June 9, 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) Note : Recent innovations have made it increasingly difficult to comment on Council agenda items.
These
include:
1. The ending of the City’s longstanding practice of providing interested citizens with paper copies
of
the
agenda
documents
to
review,
forcing
them
to
either
pay
to
fully
participate
in
Council
meetings
or
either
rely
entirely
on
electronic
documents.
2. The disappearance from those documents of the systematic page numbering that formerly
appeared
in
the
lower
right
corner
of
each
printed
or
electronic
agenda
item
page
and
that
permanently
allowed
that
page
to
be
easily
and
uniquely
identified,
as
here for page 121 of Item 3 from June 24, 2025:
1 3. The disappearance from the live electronic document source of any clear indication of whether a document, including the agenda or the agenda packet, has been revised from a
previous
posting,
leaving
those
commenting
on
a
downloaded
copy
uncertain
if
they
are
commenting
on
the
“correct”
version,
or
not.
4. Although the City seems to be increasingly embracing this entirely electronic world, it continues to rely on a document archiving system which, when the present comments are archived will, most likely, disable all the hyperlinks it contains, making what they were
intended
to
link
to
unknown.
2 5. Unlike other City bodies, the Council agenda provides no directions as to where comments are to be submitted, or by when.
The frustrations of dealing with all this lead to much less comprehensive and accurate commenting.
2 The
Laserfiche
system
appears
to
have
two
archiving
modes.
The
first,
which
is
what
the
public
was
told
it
would
do,
creates
page
images
that
can
be
separately
accessed
and
downloaded
without
having
to
download
the
entire
(often
very
bulky)
document.
The
other
preserves
documents
in
their
original
format
(usually
and
preserving
any
links
or
other
features
it
contains),
but
requires
downloading
the
entire
document
to
view
any
part
of
it.
Whether
it
is
a
necessary
feature
or
not,
the
City’s
use
of
the
imaging
mode
disables
links
and
it
is
the
one
used
for
archiving
Council
meeting
materials,
including
these
comments.
1 In the electronic “agenda packet” temporarily posted to the City’s Legistar/Grancicus meeting calendar prior
to
the
meeting,
a
packet
page
number
appears
in
the
position
formerly
used
for
these
unique
numbers.
However,
the
packet
page
numbers
appear
only
in
the
electronic
packet,
which
is
apparently
erased
after
the
meeting.
As
a
result,
what
a
comment
about
something
on
an
“agenda
packet
page
number”
might
have
referred
to
is
lost
after
the
meeting,
and
even
during
the
meeting
what
is
being
referenced
will
not
be
evident
to
someone
who
has
downloaded
only
the
item
being
discussed,
and
not
downloaded
the
whole
agenda
packet.
June 9, 2026, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 2 of 11 Item II. STUDY SESSION - Fourth of July Enforcement Assuming staff’s discussion will be accompanied by slides, it would be helpful to post them for review
in
advance
of
the
meeting.
Item 1. Approval of Minutes Note : Annual Council Minute Books have recently become appearing in the City’s Laserfiche document archive, apparently in fulfillment of the City Clerk’s Charter Section 603(a) duty to maintain “ a full and true record of all of the proceedings of the City Council in books that shall bear
appropriate
titles
and
be
devoted
to
such
purpose
,”
and
replacing
the
books
of
printed
minutes,
3 which
are
no
longer
being
created.Recent
additions
to
this
electronic
compilation
lack
both
page
numbers
and
any
signatures
or
seal
attesting
to
their
validity.
This
may
be
consistent
with our City Charter, Section 412 of which requires the Mayor to sign and the City Clerk to attest to every ordinance and resolution, but does not appear to impose any similar requirement on
the
minutes.
But
it
does
seem
like
it
will
leave
the
public
wondering
if
what
they
see
electronically
is
a
true
and
correct
copy.
