancies to be advised two months in advance, this means that if the Council
wished
to
continue
the
committees
beyond
February
10,
re-appointments
could
not
be
made
in
a
timely
way.
If
staff
does
want
the
Council
to
terminate
the
committees,
there
should
be
an
item
on
the
agenda
asking
the
Council
to
do
that.
The
decision
is
not
up
to
City
staff
on
its
own.
Item 2. Minutes for the December 9, 2025, City Council Meeting The passages shown in italics below are from the draft minutes with suggested corrections shown
in
strikeout underline format. The page numbers refer to Volume 66. Page 463 , Item II. PRESENTATIONS, bullet 2, paragraph 2: “ Mayor Pro Tem Kleiman expressed
gratitude
for
the
volunteers
who
make
3rd
Thursdays
possible,
emphasizing
that
their
dedication
and
hard
work
bring bringing the community and local businesses together and
highlighted
the
event's
success
in
fostering
stronger
community
connections
and
engagement
.”
Mosher
questioned
if
there
were
any
recommendations
from
the Council Policy Review
Committee
and
suggested
amending
Council
Policy
A-1
.”
Blom,
to
approve
the
Consent
Calendar,
including
amendments
to
Agenda
Item
No.
1,
the
Minutes;
noting
the
recusal
of
Mayor
Stapleton
on
Agenda
Item
No.
11,
and
the
removal
of
Agenda
Item
No.
13 for
further
discussion
.”
[ comment : Normally the reason for the recusal would be stated in the minutes, usually as a note
following
the
item.
I
do
not
see
the
reason
for
this
recusal
in
the
present
minutes.]
Leung”
and
two
segments
of
“Public
Comments”
appear
to
be
listed
as
subsections
under
Item
19. (Appointment
to
Fill
an
Unscheduled
Vacancy
on
the
City
Arts
Commission).
January 13, 2026, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 5 of 10
Manager
Leung
stepped
down
from
the
dais
and
Assistant
City
Manager
Seimone
Jurjis
took
his
proper
place
at
the
dais
.”
[ comment : Since the Assistant City Manager did not become City Manager until December 27,
it
is
a
bit
difficult
to
see
how
sitting
in
the
City
Manager’s
seat
was
his
“proper
place”
on
December
9. Should
it
be
“
future
place”?]
City
Council
on
an
equal
basis
to
nominate
and
elect
the mayor .” Page 471 , Item 22, paragraph 1: “ Mayor Kleiman in presiding, placed all members of the City Council
on
an
equal
basis
to
nominate
and
elect
the mayor pro tem .”
[ comment : The minutes record what was supposed to happen according to the last page of the printed agenda: “ The Mayor presides over the election of the Mayor Pro Tem. The Mayor, in
presiding,
places
all
members
of
the
Council
on
an
equal
basis
to
nominate
and
elect
.”
However, the video indicates it didn’t happen that way. Instead, Mayor Kleiman directed the City Clerk to conduct the election.]
Council
Policy
A-1.
The
following
seating
order
was
determined
(left
to
right):
Erik Weigand – Michelle Barto – Robyn Grant – Lauren Kleiman – Noah Blom – Joe Stapleton – Sarah
J.
Weber
”
[ comment : This breaks with tradition and will be confusing to many readers who will find this opposite
to
the
order
in
which
they
will
see
the
Council
members
in
photos
and
video.
Normally,
1 the
minutes
list
the
members
in
the
order
they
are
seen
by
the
public
and
staff
(that
is,
starting
with
Councilmember
Weber
on
the
left).
These
minutes,
instead,
use
“stage”
directions,
listing
the
members
as
seen
from
the
rear
of
the
dais,
looking
out
toward
the
audience. While it is true page 12 of Council Policy A-1 says “ the Mayor Pro Tempore shall always be seated immediately next to and to the right of the Mayor ,” this was probably meant
to
be
understood
as
“
at
the
Mayor’s
right
.
”
In
any
event,
staff
and
the
audience
see
the
Mayor
Pro
Tem
seated
to
the
left
of
the
Mayor,
and
it
would
seem
best
for
the
minutes
to
list
the
names
in
the
order
seen
by
everyone
other
than
the
Council
members
themselves.
Alternatively,
the
draft
minutes
could
be
amended
to
say
“
(left
to
right, as seen looking
toward
the
audience) ” ]
prioritizes
four
“Cs"
:”
1 See, for example, the minutes of Dec. 10, 2024, Dec. 12, 2023, and I suspect all prior minutes, which list the
Council
seating
as
seen
from
the
room,
not
looking
toward
the
room.
