July 23, 2024, 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. Minutes for the July 9, 2024 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.
Principal Planner Zdeba utilized a presentation to discuss the City’s Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) assignment, he the 2020 Housing Action Plan, the 6th Cycle Housing Element (HE), importance of an income category buffer, …”
question, Deputy Community Development Director Murillo stated that AB1893 is working its way through the legislation legislature and has a January 1st effective date.”
adding additional services and thought the staff report evades discussion about dock fee determinations vis-à-vis (mooring permit fees). She stated asked if that ongoing gift giving of public funds is a violation of the City’s fiduciary responsibilities as a trustee of the State-owned land.” [See video. In the first sentence, the speaker used the phrase “vis-à-vis” comparing dock to mooring permit fees. It could, alternatively, be rendered as “in relation to.” In the second sentence she asked a question and rather than making a statement, and the question was if the low dock fees “constitute a past and ongoing gift of public funds.”]
the Subcommittee for Harbor Commission Objective 2.2, voiced the Subcommittee’s unanimous support of the alternate plan and transferability.” Comment: First, to the best of my knowledge, the ‘Subcommittee for Harbor Commission Objective 2.2” consists of just two Harbor Commissioners, the other member being Commissioner Cunningham. Second the phrasing of the sentence distorts what Commissioner Beer said the two members “unanimously” supported. Namely, the draft minutes makes it sound like the subcommittee supports the continuation of transferability, when what they in fact support is how the plan “addresses” it, which is to phase out transferability. In other words, they support ending transferability.
Such distortions and ambiguities are a frequent feature of the present set of draft minutes.
For example, readers of the two paragraphs before the motion on page 137 will understand the Mayor assured the audience that “surviving spouse language can be accomplished fairly quickly with the recommended language,” and the Mayor Pro T em “believed that the City is ensuring public access by continuing transferability.” It is not clear from this what was said, but in an earlier paragraph the City Attorney told the Council the recommended language contains no provision for surviving spouses, and the recommendation was to end transferability in four years, not to continue it.
Received After Agenda Printed
July 23, 2024
Written Comments
July23, 2024, CityCouncil agendacomments- JimMosher Page2of 11 Other thantheoneexampleabove, I havenot reviewedthevideoinanattempt toimprovetherenderingof these, or themanyother passagesthat didnot matchwhat I thought wassaid.
Item3. OrdinanceNo. 2024-15: AmendingSections17.60.010(PublicTrust Lands–General), 17.60.020(Applicationfor Pier/MooringPermitsor theLeaseof PublicTrust Lands), 17.60.040(MooringPermits), and17.60.045(Short-TermMooringLicenses) of theNewportBeachMunicipal CodeRelatedtoMooringPermitsandLicensesThepeopleof Newport Beach, throughour CityCharter, havebroadlyempoweredour CityCouncil (specifically, inSection405), but alsorestrictedwhat itssevenmemberscando“asotherwiseprovidedinthisCharter.” Therestrictionsareat least asimportant astheotherwiseunlimitedpowers, andtheCouncil membersarenot freetopickandchoosewhichtheywishtorespect or ignore. Amongthose“otherwiseprovided” restrictions, thepeoplehaveinvestedcertainboardsandcommissionswitha“power andduty” toadvisetheCouncil on“all matters”relatingtocertainsubject areas.
Specifically, inSection713, withlanguagerecentlysuggestedbytheCouncil, theHarborCommissionisinvestedwiththepower anddutyto“AdvisetheCityCouncil onall mattersrelatingtoproposedharbor improvementsandtheuseof Newport Harbor” aswell as“allmatterspertainingtotheuse, control, operation, promotionandregulationof all vesselswithinNewport Harbor.” Thepresent agendaitemcertainlyseemstofall withinthescopeof thosewords.