The passages shown in italics below are from the draft minutes of the May 26, 2026, Regular City Council Meeting, with suggested corrections shown in strikeout underline format. The draft
minutes
have
been
posted
as
an
11-page
(including
a
cover
page)
PDF.
The
pages
are
not
numbered.
pedestrian
safety
concerns
along
the
Via
Lido
corridor,
noting
a
recent
bike-pedestrian
collision,
and
requesting
a
holistic
review
from
the
Findlay truck area Finley Tract to
Lido
Marina
Village
.”
[See video. “Finley Tract” is the colloquial name for the triangular, mostly residential, canal-bordered area on the right after one crosses the Newport Boulevard bridge going
south.
It
gets
its
name
from
the
City
Engineer,
surveyor,
County
Supervisor,
etc., S. H. Finley, who modestly named one of the streets within it, and on “Newport Island,” after himself, when he mapped the larger “Canal Section” subdivision in 1907.]
paragraph
1,
sentence
1:
“
Adam
Leverenz
announced
a
town
hall
meeting
the
following
evening
titled
"Navigating
Newport
Harbor's
Future"
at
the
Oasis OASIS Senior Center,
81 Narcissus
Avenue
,
…”
with Councilmember Weigand's forthcoming agenda item regarding video audio 3 I would guess those who chose to use these words in 1954 pictured a “book” as something that could be held,
in
a
binding
with
a
title
and
containing
pages
that
could
be
touched
and
turned.
Whether
they
would
regard
“electronic
books”
as
books,
I
do
not
know.
June 9, 2026, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 3 of 11 livestream and recording of all Brown Act meetings, and he noted that Harbor Commission
meetings,
while
audiorecorded,
are
not
videotaped
.”
[See video . Mr. Leverenz did not “express support” (or opposition) for the A-1 item, which was about audio , not video , livestreaming and recording. He simply referenced
it
before
reminding
the
Council,
once
again,
of
his
support
for
the
City
video
-recording
the
Harbor
Commission
meetings,
instead
of
harbor
users
having
to
do
so
at
their
own
expense.]
included
Jim
Mosier Mosher, who suggested improvements to …” [comment: This person
likely
failed
to
submit
a
speaker
card,
but
I
know
him
and
can
vouch
for
the
correct
spelling
of
his
surname.]
Councilmember
Weigand
to
a) Find the approval of the 2026-2027 Annual Action Plan exempt
from
the
National
…
”
[comment: It is not clear what the point of the “a)” is. According to the May 26 agenda for this item, after holding a public hearing (which was recommendation “a)”), there were
three
recommended
actions
(“b)”,
“c)”
and
“d)”).
None
of
those
are
separately
notated
in
the
draft
minutes,
which
make
it
appear
everything
was
part
of
“a)”.
It
is
also
not
clear
why
this
very
long
paragraph
begins
in
italics
but
drops
to
a
non-italic
font
in
mid-sentence
midway
through
its
continuation
onto
page
9 of
the
PDF.]
Harp confirmed the modification was appropriate and consistent with staff's intent to provide enforcement discretion .” [see video] The passages shown in italics below are from the draft minutes of the May 26, 2026, Special Joint City Council and Finance Committee Meeting, with suggested corrections shown in strikeout underline format. The draft minutes have been posted as a 3-page PDF with no cover
page.
The
last
two
pages
are
numbered,
but
both
as
“page
2.”.
Meeting
to
order
at
4:00
p.m.
”
Curran
expressed
appreciation
for
the
improved
transparency
of
program
enhancement
line
items,
encouraged
residents
to
track
how
individual
budget
items
come
forward
during
the
year,
and
raised
questions
about
the
impact
of
staffing
changes
on
bargaining
unit
assignments,
pension
plans,
future
early
retirement
policies,
and
a
policy
on
searches
for
key positions .”
June 9, 2026, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 4 of 11 [See video. It is not clear why the draft minutes go blank without completing this sentence. Ms. Curran made some additional comments after the point the sentence stops.