January 13, 2026, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 6 of 10 [ comment : It might be noted that City Charter Section 404 places on the Mayor “ the primary but not exclusive responsibility for interpreting the policies, programs and needs of the City government
to
the
people,
and,
as
occasion
requires,
the
Mayor
may
inform
the
people
of
any
change
in
policy
or
program
.”
I
believe
this
means
the
Mayor
is
expected
to
communicate
to
the
public
the
policies
set
by
the
full
Council,
and
any
changes
to
them
that
the
full
Council
agrees
to.
I
do
not
believe
it
was
meant
to
empower
the
Mayor
to
unilaterally
set
or
change
the
City’s
priorities,
especially
since
mayors
in
Newport
Beach
do
not
campaign
on
a
platform
that
is
publicly
revealed
prior
to
their
selection.]
Item 3. Ordinance No. 2025-37: Amending Various Positions of the Newport
Beach
Municipal
Code
to
Reflect
Organizational
Restructuring
to
the
City
Attorney,
Finance,
Human
Resources,
and
Public
Works
Departments
The staff report acknowledges that an error was made in the number of positions being moved from
one
department
to
another
at
the
time
Ordinance
No.
2025-37
was
introduced
for
a
first
reading
on
December
9. It does not inform the Council or the public that the text being introduced for second reading and adoption
differs
from
the
text
introduced
on
December
9. The
changes
seem
to
be
largely
(although, since they are not listed, I cannot be sure entirely) in response to comments I submitted to the December 9 meeting citing “Technical Defects” in the original version. Some of those
might
be
what
are
called
“scrivener’s
errors”
that
might
come
within
the
compass
of
the
City Clerk’s City Charter Section 412 authority to correct “typographical or clerical errors” between the two readings. However, the Council does not seem to have ever codified the procedure
for
making
such
corrections,
including
whether
the
Council
needs
to
be
informed
of
what
has
been
changed.
In
other
cases,
it
might
not
be
obvious
what
the
original
intent
was,
making
any
revision
to
create
some
new
meaning
more
than
the
correction
of
“typographical
or
clerical
errors.”
In the present case, due to the elimination in the second reading of a change that was proposed on December 9, we now have the odd circumstance of Subparts 41 (electronic agenda packet page 48) and 43 (electronic agenda packet page 49) which purport to “amend” NBMC Sections 3.30.010 and 3.32.320 actual amend those sections to “new” wordings that are identical to their present wording (which will surely be confusing to the contractor we pay to make the changes online).
As
to
NBMC
Section
3.32.320,
it
might
be
noted
that
to
be
grammatical,
the
existing
title
(“
Establishment
or
Changing
Appropriations
Limit”)
would
need
to
be
changed
to:
“
Establishing
or
Changing
Appropriations
Limit.”
But
for
reasons
unknown
to
me,
City
staff
does
not
seem
inclined
to
recommend
that
change
to
the
Council.
Assuming the adoption of this ordinance is approved, when will the City website be revised to reflect
the
new
departmental
structure?
Immediately?
Or
when
Section
6 (agenda
packet
page
25)
says
it
will
be
effective
(30
days
after
adoption)?
January 13, 2026, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 7 of 10 Item 4. Resolution No. 2026-1: Updating the List of Designated Employees
for
2026
Under
the
City’s
Conflict
of
Interest
Code
This item seems to assume the Council will approve the departmental restructuring being proposed
in
agenda
Item
3,
but
does
not
fully
embrace
it.
For example, on electronic agenda packet pages 106 (clean) and 111 (redline) it changes the former title “Finance Department” to “Administrative Services & Finance Department.” Yet, my understanding
of
Ordinance
No.
2025-37
is
that
what
was
formerly
the
Finance
Department
will
become
a
division
within
the
new
Administrative
Services
Department.
There
will
no
longer
be
a
Finance
Department
(see
the
revised
NBMC
Chapter
2.12 (Administrative
Departments)),
and
indeed,
Ordinance
No.
2025-37
went
to
great
lengths
to
eliminate
all
references
to
the
Finance
Department
in
the
Municipal
Code.
I am also unable to correlate the positions listed under the new Municipal Operations Department
with
the
list
of
positions
provided
in
Attachment
B
to
the
present
agenda
Item
3. For
example,
I
do
not
see
a
“Deputy
Director
of
Municipal
Operations”
or
the
various
“Manager”
positions
listed
in
Attachment
B.