Whilethereismorethanoneinterpretationof what theymean, if thepeople’sintent hadbeenfor theHarbor Commissiontohaveadutytobe“ready” toadvisetheCouncil onlyonsuchmatters“whenasked,” wecouldeasilyhavesaidso. WedidsoinSubsection713(e), wheretheHarbor CommissionisassignedadutytoadvisetheCouncil andPlanningCommissiononlandsideissuesonlyif “referredtotheHarbor CommissionbytheCityCouncil, PlanningCommission, or theCityManager.” But wedidnot insert anysuchqualifyinglanguageintothedutytoadviseonthepreviouslylistedmatters. Likewise, theHarbor Commissioncouldhavebeengivenamoreambiguousdutyto“Act inanadvisorycapacity” (rather than“Advise”), aswedidwithPB&RinSection709, but, again, wedidnot.
Theadvisorydutyof theHarbor Commissionisactuallystronger thanthat of thePlanningCommission, which, pursuant toSection707, isonlyrequiredtoadvisetheCouncil onchangestotheGeneral Plan. It isonlybyordinance, pursuant toCharter Subsection707(c) andNBMCSection20.66.040, that it isrequiredtomakerecommendationstotheCouncil onproposedchangestotheZoningCode(withafurther requirement that anysubstantial changebereferredbacktotheCommissionfor anewrecommendation).
For thesereasons, I continuetobelievetheordinancebeingpresentedfor adoption, resultingfromastaff recommendationfor aradicallynewmooringregulationstructure, shouldnot haveadvancedtotheCityCouncil without aformal reviewandrecommendationbytheHarborCommission. Just asarestructuringof Title20(ZoningCode) couldnot beadoptedwithout July23, 2024, CityCouncil agendacomments- JimMosher Page3of 11 reviewbythePlanningCommission, aradical restructuringof Title17(Harbor Code) shouldnotbeadoptedwithout reviewbytheHarbor Commission.
TheHarbor Commissiondoesnot havetoagreewiththestaff proposal, but theydohavetoprovidetheCouncil withtheir adviceastoitsmeritsanddemerits. Andtheprivateopinionof twoHarbor Commissioners(seecomment, above, onpage135of thedraft minutes) isnosubstitutefor that.
Asthosedraft minutesindicate, bothScott KarlinandI thought therewereproblemswiththelanguage, particularlywiththeaccompanyingResolutionNo. 2024-47 1 (inmyviewimproperlyadoptedat thelast meetingontheassumptionthepresent ordinancewill alsobeadopted, butwithnoguaranteeit will be). 2 Thepresent ordinancelikelyhasproblems, aswell, anddiscussionof it beforetheHarbor Commissionwouldhaveshednecessarylight onthem, aswell asprovidingaforumfor abroader discussionof thenewplan’smerits.
Astothesubstanceof theordinance, I agreethat thecurrent systemof privatepermittransferabilityismuchlikeforcingthoseseekingapublicbeachparkingspacetoprivatelynegotiateapayment tothepreviousoccupant of thespace, andneedstobephasedout. ButgiventheCityhaslongcondonedtheprocess, I amnot surefour yearsisanadequate“amortization” period. TheCouncil andpublicshouldalsobeawareapreviousCouncil similarlyenacteda10-year amortizationperiodduringwhichrateswouldberampeduptomatchanewrateequaling14%of theCity’s“MarinaIndex” usedtoset sliprentalsat theBalboaYacht Basin.But alater Council rescindedthat fixandintroducedthecurrent ratestructurecappedat 2%maximumannual increases. Whiletheratestructureisnot thesubject of theordinance, Ibelievethegrandfatheringof ratesthat isimplicitlytiedtotheordinance’seliminationoftransferabilitywill onlyexacerbatethelargeinequitiesthat alreadyexist intidelandscharges.