Regarding
the
“searches
for
key
positions,”
I
assume
she
was
referring
to
the
need
for
a
policy
regarding
the
City’s
procedures
for
executive
recruitments,
such
as
searches
for
a
new
City
Manager,
Clerk
or
Police
Chief,
rather
than
a
policy
on
searching
the
budget.]
“Laura
Curran
encouraged
residents
to
explore
the
Oasis OASIS Senior Center,
highlighted
an
upcoming
"History
Speaks"
event
on
June
24 about
major
projects
in
Newport
Beach's
past,
and
noted
an
upcoming
wine
tasting
at
OASIS
Senior
Center
.”
Item 2. Ordinance No. 2026-05: Amending Title 21 of the Newport Beach
Municipal
Code
to
Implement
the
Housing
Element
and
Establish
the
Housing
Opportunity
(HO)
Overlay
Coastal
Zoning
Districts
(PA2022-0245
&
PA2024-0205)
As the Abstract to the staff report acknowledges, adoption of this ordinance would complete the Council’s
efforts
to
allow
entitlement
of
the
8.175
new
residential
units
that
were
added
to
the
City’s General Plan without a Greenlight (City Charter Section 423) vote, including controversial residential development, with increased heights, and over the objections of the County’s Airport Land
Use
Commission
and
many
others,
of
the
portion
of
the
Newport
Beach
Golf
Course
south
of
Mesa
Drive.
The purported reason that 8,175 units could be added without a Greenlight vote was that the state
required
the
City
to
add
them,
independent
of
possible
voter
preferences
for
a
different
plan.
I think that reasoning should be re-examined, along with the need for the present measure. Item 21 on the present agenda contains an interesting Table 3.3, starting on page 875 of the electronic
agenda
packet,
which
seems
to
be
part
of
the
proposed
Urban
Water
Management
Plan
(it
is
not
easy
to
tell
what
a
page
is
part
of
in
a
1,128-page
electronic
document).
It is labeled “Planned Developments within the City of Newport Beach” and details 5,564 new residential
units
expected
to
be
developed
in
Newport
Beach
between
2025
and
2030
without
adoption
of
the
present
measure.
Most of these, I am pretty sure, will be market rate units, of which the state is only requiring Newport
Beach
to
allow
entitlement
of
1,409
more
than
we
had
at
the
start
of
the
6th
RHNA
cycle.
Without adoption of this ordinance, we will be way over any current state requirement for new market
rate
housing.
How can adoption of this ordinance allowing entitlement of additional sites, with no requirement any
of
them,
or
any
others,
be
used
to
meet
the
City’s
unmet
affordable
housing
quotas,
be
said
to
be
“required”
by
the
state?
June 9, 2026, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 5 of 11 City staff and the Council seem to think that the state’s interest is solely in seeing more housing built,
and
that
the
RHNA
quotas
assigned
by
income
category
are
mere
guidance
that
exists
on
paper
but
is
not
enforced.
But
by
that
reasoning,
too,
the
City
will
have
more
than
met
its
4,845
total
units
quota,
and
this
ordinance
allowing
still
more
sites
to
be
entitled
is
unnecessary.
Item 3. Ordinance No. 2026-06: Amending Title 5 (Business Licenses and
Regulations)
and
Title
20 (Planning
and
Zoning)
Related
to
Tobacco
Retailer
Businesses
(PA2025-0171)
I think regulating and limiting the proliferation of “smoke shops” is a worthy goal. I continue to think this is a poorly written attempt to reach that goal, which will lead to selective and
arbitrary
enforcement.
I continue to think it contains an overly-broad and vague definition of the businesses it is trying to
regulate,
as
well
as
ambiguous
and
poorly-defined
rules
regarding
distancing,
especially
from
future
residential
uses.
