HomeMy WebLinkAbout4a_Additional Materials Received on Draft Minutes of March 3, 2021_MosherMarch 17, 2021, HEUAC Agenda Comments
These comments on an item on the Newport Beach Housing Element Update Advisory Committee
agenda are submitted by: Jim Mosher ( jimmosher@yahoo.com ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach
92660 (949-548-6229)
Item IV.a. MINUTES OF MARCH 3, 2021
The passages shown in italics below are from the draft minutes. Suggested corrections are
indicated in strikeout underline format.
Page 2, Item V.a, paragraph 4: “Committee Member Sandland pointed out that a portion of
Parcel 17 in the “Sites within the 65dB CNEL Contour” report was determined to be feasible
and requested that staff update the exhibits accordingly.”
Comment: There are many “Parcel 17”s in the various subcommittee reports. Committee
Member Sandland’s correction referred to a part of the Newport Beach Golf Course north of
Mesa Drive and in Safety Zone 6. Despite the correction, it does not seem to have been
included in the Sites Inventory/Housing Opportunity List of the proposed Housing Element.
Page 3, paragraph 1, last sentence: “With respect to digital engagement in February, there
were 588 unique IP addresses that visited the website and there are 433 registered users
receiving updates on the project.”
Page 3, paragraph 3, sentence 2: “Some key questions brought up in the chat and answered by
staff and the project team were regarding the specifics of the Regional Housing Needs
Assessment (RHNA), Measure S, the small lot ordinance, workforce housing, need for
recreational opportunities and the impact on schools were also discussed. "
Comment: This may have been intended to be two sentences - one listing “key questions”
and a second listing “also discussed” – but as drafted it is impossible to tell where the break
was meant to go.
Page 3, paragraph 5, sentence 2: “The area south of the 73 Freeway is in Newport-Mesa
Unified School District, but he was unable to identify specific schools that would be impacted.”
Page 4, paragraph 2: “Chair Tucker called for the public comment, but there was none.”
Page 5, last paragraph: “Ex Officio Council Member Will O’Neill stated it would be difficult to
convince the electorate to do the bare minimum with respect to the Housing Element. ... Based
on this he was weary wary of adding too much of a buffer.” [note: Mr. O’Neill is a non-voting
member, not an “ex officio” one. He is apparently serving at the direction of the Mayor, who,
according to the HEUAC enabling resolution, is, in the absence of an alternative appointment, a
non-voting, ex officio member. “Ex officio” is not a synonym for “non-voting.”]
Page 6, paragraph 1: “Committee Member DeSantis agreed with Ex Officio Council Member
O’Neill and suggested looking at policy options to influence what gets built.”
Page 6, paragraph 3: “Committee Member Fruchbom said the way the tax credit program is
constituted even if the City were widely successful it would only get be a drop in the bucket
toward its affordable requirements.” [note: “widely” was more likely “wildly”]
Housing Element Update Advisory Committee - March 17, 2021 Item No. IV(a) - Additional Materials Received Draft Minutes of March 3, 2021
March 17, 2021, HEUAC Item IV.a comments - Jim Mosher Page 2 of 2
Page 6, paragraph 7: “Committee Member Stevens said that every city in the State had to deal
with this and that someone at the State level would have to come to some sense their senses
and Chair Tucker agreed.” [?]
Page 6, paragraph 9: “Ex Officio Council Member O’Neill said there would be a discussion
about whether greenlight would or would not get triggered.”
Page 7, paragraph 1: “Committee Member Sandland agreed with Ex Officio Council Member
O’Neill and Committee Member Stevens.”
Page 7, paragraph 4: “In response to Mr. Mosher’s question Deputy Community Development
Director Campbell indicated it was technically possible. The City could have a minimum of 20
percent inclusionary across the board but would have to have enough sites to collectively add
up to the RHNA numbers. In that case the above moderate income housing number would be
large, possibly 10,000 units or more. That would lead to a shortage of sites.”
Comment: My question was actually if the City could zone (in Mr. Zdeba’s example) for 200
units, 100% affordable, instead of assuming only 20% of 200 would be built affordable.
Allowing affordable units only would avoid the need to find sites capable of holding additional
(non-affordable) units, as well as the possibility of something other than what was promised
in the Housing Element being built. Hence the City would not face the no-net-loss problem.
But it might well lead to no production by the end of the cycle and a massive carry-over.
Page 7, paragraph 8, last sentence: “Staff explained the “No-Net-Loss” rules, but what if at the
end of the 8th year 8-year cycle no development occurred.?”
Page 8, Item “d”, paragraph 1, sentence 1: “Deputy Community Development Director Campbell
stated the draft of the Housing Element and Housing Opportunities list would be available to the
public in a weeks’ week’s time.”
Page 8, last paragraph, sentence 1: “Chair Tucker stressed that the public needs to have an
opportunity to comment on the Housing Sites Inventory.”
Page 9, paragraph 1: “Deputy Community Development Director Campbell indicated the March
17th meeting is intended to allow staff and the consultants to familiarize the Committee with the
document.”
Housing Element Update Advisory Committee - March 17, 2021 Item No. IV(a) - Additional Materials Received Draft Minutes of March 3, 2021