Item5. ResolutionNo. 2024-49: ApprovingAmendmentstotheRecordsRetentionScheduleTheCouncil hasbeforeit, a1,202-pageprintedagenda, not mentioningthe138pagesof theRecordsRetentionSchedulefor thisitempresentedasanonlineonlyExhibit 2andthe638pages(plusnumerousappendicesandaddenda) of theEnvironmental Impact Report for Item23. 2 I havelongbeenpuzzledbystaff’spracticewithregardtoresolutionswhoseeffectivenessiscontingentontheadoptionof arelatedordinanceof presentingthoseresolutionsfor Council approval at themeetingwheretheordinanceisintroducedrather thanat themeetingwheretheordinanceisbeingconsideredforadoption. If theordinancewasrejectedat itssecondreading, staff wouldneedtogobackandprepareanewresolutiontorescindthepreviousone. Not onlyisthisinefficient, but approvingtheresolutionbeforethefateof theordinanceisknownreinforcestheimpressionthat thefinal decisionregardingtheordinancewasmadeat itsfirst reading, andsubsequent publicationandsecondreadingaremereformalitiesthat theCouncil attachesnosignificanceto. 1 Theintent of ResolutionNo. 2024-47wastograndfather therent for all mooringpermitsissuedonorbeforetheresolution’seffectivedate(statedinSection5) of August 22, 2024. But it inexplicablygrandfathersonlyapermit that hasnot onlybeenissuedbythen, but also“that hasnot beentransferredasof theeffectivedateof thisresolution.” Sincenearlyall existingmooringpermitshavealonghistoryoftransfers, what thisextralanguagewasinsertedfor, andwhat thismeans, isquiteopentointerpretation.
July23, 2024, CityCouncil agendacomments- JimMosher Page4of 11 Becausethecost andlabor of retainingrecordsthat mayinformfuturedecisionsisfar lessthecost andlabor that went intoproducingthem, particularlyinviewof theincreasinglytinycost ofretainingthemelectronically, I feel recordsretentionpoliciesareveryimportant.
Whyonewouldwant tomoveintothefutureignorant of thepast isbeyondme, but it happens.
Thepubliclearned, for example, at theJuly15, 2024, CityAviationCommitteemeeting, that duetoachangeintheJWARecordsRetentionSchedule276C, theJWAAccessandNoiseOffice,whichhadformerlyretainedflight andnoisedatabackto2000, allowingit toconduct studiesofhowtrafficandnoisepatternshadchanged, haddeletedall suchrecordsmorethanfiveyearsold 3 –forgoingthepossibilityof repeatingor refininganyof thosestudies(and, indeed, theformer studies, andall recordsof them, can, themselves, bediscarded). Therecordslost arenotreplaceable.
That changethat mayhaveallowedthat
4 slippedbyasItem22ontheBoardof SupervisorsNovember 17, 2020, agenda(near theheight of theCOVIDpandemic), andmaynot havebeenreviewedbytheAirport Commission. I certainlydidnot knowabout it.
I amawareof thepresent revisions, but havenot hadtimetoreviewthem. I trust theCouncilmembershave.
I donoticetheJWAschedulesaysrecords“may” bedestroyedafter acertaintime, givingdepartmentssomediscretionastowhether theywill be. TheNewport Beachschedulegivestheimpressiondestructionismandatory. Inthat connection, I recall that thePlanningDivisiononcehadmanyyearsof audiorecordingsof PlanningCommissionmeetings, storedonlineatpresumablyminimal cost. After apreviousiterationof theCity’sretentionschedule, andbeforerequiringpermanent retention, everythingmorethan2yearsoldwasdeleted, asif doingthatwasrequired. Similarly, videotapesof CityCouncil meetings, onceheldbytheLibraryandgoingbackmanyyearsbeforethecurrent onlinearchive, werediscarded. Therewerelikelyaudiorecordings, likethoseof thePlanningCommission, goingbackevenfarther, whichwouldhaverequirednegligiblecost toretainwithtoday’stechnologies.
Item13. Amendment toProfessional ServicesAgreement withSampsonOil Companyfor Oil Well Management ServicesIt isinterestingtohear theCitymaybeplanningtophaseout itsoil operations.