I believe a better-written ordinance would start by defining what previous staff reports and the very
end
of
the
present
agenda
announcement
(but
not
the
present
staff
report
or
ordinance)
say
we
want
to
regulate:
“smoke
shops.”
But
instead
of
starting
by
defining
what
a
“smoke
shop”
is,
this
ordinance
starts
with
an
all-encompassing
definition
of
“Tobacco
Retailer
Businesses”
and
then
attempts
to
carve
out
from
its
broad
sweep
the
many
exceptions
for
businesses
we
don’t
want
to
regulate,
presumably
leaving,
after
that
elimination,
only
the
few
businesses
we
would
think
of
as
“smoke
shops.”
That is an approach that seems both backwards and unwise, and one likely to lead to confusion and
potential
litigation.
Item 7. Resolution Nos. 2026-35, 2026-36 and 2026 -37: Calling the November
3,
2026,
General
Municipal
Election
Although not clearly explained in the staff report for this item setting up the November 3 City Council elections, under California Elections Code Subsection 13307(a)(1), the Council is being asked to make a decision as to whether candidates should be allowed a half-page (400 word) or limited
to
a
quarter-page
(200
word)
statement
in
the
sample
ballot.
I suspect the Clerk may be overestimating the cost of a quarter-page statement at $1,000, but in any
event,
does
not
say
what
the
cost
of
the
half-page
alternative
would
be.
It is also not explained whether if the Council chose to allow a 400 word statement, it would preclude
individual
candidates
from
submitting
a
less-expensive
200
word
statement.
4 4
In the most recent sample ballot for the June 2, 2026, state primary, County Supervisor candidates Katrina
Foley
and
Diane
Dixon
published
half-page
statements,
while
Lucy
Vellema
published
a
quarter-page
one.
It
might
also
be
noted
that
the
lower
half
of
pages
with
two
quarter-page
statements
(as
often
happens
in
Newport
Beach
Council
district
races)
are
often
blank
(or
the
whole
rest
of
the
page
is
blank
when
there
is
a
single
candidate
in
a
race),
suggesting
there
would
have
been
no
additional
cost
to
the
County
to
publish
half-page
statements
on
those
pages.
June 9, 2026, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 6 of 11 Since incumbent Council members already have a great advantage in obtaining re-election, there
can
be
perceived
a
certain
unfairness
in
limiting
what
their
potential
opponents
can
do
in
communicating
with
voters.
Rather than letting the City Clerk make this decision and having it rubber-stamped by a Council that
might
benefit
from
it,
I
think
this
matter
deserves
serious
discussion
of
what
options
are
available
and
what
choice
will
yield
the
best
information
for
our
voters,
Item 14. Final Tract Map No. 19396 for a Residential Condominium Development
Located
at
1650
Ford
Road
The zoning changes (the addition of a housing overlay and height limit increases) which made possible
the
housing
development
for
which
this
is
the
“Final
Tract
Map”
were
publicly
noticed
as
modifications
to
the
“Newport
Center
Focus
Area”
and
because
of
the
large
size
of
the
focus
area
were
not
mailed
to
neighboring
properties,
as
would
normally
happen
with
zoning
changes.
Many residents of the neighboring “Port Streets” (which this is at the northwest corner of) felt blindsided
by
this
obfuscation,
because
even
the
few
who
saw
the
ad
in
the
Daily
Pilot
would
not
have
connected
their
area
with
an
announcement
of
changes
to
“Newport
Center,”
from
which
they
are
considerably
distant.
Considering that history of controversy, the staff report might have explained what discretion the Council
retains
over
the
developer’s
plans.
The fact that this matter is coming to the Council and apparently cannot be ministerially approved
by
the
City’s
engineers
suggests
that
the
Council
does
have
some
choices
it
could
make.
What are they?
Item 16. Newport Beach Lecture Hall Naming Rights Agreements It is interesting how the staff report and legal documents skirt around the question of what the building,
parts
of
which
the
Council
is
being
asked
to
allow
naming,
is
called.
