Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout00 - Written CommentsReceived After Agenda Printed April 27, 2021 Written Comments April 27, 2021, City Council Agenda Comments The following comments on items on the Newport Beach City Council agenda are submitted by: Jim Mosher (iimmosher(o-)-yahoo.com ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach 92660 (949-548-6229) Item SS3. Initial Draft of the General Plan Housing Element Update (PA2017-141) At least until recently, City staff, with guidance from its outside contractor, Kimley-Horn, has said it is working toward a goal of submitting a draft Housing Element to HCD on May 14. Since I don't see that mentioned in the present staff report, I don't know if that's still their goal. Whatever the date, I hope Council (and with the them the public) will have a chance to review and approve the revised draft being submitted before its submitted (as they have in the past — see Item 14 from May 14, 2013). 1 say that because I think our actions should be informed by past experience, and in past Housing Element Update cycles, HCD's review of the submitted draft led, after negotiation with City staff, to a preliminary letter of approval (see, for example, Item 9 from September 24, 2013). 1 think it is reasonable to assume HCD would expect further changes made by Newport Beach after submission to be confined to those necessary to address concerns raised by HCD in their review, and that the City could not go off in an entirely new direction. Hence, I suspect the submission of a draft will be viewed by HCD as a commitment to what is in the draft, or more, and there will be very little latitude to deviate from it. For that reason, I think the Council should be very cautious about submitting a draft before it knows staff's draft truly reflects something the Council wants to commit to, and that it is the best plan the City can come up with. As to the required date to submit a draft, the only statutory requirement I can find is that a draft must be submitted to HCD for their comments at least 60 days before the Council's adoption of a Housing Element. And as mentioned on page SS3-9 of the staff report, the last day for adoption without penalty is February 15, 2022. 1 would, however, wonder if new (and possibly at this point unknown) state laws going into effect on January 1, 2022, could affect the content or validity of a Housing Element adopted after that date. So it might be wise to complete adoption by December 31. Whatever the date City staff is working toward, I find it interesting that at the same hour Newport Beach will be reviewing its possibly complete draft Housing Element, our neighboring City of Costa Mesa, using the same Housing Element contractor, but a different individual consultant, will be holding a joint public study session between its Council and Planning Commission to review the progress on their update. They seem to just be up to an initial review of their "Community Profile" and "Housing Opportunity Areas." Their "opportunities and constraints" analysis has not been completed, and no goals, policies or programs have been drafted. I also find it interesting that the outline of their proposed Housing Element (see their staff report, page 3) appears identical to ours. And their Community Profile looks exactly the same, just with different numbers plugged in and the occasional slightly different word. Based on the few other cities' Housing Elements I have glanced at, this does not seem to be a required format. Nor do I recall any discussion in Newport Beach as to whether it is even a good format. As to the content, the "Appendix A: Review of Past Performance" and "Appendix C: Summary of Outreach" strike me as largely padding. The first because at thought the report had previously April 27, 2021, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 2 of 4 been submitted to the state. The second because if every comment received were to be reproduced, including, for example, the 270 pages of correspondence received prior to publication of the current staff report and the more likely to be received by the time of the meeting, the length of the Housing Element would soon overwhelm that of the entire rest of the City's General Plan (about 530 pages) if it has not done so already. Is it a new requirement of state law that Housing Element comments be printed in whole in every copy of the General Plan? As to the most recent comments, I endorse those submitted by Housing Element Update Advisory Committee member Debbie Stevens on pages SS3-447 and SS3-448 of the agenda packet. Item 1. Minutes for the April 13, 2021 City Council Special Meeting and Regular Meeting The passages shown in italics below are from the draft minutes with suggested corrections shown in c4r°�ut underline format. The page numbers refer to Volume 65(?). Note: The first two pages of the draft say at the bottom they are pages 1 and 2 of "Volume 65." The remaining pages say they are pages 3 through 12 of "Volume 64." 