Asalludedtointhereport, asItem8ontheMarch13, 2023, agenda, theCouncil heardstaffwaslookingfor anewoperator andconsultant becausetheowner of SampsonOil wouldberetiringbeforethecurrent contract endsonJuly31, 2024. Apparentlythat retirement remainsa“near future” prospect. Onemight wonder if thedecommissioningwill remainsoaswell. 4 I donot knowif theretentiontimeswerechanged, or JWAonlyrecentlybecameawareof themandtheirauthoritytodestroyrecords. 3 Theschedulewouldapparentlyhaveallowed, but not required, themtodeleteanynoiseor flight recordmorethanthreeyearsold.
July23, 2024, CityCouncil agendacomments- JimMosher Page5of 11 Item20. FY2023-24Annual District DiscretionaryGrant Report andtheGrantsandDonationsReport for theQuarter EndingJune30,2024SincetheCityCharter investspower intheCityCouncil actingasacollectivebody, andnopower inindividual Council members, I havelongthought inappropriatetheestablishment of theprivateslushfundscalledthe“District DiscretionaryGrant” program.
Assumingthereport isaccurate, I applaudCouncil member Blomfor not usinghis.
Item22. Visit Newport Beach, Inc. FY2025DestinationBusinessPlanandBudget, andFY2024PerformanceStandardsReportRegardingtheCouncil’sneedtoapproveVisit Newport Beach’sproposed“LeisureMarketing”budget for thefirst half of the2025fiscal year (buriedintheprinted163-pagereport as“Attachment B” onpages22-143through22-145), theCityhasanappointedrepresentativeontheVNBBoard. 5 DoestheCouncil haveanyrecommendationfromher?
Item23. OrdinanceNos. 2024-16and2024-17, andResolutionNos.2024-50to2024-57for theNecessaryAmendmentstoImplement the6thCycleHousingElement andtoPlacetheMajor General PlanAmendment ontheNovember 5, 2024General ElectionBallotPursuant toCityCharter Section423; or ResolutionNo. 2024-58toInitiateanAmendment tothe6thCycleHousingElementThisitemismuchtoovoluminoustocomment oninafewpages, andI donot expect tohavemuchinfluenceontheoutcome, soI will offer just somemiscellaneouscomments.
Environmental Impact ReportI amoneof theonlytwomembersof thepublictohavebotheredtooffer commentsduringthe46-daypublicreviewperiod.
AsiscommonwithEIR’s, I foundtheresponsestomycommentsandthoseof othersgenerallyunenlightening.
If, asthepublicisnowbeingtold, thecertificationof aHousingElement in2022, committedtheCitytoaprogramof landusechangesfromwhichit cannot deviate, thenI continuetofeel theEIRshouldhavebeenreviewedandcertifiedbeforetheHousingElement wasadopted, notafter thefact.
I alsoremaindisappointedthat theEIRdidnot analyzeat least twodistinctlydifferent waysinwhichtheCity’sRHNAobligationcouldbemet. AsI saidwhenI wasrunningfor CityCouncil in2022, that wouldhaveprovidedanopportunityfor voterstosimultaneouslyconsider twoalternativeGreenlight proposals, andif bothfailed, resultinginlitigation, at least theresult couldbethealternativepreferredbythemost voters. 5 It appearstheCity’sFinanceDirector/Treasurer alsositsontheboardasanon-voting“advisor.” July23, 2024, CityCouncil agendacomments- JimMosher Page6of 11 Of thealternativesit didconsider, I don’t thinkitsreasonsfor rejectingAlternativeC(“RHNAonly”) arecorrect (page23-92of thepresent staff report). It isnot just theabsenceof a“buffer.”It istomeet theshortfall of 2,707affordableunitsbyallowing4,845newunits, 56%of themwouldhavetobeaffordable. That isahigher percentagethanisclaimedtobereasonablyexpected.
OverridingAirport LandUseCommissionThisispresentedassub-action“1f” ontheagenda. I believeit ismisplaced. MuchastheCouncil needstomakeCEQAfindingsbeforeit canproceed, myunderstandingisit hastovotetooverridetheALUCbeforeit cantakemost of theother sub-actions.
I continuetothinkoverridingtheALUCisunwise.
