HomeMy WebLinkAbout4b_Additional Materials_Mosherother Elements deemed necessary” and to “Make a recommendation to the City Council
regarding the selection of consultants.”
Yet despite that direction from Council, provided as requested, staff appears to have
proceeded with those two tasks without involving the committee.
Since two the committee’s six “Purposes & Responsibilities” can evidently be taken to mean
something other than what they say, one has to wonder what significance, if any, attaches to
the other four.
3.Regarding the “Memo to Housing Element Update Advisory Committee,” it is refreshing to
see the chair’s vision of the committee’s purpose laid out in such detail before the first
meeting. I was also invited to participate in his online chat, on Monday, with a group of
community members, which I greatly appreciate.
It should be noted, however, that while the chair is expected to facilitate the meetings,
absent some other instruction in the enabling resolution (which I don’t see here) the chair is
(at least in my view) just one co -equal member of the committee. So, the vision must, I think,
be a jointly arrived at and jointly agreed to one.
In particular, although I am not a committee member, I have difficulty seeing how the
committee can avoid making recommendations about policy (something it was supposedly
formed to do), or how it can expect to treat the Housing Element (or Housing + Land Use +
Circulation elements) in isolation, simply adding sites to it (or them).
My understanding is the General Plan has to be an integrated and consistent whole. It is
hard to see how a large amount of new housing can be added in any honest way without
reassessing our commitments to Safety, Recreation, Noise, Natural Resources and all the
others.
4.As to the City’s troublesome RHNA allocation, I believe some think it is too high, in part,
because Newport Beach has not been given credit for all the housing it currently provides,
whether they be uncounted bootlegged units or people sharing homes. If this phenomenon
of uncounted existing dwellings is unique to Newport Beach (which I ra ther doubt), then I
think it needs to be communicated to SCAG at once, before the RHNA numbers are made
final, as it would logically require an adjustment of them.
Item IV.b. Discuss Methods to Identify Possible Housing Opportunity
Sites
1.The public outreach effort overseen by the now dissolved General Plan Update Steering
Committee (the predecessor of the present committee) seemed to point to the Airport Area
and Banning Ranch being the most popular sites for future residential development
(possibly because none of the participants lived there).
With regard to Banning Ranch, the majority of the acreage is unincorporated Orange County
land, and according to SCAG’s explanation of its RHNA methodology, that acreage was
used to determine the County’s RHNA rather than the City’s. As such, it seems unlikely the
City could claim credit toward its RHNA allocation for any opportunity sites identified on that
Housing Element Update Advisory Committee - July 1, 2020
Item Nos. III, IV(a), IV(b), IV(c) and IV(d)
Additional Materials Received 1
County land. Conversely, the committee probably needs to keep apprised of whether the
County claims to have found opportunity sites there.
2.As to already planned opportunity sites, the committee (or subcommittee?) should be aware
that with the coastal zone, our Coastal Land Use Plan promises not just maximum, but also
minimum housing densities for nearly all the residential land use categories (see Table
2.1.1-1). Most of this minimum density has not been realized, and indeed the coastal
Implementation Plan (Title 21 of the NBMC) was certified without any clear obligation to fulfill
the plan by recognizing the CLUP’s commitment to a variety of density sub -classes. When
questioned about this at Zoning Administrator meetings, where the requests are frequently
to reduce existing residentia l densities below the stated minima, the response is that the
minimum densities are not enforced on a lot -by-lot basis. But they don’t seem to be enforced
on a neighborhood or regional level, either. However that may be, much of Newport Beach
is technically already zoned and technically committed (if one thinks the CLUP means
anything) to, for better or worse, considerably more housing than currently exists.
Item IV.c. Formation of Affordable Housing Subcommittee and
Opportunity Sites Subcommittee
The impulse to form subcommittees to do a committee’s real work often seems motivated by a
feeling that candid discussion cannot happen in public. Hence the rush to exploit the Brown Act
loophole allowing advisory subcommittees consisting of a less than a majority of the full
committee to meet privately and without public notice.
I feel this is generally a bad idea. Not only does it mean the knowledge and expertise of all the
committee members cannot be used as effectively as it might, but it results in recommendati ons
based on unknown and often undisclosed input from alternative sources that cannot be
effectively challenged or corrected.
It will be especially problematic here if there is overlap in membership, such that through those
common members a majority of the full committee could be in private communication.
I would recommend the committee try to function without subcommittees, perhaps asking
individual members to investigate a matter and report back to the full committee for discussion.
That will result in longer (perhaps much longer and more frequent) committee meetings, but, I
think, more effective and certainly more transparent.
If it must have subcommittees, I would recommend they commit to holding only noticed
meetings, open to the public.
Housing Element Update Advisory Committee - July 1, 2020
Item Nos. III, IV(a), IV(b), IV(c) and IV(d)
Additional Materials Received 1