It is also unclear to me what has happened to the City’s Risk Manager position, which has moved
from
the
former
Human
Resources
Department
to
the
City
Attorney’s
Office.
I
am
guessing
it
was
formerly
a
position
in
the
“Human
Resources
Manager”
category,
but
I
don’t
see
any
new
“Manager”
positions
being
added
to
the
City
Attorney’s
Office.
Item 6. Amendment to On-Call Services Agreement with Vortex Services,
LLC,
for
Pipe
Lining
Services
The staff report indicates the entire funding anticipated to be needed for a five-year contract has been
exhausted
in
half
the
time,
so
an
equal
allotment
is
needed
for
the
final
two-and-a-half
years.
Why
was
the
original
estimate
so
far
off?
It might also be noted that at the time of the original Council approval of contract C-8558-2 as part of Item 10 on June 13, 2023, a separate $250,000 contract (C-9337-1) for the same on-call services was approved with a different vendor (Southwest Pipeline and Trenchless Corp.). This is
not
mentioned
in
the
staff
report.
What
is
the
status
of
that
other
contract?
Is
it
also
over
budget?
Item 9. Amendment to Landscape Services Agreement for Medians and
Roadsides
with
Brightview
Landscape
Services,
Inc.
(Contract
No.
8651-1)
This contract for a total value of a little over $21 million is quite large. Does the City have any plan
to
evaluate
the
possible
advantages
of
“insourcing”
the
bulk
of
these
services
and
using
contractors
only
to
provide
workload
flexibility?
January 13, 2026, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 8 of 10 Item 10. Corporation Yard, Utility Yard and Oilfield Gate Rehabilitation –
Notice
of
Completion
for
Contract
No.
9749-1
The staff report is a bit confusing in that only the Corporation Yard, Utility Yard and Oilfield are mentioned
in
the
title,
yet
the
body
of
the
report
mentions
the
contract
also
rehabilitated
a
gate
at
the
Big
Canyon
Reservoir.
This
was
apparently
not
a
last-minute
add-on,
as
the
same
discrepancy between title and body existed when the contract was awarded as Item 5 on April 15, 2025 (which has been archived as presented, with an unrelated and erroneous project location
map),
Item 11. Accept a Restricted Donation from the Newport Beach Police Foundation
and
Approve
Purchase
of
New
Patrol
Rifles
The generosity of the Newport Beach Police Foundation is appreciated, but iIs 120 the total number
of
patrol
officers
and
sergeants
or
the
number
deployed
at
any
one
time?
It seems reasonable to have a rifle available in each patrol vehicle. But if there are fewer than 120
vehicles,
it
is
a
bit
hard
to
envision
a
situation
in
which
120
assault
rifles
would
be
needed
at
one
time.
Item 14. Authorizing Receipt of Services Under the Regional Early Action
Planning
(REAP)
2.0 Program
for
Housing
Element
Implementation
I don’t know how much dues Newport Beach pays to be a member of OCCOG, but if I understand
the
staff
report
OCCOG
is
offering,
at
no
additional
cost
to
the
City,
to
assist
with
completing “Action 4H” promised in our 6th Cycle General Plan Housing Element. That sounds like a good deal for us, but setting aside that the Housing Element promised Action 4H
would
be
completed
within
12 months
of
its
adoption
on
September
13,
2022
(which
would
mean
we
are
already
a
couple
of
years
beyond
the
original
deadline),
it
is
not
clear
how
the
new
deadline
of
completing
this
sub-task
by
June
30,
2026,
can
be
accomplished.
As I read the timeline presented on page 263 and 264 of the electronic agenda packet, the consultant to be employed by OCCOG proposes to complete their work a month early (in May 2026),
but
to
accomplish
that,
they
would
have
to
have
completed
by
December
the
3 months
it
takes
to
prepare
a
draft
Mixed-Use
Zoning
Evaluation
Report.
Since
they
have
presumably
not
yet
even
begun
work
on
that
report,
and
it
is
already
January,
is
a
May
completion
date
still
reasonable?
Regardless of the deadline, the need to understand the viability of mixed use zoning seems especially
urgent
in
view
of
the
recently
published
California
Court
of
Appeals
opinion
in
the
case of New Commune DTLA, LLC et al. v. City of Redondo Beach et al. , 115 Cal.App.5th 111 (2025). As I understand it, the court found that despite certifications by HCD, Housing Elements that,
like
Newport
Beach’s,
merely
provide
an
opportunity
to
construct
housing
are
not
compliant
with
state
law.