It is, inpart, astatement that Newport Beachisunconcernedabout exposingitsresidentsto65dBCNEL, or more, of aviationnoise. How, after that, canit continuetothoseexposedtolowerlevels, yet arestill irritatedandhopefor relief? Greenlight VoteAsindicatedinmycommentsonItem3, above, theCouncil isnot freetopickandchoosewhichCityCharter restrictionsonitspowersit shouldhonor or ignore. Inother words, theChartercouldhavecontainedaprovisionempoweringtheCouncil toignorerestrictionswhendoingsois, intheCouncil’sopinion, inthebest interestsof theCity. But it hasnosuchprovision.
Giventhat theCouncil hastofollowtheCharter, at theJuly9studysessionreportedintheItem1draft minutes, therewasdebateover what thephrase“Thissectionshall not applyif stateorfederal lawprecludesavoteof thevotersontheamendment” inSection423(Greenlight)means.
Thereareexamplesof stateactionsaddinghousinginwhichaGreenlight voteontheadditionshasbeenprecluded. Theyincludeaccessorydwellingunits, SB9single-familyresidential lotsplitsanddensitybonusunits. But ineachof thosecases, thelegislationexplicitlysaidit wasallowingdevelopment aboveandbeyondthat allowedinalocal general plan(whichiswhatGreenlight affects) andthat theincreaseswerebeyondlocal control.
Citystaff haspointedtonoprovisionof theRHNAlegislationthat precludespublicvotesonacity’sparticular choiceof howtomeet itsobligation. Indeed, if therewere, it seemsunlikelytheCity, initsHousingElement, wouldhavetoldHCDit plannedavote, andevenmoreimprobablethat HCDwouldhavecertifiedaplanincludingone.
In“Option2,” theCouncil isinvitedtoconsider askingHCDtoremovethesereferencestoSection423fromtheHousingElement. But removingreferencestoavoteisnot at all thesameassayingavoteisprohibited.
Giventhat aGreenlight voteisrequired, thestaff proposal doesnot fit withintheparametersofGreenlight, inwhicheachstatistical areaof theCityisregardedseparately, andthepotentialimpactsonit disclosedandseparatelyvotedon.
July23, 2024, CityCouncil agendacomments- JimMosher Page7of 11 Table3, onpage23-11of thestaff report, indicatesvoterswill beaskedtoauthorizechangestoat least 17statistical areas, 6 but isunabletoinformvotersbyhowmuch, except inaggregate.Moreover, PolicyLU4.4, whichvotersarebeingaskedtoapprove, appearstoallowtheCouncil,without further amendment totheGeneral Plan, toadd, apparentlyquitearbitrarily, 7 tothefocusareas, whichmeansthestatistical areasthat might beaffectedarecompletelyundefined.
Ballot LabelTheproposed“ballot label” (the75-wordsor lessexplanationthat appearsnext tothe“yes” and“no” onthefinal ballot), that appearsinsub-action“1g” (Attachment Gonpage23-258):
“Shall theGeneral Plan'sLandUseElement beamendedsotheCityof Newport Beachcanavoidfinesof upto$600,000per month, losinglocal control over landusedecisions,suspensionof authoritytoissuebuildingpermits, andaccesstostatefunding, byaddingthefollowingStateof Californiamandatedresidential housingopportunityunitsinCoyoteCanyon(1,530), Dover-Westcliff (521), West Newport Mesa(1,107), theAirport Area(2,577),andNewport Center (2,439)?” doesnot seemtobecouchedinthekindof “languagethat isneither argumentativenor likelytocreateprejudicefor or against themeasure” requiredbyElectionsCodeSubsection13119(c).