Although the list of attachments at the end of the staff report refers to, for example, “Attachment A
-
Witte
Hall
Naming
Rights
Donation
Agreement
–
Tucker,”
the
actual
name
settled
on
seems
to
be,
as
in
the
agenda
item
title,
“Newport
Beach
Lecture
Hall.”
This is interesting because it was originally pitched and referred to as a “Library Lecture Hall” and on page 186 of the proposed Budget Detail to be considered for approval as Item 19 on the present agenda, the Library Services Department lists its opening as one of the department’s accomplishments
for
the
current
fiscal
year.
Yet, somewhere along the line it seems to have been disassociated from the library, and its operation transferred to the Recreation & Senior Services Department, with the public Library, if it wants to use it, having to apply to the other department to do so, and having no special priority for
its
use
even
though
the
private
Newport
Beach
Public
Library
Foundation
(which
I
understand
has
recently
taken
“public”
out
of
its
name
and
is
doing
business
as
the
“Library
Foundation
of
Newport
Beach”)
does
for
whatever
uses
it
might
wish.
June 9, 2026, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 7 of 11 It is an odd reversal.
Item 17. Harbor Commission 2026 Objectives In the past, the Harbor Commission has referred to its objectives as having been “approved” by the
Council.
I
am
not
sure
the
act
of
“receiving”
and
“filing”
is
the
same
as
approval.
I also believe that contrary to the agenda title above, what is being received and filed are just objectives
for
2006,
but
for
the
upcoming
2006-2007
fiscal
year,
or
possibly
longer.
5 As is evident from the attachment, the objectives are pursued though a series of ad hoc subcommittees
of
the
Commission,
which
California’s
Brown
Act
may
allow
to
meet
privately,
provided
they
consist
of
less
than
a
majority
of
the
Commissioners
and
their
sole
product
is
advice
to
the
full
commission
on
a
limited
topic.
In that connection, it is good to see each proposed ad hoc committee has clearly defined deliverables
and
will
presumably
cease
to
exist
once
those
have
been
delivered.
However, some of them, such as the review of NBMC Title 17 have been on the objectives list for
many
years
and
seem
to
have
taken
on
the
character
of
a
standing
committee,
which
the
Brown
Act
requires
to
deliberate
only
at
noticed
public
meetings.
Item 18. Planning Commission Agenda for the June 4, 2026, Meeting As of this writing at 1:00 p.m. on Monday, June 8, the online version of this item includes a PC Action Report and Tentative Agenda that were not part of the original posting. I do not know if they are part of the electronic agenda packet, or have changed its page numbering, since I do not
feel
inclined
to
re-download
the
223
MB
packet.
The Action Report (which does not identify the Council item it is associated with) might suggest that
the
Commission
approved
an
application
for
a
132-unit
townhome
project
in
the
Airport
Area.
As I have noted at prior Council meetings, these Planning Commission reports were originally discussion
items
allowing
the
Council,
after
an
oral
report
from
the
Planning
Director,
to
seek
clarification
and
potentially
call
a
Commission
action
up
for
further
review.
In the present case the Commission did not actually approve the application, but voted to recommend
the
Council
approve
it,
on
the
assumption
the
Council
will
both
add
this
property
to
its
list
of
6th
RHNA
cycle
housing
opportunity
sites
as
well
as
overriding
the
Airport
Land
Use
Commission’s
objections
and
approve
a
reduction
in
the
percentage
of
affordable
units
required
(the
applicant
is
proposes
a
bare
minimum
of
5%,
or
“6”
depending
on
how
the
numbers
are
rounded,
which
does
not
comply
with
the
current
City-imposed
requirement
of
15%).
5 As the staff report alludes to, what the Commission refers to as its current objectives were established in 2024,
received
and
filed
as
Council
Item 12 on January 9, 2024.