To
be
compliant,
cities
have
to
actually
rezone
properties
so
that
when
and
if
they
redevelop,
they
will
be
required
to
add
housing.
In
particular,
a
city
cannot
rely
on
more
than
January 13, 2026, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 9 of 10 50% of its lower-income unit RHNA requirement to be accommodated on non-vacant sites unless
those
sites,
if
they
were
to
redevelop,
are
required
to
devote
at
least
50%
of
the
floor
area
to
residential
development.
Item 15. Grants and Donations Report for the Quarter Ending December
31,
2025
It is interesting to know the City received an Emergency Management Performance Grant of $12,901
from
FEMA.
It
would
be
even
more
interesting
to
know
what
Emergency
Management
it
was
for.
Item 17. Confirmation of Nominations to Fill Two (2) Unscheduled Vacancies
on
the
Water
Quality/Coastal
Tidelands
Committee
The City’s Water Quality/Coastal Tidelands Committee is one of only two Newport Beach standing
Boards,
Commissions
and
Committees
that
I
can
think
of
(the
other
being
the
Aviation
Committee)
that
have
a
small,
but
devoted,
citizen
audience
sufficiently
interested
that
they
would
seemingly
attend
regardless
of
the
topics
on
a
particular
agenda.
It is not clear from the staff report if the nominations committee interviewed the nine applicants.
If
they
did,
I
would
be
curious
to
know
if
they
asked
whether
the
applicants
had
ever
bothered
to
attend
a
meeting
of
the
committee?
Given all four nominees’ professed interest in the committee’s work, I am straining to recall seeing
any
of
them
at
one.
Item 18. Professional Services Agreement with Kimley-Horn and Associates,
Inc.
for
Preparation
of
the
Airport
Area
Specific
Plan
(PA2025-0035)
It seems odd that while the staff report goes to some length to describe the multi-step vendor selection
process,
it
does
not
provide
the
scores
obtained
in
any
of
those
steps,
but
only
an
overall
score.
My comments on Item 14, above, mention a recently published California Court of Appeals opinion in the case of New Commune DTLA, LLC et al. v. City of Redondo Beach et al. , 115 Cal.App.5th 111 (2025). The City of Redondo Beach has petitioned the California Supreme Court to review that opinion, and a decision on that is expected by February 18. However, unless
accepted
for
review
and
overturned,
this
opinion
would
profoundly
alter
the
City’s
housing
plans.
Instead
of
having
a
wide
variety
of
sites
in
the
Airport
Area
on
which
housing
is
an
option,
the
City
would
have
to
rezone
specific
properties
to
require
housing
to
be
built
on
them
when
they
redevelop
(and
with
a
reasonable
expectation
that
they
will
redevelop).
It is not clear to me how that eventuality would affect this task. Might it be premature to contract for
a
specific
plan
before
it
is
known
if
rezoning
will
be
required?
January 13, 2026, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 10 of 10 Item 19. Sculpture Exhibition in Civic Center Park - Phase X Given the wide variation in artistic tastes, I applaud the Council and the Arts Commission’s continuing
commitment
to
allowing
the
public
to
decide
on
at
least
the
10 primary
selections.
That said, the selection process remains imperfect. The 30 choices submitted for public review (which can be seen in a handout to the Commission’s December 11, 2025, meeting) were winnowed from a list of 79 submissions (which can be seen in an earlier handout to the Commission’s October 9, 2025, meeting). Since the Commissioners themselves did not agree on
the
merit
of
most
of
the
submissions,
some
of
each
individual
Commissioner’s
top
choices
did
not
make
it
into
the
public
poll.
Had
they
been
included,
it
is
quite
possible
they
would
have
been
among
the
public’s
top
10,
just
as
it
is
likely
that
if
a
different
set
of
230
residents
had
been
polled,
their
top
10 would
have
been
different
from
the
top
10 of
those
who
did
vote.
It is not obvious how to improve the process, but its imperfection should be recognized.
Written Comments Received on Agenda and Non-Agenda Items after Agenda
Posting
I do not know why, but pages 351 through 360 of the 360-page electronic agenda packet for the present meeting, which I downloaded on January 8, 2026, and which I am basing these comments on, consist of written comments I submitted on December 8, 2025, in advance of the December 9, 2025, City Council meeting, and refer to that agenda. My written comments regarding
the
January
13,
2026,
agenda
items
are
those
provided
above.