Instead, bycitingthehorriblethingsthat will befall theCitywitha“no” vote, it seemsclearlytobeurginga“yes.” I findthishighlymisleading, bothbecausethesanctionsarespeculative(doesCitystaff knowofanycitybeingfined$600,000per month?) andbecausea“yes” votecouldalsoresult inall thesamehorriblethingsbefallingtheCity. That isbecausethesanctionswouldhappenwhenandiftheCitylosescertificationof itsHousingElement, whichwouldfirst requireafindingof beingoutof compliance, yet theCitycouldalreadybefoundof compliancefor failuretoadopt theinclusionarypolicypromisedinPolicyAction1Kof thecertifiedHousingElement. Andevenifthemeasurebased, it isextremelyunlikelyit will result infulfillingtheCity’saffordablehousingshortfall, whichcould, again, leadtoafindof non-compliancewiththeHousingElement.
What isWrongwiththeBallot Measure?Someof theerrorsinthestaff proposal shouldbeobvious, suchasthereferenceinproposedPolicyLU4.4(e.g., onpage23-261) to“Themaximumdensityspecifiedfor thevariousoverlaydistrictsspecifiedinPolicyLU4.2isanaverageover theentirepropertyor project site,” whenitseemstomeanPolicyLU4.4.
But itsbigger problems, whichI haveconsistentlyattemptedtopoint out, include:
7 ProposedPolicy4.4appearstogivetheCouncil feereinintherezoning“unlessprecludedbystatelaw.”Whythat phrasewasinserted, or what it means, isquiteunclear. What statelawwould“preclude” theCityfromrezoningfor housing?Theonlyoneof knowof regardsagricultural land, of whichwehavenone. 6 Table3inexplicablysaysthestatistical areaaffectedbytheCoyoteCanyonentitlementsis“NotIdentified.” I believeit isinstatistical areaN, andI amsurprisedthereisanydoubt about that.
July23, 2024, CityCouncil agendacomments- JimMosher Page8of 11
1. Theideathat allowing8,174newdwellingunitswill, accordingtoHousingElement TableB-1, fill the2,707unit shortfall of moderateandbelowhomes(witha15%buffer), ispredicatedontheassumptionthat 40%of thehousingbuilt will beaffordabletomoderateandbelowincomefamilies(10%moderateand30%lowandvery/extremelylow). Themeasureprovidesnoassurancevoter approval will ensurethis. Inother words,a“yes” maydonothingat all towardfillingtheCity’s2,707affordableunitsRHNAobligation, leavingtheCityinthesameplaceit wouldbeinwitha“no” vote. Thevoter-approvedhousingcouldbeusedentirelyfor newluxuryunits, noneof whicharerequiredbythestate.2. Themeasurelacksacitywide“shut-off valve” suchthat if, bysomemiracle, theentire6thCycleaffordablehousingshortfall werefilled(saywithunitsmostlyinNewportCenter andafewintheAirport Environs), that accessibilitytoall remainingunitsinalltheareaswouldend. Asit is, themaximumentitlementsapprovedbyvoterswouldremain, andmoreunitscouldbebuilt eventhoughnoRHNArequirement remained.
Smaller problemsinclude:
1. Theproposal lacksmapsandspecificsof what wouldbeapprovedandistiedintimatelytothe6thCycleHousingElement whichisgoodonlythrough2029. In2029, it willdisappear andbereplacedbya7thCycleHousingElement. It iscompletelyunclearwhat theverbiageproposedtobeapprovednowwill beinterpretedtomeanthen.2. Themeasureseemstousenumbersthat appliedin2022or before. Sincethen, anumber of major projectshavebeenapprovedaswell asADU’s. Someof thoseincludedaffordableunits, whichshouldbeexpectedtoreducetheCity’sshortfall. What isbeingcounted, andwhat thecurrent projectedshortfall is, lacksclarity. It ispresumablylessthanthe2,707unitsshownintheHousingElement.
ZoningCodeAmendmentsandObjectiveDesignStandardsTheagendaproposestointroducetheordinancestoadopt theseassub-actions“1c” and“1d.” I donot seetheneedfor this. TheZoningChangesarenot requiredtobecompleteduntilFebruary12, 2025. WhilehavingtheObjectiveDesignStandardsinplacebythenisimportant,introducingthemaspart of thepresent, alreadymassiveagendameansonlytheywill beinadequatelyreviewed.