June 9, 2026, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 8 of 11 Item 19. Resolution No. 2026-40: Fiscal Year 2026-27 Budget Adoption;
City
Budget
Hearing;
and
Recommendations
from
the
Finance
Committee
The staff report opens by saying “ Following multiple opportunities for public comment before the City
Council
and
the
Finance
Committee
beginning
in
February
of
this
year
,
…”
Considering that the 363-page Budget Detail and 140-page Capital Improvement Program were first posted in mid-May, with, to the best of my recollection, no News Splash announcing their posting or inviting comment, and that in the intervening three weeks they have been reviewed at exactly
one
meeting
of
the
Finance
Committee
on
May
14 and
one
joint
meeting
with
the
Council
on
May
26 (with
a
follow-up
meeting
by
the
Finance
Committee
cancelled),
and
they
are
now
to
be
reviewed
as
part
of
a
1,128-page
Council
agenda
packet
(not
counting
the
two
budget
documents),
the
choices
of
“
multiple
”
(=
2?)
and
“
beginning
in
February
”
(=
mid-May?)
seem
a
bit
generous.
Assuming the public had previously studied and commented on these items, the present focus would
be
on
the
list
of
revisions
that
have
been
suggested
to
the
documents
that
were
the
subject
of
the
two
prior
reviews.
However, of the three revisions listed on page 2 of the staff report, I do not recall ever previously having
heard
of
a
request
for
“$150,000
for
a
Performance-Based
Incentive
Compensation
Program,”
and
find
no
explanation
of
what
that
even
means.
A search of the City’s Laserfiche Document Center finds only one existing reference to an “incentive compensation” plan, which is in contract C-1273, a Price Waterhouse & Co. “Position Classification Study” ordered in 1970. It suggested “executive incentive compensation” as an idea
to
be
considered,
but
only
with
caution,
and
at
most
on
a
trial
basis
with
clearly
defined
objective
goals
that
would
be
rewarded
if,
and
only
if,
met.
The
suggestion
does
not
appear
to
have
been
taken
up
at
the
time.
Looking very closely at the proposed budget adoption Resolution No. 2026-40, I find this (I have given
up
trying
to
describe
page
numbers
in
current
agenda
materials
posting
format):
“ Section 10 : Subject to the availability of funds budgeted or approved by the City Council for such
purpose,
the
City
Manager
is
authorized
to
award
performance-based
incentive
compensation
to
City
employees
in
recognition
of
outstanding
performance,
exemplary
service,
or
extraordinary
contributions
to
the
City.
No
such
incentive
compensation
shall
exceed
five
percent
(5%)
of
the
employee’s
base
salary
during
the
applicable
fiscal
year.
”
I have not seen anything like this in any prior budget adoption resolution (see, for example, page 19-14 of last year’s Item 19 from June 10, 2025). Apparently, if the budget is adopted as recommended, the City Manager will have $150,000 of gifts to dispense. I do not see any of the guardrails
or
cautions
recommended
in
the
1970
report.
Who
will
be
eligible?
Will
there
be
objective
standards
that
have
to
be
met
or
exceeded?
What
will
ensure
the
program
is
administered
equitably
with
all
employees
having
an
equal
chance
for
a
performance
reward?
Is
this
even
a
good
idea
when
applied
to
a
government
agency
as
opposed
to
a
private
business?
I don’t recall any discussion.
June 9, 2026, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 9 of 11 I was also surprised to see the preceding paragraph the Council is being asked to approve: “ Section 9 : Subject to the availability of funds budgeted or approved by the City Council for such
purpose,
the
City
Manager
and
Risk
Manager
are
authorized
to
compromise,
settle,
and
resolve
workers’
compensation
matters,
liability
claims,
disputes,
and
litigation
matters
on
behalf
of
the
City
in
amounts
not
exceeding
forty
percent
(40%)
and
thirty
percent
(30%),
respectively,
of
the
City’s
self-insured
retention,
as
established
from
time
to
time
under
the
City’s
insurance
or
risk
financing
programs,
or
the
amount
of
their
respective
City
Council
approved
contracting
authority,
whichever
is
greater
.”