1 assume "64" is a typo for "65" since pages 3 through 12 of Volume 64 were approved quite some time ago. Page 3, Item 111: "Jim Mosher noted the upcoming meetings for the Board of Library Trustees and the Aviation Committee were scheduled concurrently, which one can perceive as an indication that one meeting is more important than the other, and inquired whether the Closed Session concerned the purchase, sale, exchange, or leave lease of the property." Page 4, Item XII, Council Member Brenner, first bullet: "Met with the Pacific. MaFina Mammal Center aniJ community members regarding housing and with the Pacific Marine Mammal Center." [I could be wrong, but I doubt Council Member Brenner said she met with the Mammal Center about housing.] Page 5, Item XIII, sentence 1: "Regarding Item 3 (Resolution No. 2021-27: Acceptance State of California, Department of Parks and Recreation, Division of Boating and Waterways Grant for Reimbursement of the Cost for Two Zodiac Pro Classic Safety Boats for the Marina Park Sailing Program), Mr. Mosher requested the er^'ivrmnarnc- resolution reflect the correct spelling of Zodiac." [The video shows I said "resolution" (twice). How it became "ordinance" in the draft minutes is a mystery. In any event, it looks like the spelling did get correct in Resolution No. 2021-27 as signed and filed.] Item 3. Resolution No. 2021-31: Amending City Council Policy A-1 I am slightly concerned about the proposed insertion (see page 3-22 of the staff report) of the new "Public Comments on Agenda Items (if Study Session and/or Closed Session is not scheduled)" after the current "Notice to the Public." This seems to have been added to ensure an opportunity for the public to comment on "Matters which Council Members have asked to be placed on a Future Agenda." However, it could also be read as the only opportunity the public has to comment on agenda items (other than the Consent Calendar, for which there is a separate "Public Comments on Consent Calendar" item. April 27, 2021, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 3 of 4 Allowing a single opportunity, before they are heard, to comment on all agenda items (which is what the Civil Service Board does) offers minimal compliance with a literal reading of the Brown Act requirement, in Government Code Subsection 54954.3(a) that "Every agenda for regular meetings shall provide an opportunity for members of the public to directly address the legislative body on any item of interest to the public, before or during the legislative body's consideration of the item." But it would not comport with what has been the traditional practice of the Newport Beach City Council, which has been to invite public comment on each item (other than those on the Consent Calendar) after the staff report has been presented. I do not think eliminating the traditional opportunities to comment on agenda items as they come up is the intent of the new language,' but it could be taken that way by those reading the agenda. Assuming it is not the intent to eliminate later agenda comments, does the Council intend to invite public comment on the entire agenda at the indicated time before "City Council Announcements" and then again as each subsequent non -consent -calendar item comes up? 1 would be fine with that,2 but if that is not the Council's wish, clearer language should be used. Item 5. Resolution No. 2021-33: Requesting the United States Army Corps of Engineers Fund and Immediately Proceed with Surfside - Sunset Beach Nourishment Project Stage 13 from Anaheim Bay Harbor to Newport Harbor To be clear, I support the concept of beach nourishment, but I have these comments: 1. The word "and' is missing at the end of line 2 of Recommendation "b)" near the bottom of staff report page 5-1. 2. The figure at the bottom page 5-2 seems to illustrate the removal, in State 12 in 2010,3 of sand from a large swath of West Newport beaches from the Santa Ana River to an extension of the Semeniuk Slough and its placement on beaches fronting the Newport Island/Cannery Village area. Despite that effort, and what likes a moderately wide beach, aren't those areas still among the most vulnerable according to the City's flood risk maps? 3. With regard to paragraph 2 on page 5-3, it implies the recent flooding in the Balboa Pier area was the result of beach erosion. It would have been helpful to provide evidence that this was not the result of some other ocean dynamic. For instance, photos showing a reduction in the width of sand at a fixed tidal elevation. ' And taking away the traditional right to comment would arguably violate Article I, Subsection 3(b)(2) of the California Constitution unless an explanation of how the elimination of the right serves the public interest. 2 A bill that passed both houses of the state legislature by wide margins some years ago, AB -194 from 2014, would have required exactly that — an opportunity for public comment both before and during the Council's consideration of each item. But it was vetoed by then -Governor Brown at the end of the session with no opportunity to override. 3 The proposed resolution, page 5-7 says 2009. 1 don't know which is correct. April 27, 2021, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 4 of 4 4. In the proposed resolution, on page 5-7, 1 believe line 2 of the second "Whereas" was intended to read "San Gabriel River and Newport Bay' 5. In Sections 1 through 3 of the proposed resolution, on page 5-8, is it wise to name specific people at the Army Corps of Engineers? Wouldn't it be better to simply cite the positions they hold (as the resolution does for people on the City side)? Position titles are relatively permanent; the people holding the positions may not be. Plus, it could be read as chastising the named people at the ACOE for inaction. That does not seem the best way to open a negotiation with them.