Coastal CommissionSubmissionSub-action“1e” istherequestedapproval of aresolution(Attachment E) submittingproposedLocal Coastal ProgramamendmentstotheCaliforniaCoastal Commission.
I believetheCCwill findtheseextremelyproblematic.
For example, theproposed“NewPolicy2.1.11-1” (page23-222) appearstosuffer fromoneoftheGreenlight problemsdiscussedabove: it isextremelyvagueandambiguousastohowmanynewhousingunitstheCCCisbeingaskedtoallowintheCoastal Zone. Compoundingtheuncertainty, it refersto“25%of allocateddwellingunitswithintheCoastal Zone” beingreserved“until suchatimeastheCity'sLocal Coastal Programhasbeenamendedtoallowfor housing July23, 2024, CityCouncil agendacomments- JimMosher Page9of 11 consistent withtheimplementationof the6thCycleHousingElement.” Isn’t thisthatamendment? Andif adopted, istheCCCbeingaskedtoapprove, for example, that all 2,577Airport EnvironsunitscouldgointheCoastal Zone? Likewise, themapsfollowingonpages23-230through23-233seemunlikelytobemet withfavor. IntheAirport Environs, all thelandsthat wouldbeallowedtoconvert toresidential arecurrentlyreservedfor openspace, recreationor visitor-servinguses(agolf course, YMCAandahotel). Onpage23-231, theCCCisbeingaskedtoaddahousingoverlayto“BanningRanch”property, whichisinadeferredcertificationareaover whichtheCityhasnoauthority. Onpage23-233, theCCCisbeingaskedtoaddahousingoverlaytoahotel site(theNewport CenterMarriott, or “VEA”) whereCCCstaff stronglyobjectedtoapreviousconversiontohousing, aswell aspropertyat thefoot of theBalboaIslandBridgereservedfor Marine-ServingCommercialuses.
SincetheCoastal Act goal istoconfinehousingtothefootprint withinwhichit alreadyexists, itishardtoseehowmost of thiscouldbeapproved.
Buffer andNoNet LossRezoningRequirementAt theJuly9studysession, staff explainedthebuffer isneededtoprevent theneedtorezonepropertieswithin120daysif anopportunitysiteredevelops, but without theanticipatednumberof affordableunits.
I amalmost totallyignorant of the“nonet loss” regulations, but thisdoesnot seemintuitivelycorrect tome.
AsI understandit, theSitesInventoryintheHousingElement hasidentifiedparcelswithacapacityof somethinglike22,117newunitsinthefocusareas, toall of whichthehousingoverlayswill apply. Althoughper TableB-6, onlyafractionof the22,117areexpectedtoredevelopduringthe6thCycle, that wouldbesufficient toproduce8,174units. if aparticularparcel failstodeliver aspromised, therewouldstill bemanyremainingparcelsavailablethathavealreadybeenrezonedthroughtheoverlays. I donot seetheneedfor anyadditionalrezoning. At most thecapfor thefocusareawouldneedtobeincreasedtoreflect thepercentageof unitsredevelopingasaffordablenot meetingexpectations.
PipelineandBonusUnitsAnother topicof intensecomment at thestudysessionwasthecountingof pipelineanddensitybonusunits.
I believemanyspeakersmisunderstoodthecountingof pipelineunits. They, includingthebonusunitstheyentail, havebeensubtractedfromtheRHNArequirement. Theproblemisthat fewofthepipelineunitsareaffordable, sowhilesubtractingthemeliminatesanyfurther obligationforabovemoderateunitsthereisstill ashortfall of 2,707affordableunits–andit wouldtake6,768newbaseunitstomeet that evenif 40%of thebaseunitswereaffordable.
July23, 2024, CityCouncil agendacomments- JimMosher Page10of 11 Therewasadditional comment onwhether thebonusunitsshouldbecountedindeterminingifthefocusareacapshavebeenmet. Staff indicatedlanguagesayingtheywouldnot becountedhadlongbeenincludedintheir proposal. Sinceit hadnever beensuggestedthiswasanegotiablepoint, I donot thinkthisobviatesaskingthequestionof whether thebonusunitscouldbecounted.