This, too, is a provision that, to the best of my knowledge, has never been in any prior budget adoption
resolution.
Where did this come from? Why has its inclusion not been discussed or disclosed? Why has it not
been
in
prior
resolutions?
How
is
it
even
intended
to
be
read
(“
forty
percent
(40%)
and
thirty
percent
(30%),
respectively,
”
–
“respectively”
of
what?
when
30%
as
opposed
to
40%?)?
As to the first requested revision, which was asked for Mayor Kleiman and the May 26 meeting, the
references
in
the
staff
report
to
a
request
for
a
budget
revision
to
fund
“Police
Department
S.W.A.T.
equipment”
make
one
wonder
it
was
actually
asked
for
by
the
Police
Department.
Like
most
other
police
forces,
our
Police
Department
refers
to
having
a
“SWAT
Team”
(no
dots)
within its Crisis Response Unit. “S.W.A.T.” (with the dots) seems to be reserved for film and television shows. It is also disturbing that revisions that were requested are not mentioned. In particular, the May 26 minutes say “ City Manager Jurjis noted a correction to the prior slide, stating
that
the
proposed
transfer
of
the
emergency
coordinator
from
Police
to
Fire
is
no
longer
being
proposed
.”
Is
that
not
a
revision
to
what
was
published
as
the
proposed
budget?
Adding to the confusion, the published proposed Budget Detail shows one Emergency Services Coordinator
position
in
the
Police
Department
section,
but
with
the
budget
allocation
for
it
being
zeroed
out
in
the
proposed
budget,
while
the
Fire
Department
Section
showing
neither
such
a
position
title
or
an
allocation
to
fund
it.
What is the proposal? Is the position being eliminated? Or is it being retained as it was? And if the
latter,
what
is
the
proposed
new
allocation
for
it?
Finally, although it is disclosed in the staff report, including as a provision in the budget adoption resolution
the
amendment
of
a
council
policy
(even
if
it
is
one
intimately
related
to
the
budget
adoption
process:
Policy
F-3)
seems
highly
unusual.
The City Clerk’s record of prior versions of Policy F-3 indicates a long history of revisions to it and its predecessors, but never before on a date that would suggest a revision was made part of
the
annual
budget
adoption
resolution.
As to the proposed revision itself, part is to have dollar limits go up with CPI, but not down. Why is
this
not
scheduled
for
discussion?
If
we
wish
to
be
fiscally
prudent,
I
can
think
of
no
reason
for
limits
to
go
up
but
not
down.
June 9, 2026, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 10 of 11 Finally, one of the limits this would affect is the $10,000 authority of the City Manager to increase
budget
line
items
above
the
Council
approved
amounts.
As
I
asked
at
the
May
26 meeting,
shouldn’t
there
be
a
limit
on
how
many
line
items
can
be
increased?
And
as
I
see
it
now
in
the
resolution,
even
if
one
wants
the
City
Manager
to
have
this
authority,
shouldn’t
the
Council
give
it
in
one
of
the
operative
sections
and
not
as
a
“Whereas”?
Item 20. Ordinance No. 2026-07: Updating Titles 20 (Planning and Zoning)
and
13 (Streets,
Sidewalks
and
Public
Property)
Related
to
Personal
Wireless
Service
Facilities
and
Resolution
No.
2026-41:
Authorizing
the
Submission
of
a
Local
Coastal
Program
Amendment
This is a matter very personal to me, as I was the victim of “Personal Wireless Service Facility” proposal
on
City
property
approved
without
public
process
in
2009.
It remains very important to me, but given the many other items on the agenda, I have not yet had
time
to
give
it
the
attention
it
deserves.
I would note that in discussing the Planning Commission Process, the staff report is being a bit disingenuous
when
it
says:
“
Notably,
the
Planning
Commission
did
not
include
any
direction
to
change
or
modify
the
draft
code
language
.”
I think it would be more accurate to say at least some of the Commissioners thought the proposal
was
flawed,
particularly
in
exempting
many
City
decisions
from
public
review,
but
felt
uncomfortable
attempting
to
revise
it
from
the
dais.
Item 21. Resolution No. 2026-42 &2026-43: Adoption of the 2025 Urban Water
Management
Plan
and
2025
Water
Shortage
Contingency
Plan
These are also documents of considerable interest to me which I have not had time to adequately
review.
I have a particular interest in water loss, and a spot check suggests the consultant tends to quote
numbers
without
providing
insight
as
to
their
significance.
For
example,
on
page
4-12
of
the
Management
Plan
it
says:
“
Table
4.10 presents
the
City's
progress
towards
compliance
with
the
2028
Water
Loss
Standard,
as
of
the
time
of
writing
this
UWMP
,”
but
it
doesn’t
really
explain
what
the
table
shows.
It
looks
to
me
like
it
shows
we
could
be
losing
something
like
23 gallons
per
day
to
each
“unit”
served.
That
seems
quite
substantial
to
me
compared
to
typical
per
person
use.
Item 22. Annual Appointments to Boards and Commissions The agenda title for this item is a bit misleading in that the recommended action includes not only
making
appointments
to
boards
and
commissions,
as
announced
in
the
title,
but
also
to
the
new Finance Committee which is neither a board nor a commission, and, indeed, not a body City Charter Article VII empowers the Council to create, since it includes Council people as members (Section 702 prohibits the inclusion on a board or commission of any person holding paid office within the City Government).
June 9, 2026, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 11 of 11 More importantly I hope the four Council members not on the appointment committee will be disturbed
by
the
extent
to
which
they
are
being
cut
out
of
the
appointment
process,
being
asked
to
simply
ratify
the
committee’s
single
selection
for
each
position.
This was made possible by a clandestine revision to Council Policy A-2 that was approved by the Council, along with revisions to 15 other Council policies, as part of the 278-page Item 12 on the February 24 agenda, to which I attempted to draw attention at the time. The February staff report
assured
readers
that
"
The
revisions
are
intended
to
improve
organization,
eliminate
outdated
references,
clarify
roles
and
responsibilities,
and
ensure
internal
consistency
across
the
Policy
Manual.
In
many
cases,
changes
are
administrative
in
nature
and
do
not
alter
substantive
policy
direction
but
instead
refine
language
for
clarity
and
efficiency
."
While
eliminating
any
vestiges
of
a
transparent
selection
process
may
improve
“efficiency,”
it
hardly
seems
a
mere
clarification
of
past
practice.
The prior practice had been for the full Council to have at least two applications to consider for each
appointment,
and
even
that
was
in
stark
contrast
to
other
cities,
such
as
Laguna
Beach
where as recently as February 10 (see video) the full Council publicly interviewed all the applicants for all their vacancies. I see this as a new low in transparency. It is as if in lieu of holding elections in California we simply
submitted
the
list
of
candidates
to
the
Secretary
of
State
and
asked
him
or
her
to
pick
the
winners.
As to the appointment committee’s selections (regarding which the public has no knowledge of the
reasons
for),
it
is
amusing
to
see
the
application
for
their
selection
for
the
Civil
Service
Board
list
Mayor
Lauren
Kleiman
and
Mayor
Pro
Tem
Kleiman
as
personal
references
as
residents
“not
officially
connected
with
the
City.”
It is also not obvious from the application forms that either of the selections for appointment to the
Building
and
Fire
Board
of
Appeal
has
any
experience
with
building
or
fire
codes.
Do
they
know
what
the
board
(which
rarely
meets)
exists
for?
Does
the
appointments
committee?