Sincetheycount towardtheRHNAgoal, myguessisthat althoughbonusunitsare, bydefinition, somethingofferedinexcessof themaximumdensitiesallowedinacity’sgeneralplan, theycouldbeincludedinacount of howmanyRHNA-qualifyingunitshavebeenentitled,andthat count couldbeusedtoturnof further entitlements.
However, I thinktherewouldbelittlepractical effect indoingso. Thereasonisour City’sentireRHNAshortfall isintheaffordablecategory, andthebonusunitswill almost certainlyfall intheabovemoderatecategory. Socountingthemwouldcauseustoreachthecapwithout havingmet theaffordablequota, leavingusinhot water withHCD, andsimplyforcingustoincreasethecaptomeet thequota–or facetheprospect of decertification.
Roleof GPACAt theJuly9studysession(seevideo), theMayor chastisedmembersof the“General PlanUpdateCommittee” for recommendingapproval of aproposal totheCityCouncil andthensuggestingit neededchanges. Asamember of theGeneral PlanAdvisoryCommittee, butspeakingasanindividual, I tookoffenseat this. TheMayor later sent anemail totheGPACmembersincludinga13-pageattachment (“PreparedApril 29, 2024”) detailingthehistoryofrevisionsandpostingsof theproposedLandUseElement policies, apparentlyintendedtodemonstratethat thelanguageabout “total unitsdonot includeunitspermittedpursuant toStatedensitybonuslaw,” or morerecently“total unitsidentifiedinLU4.4donot includeunitsidentifiedaspipelineunitsor unitspermittedpursuant toStatedensitybonuslaw,” hadlongbeeninthepostedversionsandnot elicitedcomment.f I believethisdistortstherecord.
WhentheGPACfirst met, onJanuary18, 2023, it wastoldchangestotheLandUseElementrelatedtoHousingElement implementationwereona“separate” trackandnot withinthecommittee’spurview.
Giventhat, it seemedoddthat at aspecial meetingat MarinaParkonMay3, 2023, theCity’sHousingElement consultant, Kimley-Horn, sharedwiththeGPACand“ Initial Draft LandUseElement PolicyMatrix,” andinvitedcomment.
GPAC’sfurther roleinthiswasnever clearlydefined, andalthoughavotewastakenonAugust21, 2023, aformal votewastaken, it wasmostlyabout whether focusareadensitylimitsshouldbeincreasedabovetheconsultant’soriginal recommendation, andwhether referencestohousingonBanningRanchshouldbedeletedfromtheLandUseElement. Thevoteswerenotunanimous, but GPACrejectedincreasingthedensities, andwasthenurgedtoat least advancetheoriginal recommendationtotheGPUSCandCouncil. Againthevote, evenunder pressure,wasonly10-7, withI, andothers, votingagainst it, at least I feelingit neededconsiderablymorework.
July23, 2024, CityCouncil agendacomments- JimMosher Page11of 11 TheGPACalsovotedstronglyinfavor (16-2) of removingBanningRanch, but whentheGPUSCreportedthat totheCouncil, theMayor reprimandedtheGPACfor consideringinanywaydeviatingfromtheHousingElement.
I believethelanguageabout thecountingof densitybonusunitswassimilarlyassumedtobenon-negotiable, andI believetheadditional exemptionfor pipelineunitswasaddedat thedirectionof thePlanningCommissionwithout theknowledgeof theGPAC.
I, at least, havebeenconsistent thisis“not readyfor primetime.” But I don’t thinkI amresponsiblefor it beingreviewedbytheCouncil onlyat thelast possiblemoment.
AB1893Astothethreatofthebuilder'sremedy, theproposedAB1893, whichlooksonitswaytoadoptionandcouldallowmoreliberalandmorecertainapplicationofthebuilder'sremedystartingonJanuary1,2025,doesseemtochangethelandscapeandissomethingtoworryabout.