Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSS3 - Housing Element - CorrespondenceReceived after Agenda Printed July 9, 2024 Mulvey, Jennifer Item No. SS3 Subject: FW: Housing Element Discussion in closed session Tuesday From: Ronald Rubino <erecords.ron(a)gmail.com> Sent: Monday, July 8, 2024 8:22:07 PM (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: Grant, Robyn <rgrant@newportbeachca.gov> Cc: City Clerk's Office <CityClerk@new portbeachca.gov>; Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: Housing Element Discussion in closed session Tuesday Dear Councilmember Grant. I am sending this email to encourage you and the other city council members to retain the option for Newport Beach residents to vote on the certified Land Use Element on the November ballot. I believe this is required and desirable under Greenlight, which resulted in our charter section 423. This housing element impacts the development of low to moderate priced housing units for the period of 2021-2029. The effort to create our updated General Plan and the required Housing Element has cost the city million of dollars and taken over four years of staff effort. It would be wrong not to educate the residents of the numbers of units included and the potential additional units that could be authorized over the next ten years. The understanding of long-term entitlements that occur if the certified plan is submitted is needed to get the support of residents. I believe an education campaign on the Housing Element and an election will result in the best solution and community support for the plan for the future. Thankyou for your consideration. Ron Rubino 2845 Alta Vista Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 Charter 423 (Greenlight) mandates that voter approval is required for any major amendment to the Newport Beach General Plan. There has been noise about keeping the Land Use Element off the ballot and letting the City Council decide to approve, or not approve, the Land Use Element. The larger discussion regarding what the Land Use Element means to Newport Beach as a community, and the State mandated 4,845 residential units, (plus bonus density units and the above market units needed to make a project pencil out for a developer) will not be had if this measure doesn't even make it to a vote. SPON believes the matter should go to a vote of the residents, rather than have that decision be made by as few as 4 of 7 City Councilmembers. This kind of sidestepping of the voices of the community is reminiscent of the recent decision by the California Supreme Court that ruled that the "Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act" could not be included on the November ballot. We believe the majority of Newport Beach residents do not want to forego their right to weigh in on this matter. If you have anything to say on this matter, please plan to attend the Tuesday Study Session and let the Council know how you feel. Received after Agenda Printed July 9, 2024 Item No. SS3 Subject: FW: Voting on Land Use Element From: Carol Lind <calind729@gmail.com> Sent: July 09, 2024 9:53 AM To: Dept - City Council<CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: Voting on Land Use Element I cannot attend tonight's city council meeting but I would like to express my opinion that the vote for the Land Use Element must be put on November's ballot. It is very important for the residents of the whole city to express their opinion on this matter. Charter 423 (Green light) mandates this citizen vote. Thank you for your consideration, Carol A. Lind 6607 Seashore Dr, Newport Beach, CA 92663 Received after Agenda Printed July 9, 2024 Mulvey, Jennifer Item No. SS3 From: City Clerk's Office Sent: July 09, 2024 1:02 PM To: Mulvey, Jennifer Subject: FW: Today's agenda From: Biddle, Jennifer <JBiddle@newportbeachca.gov> Sent: Tuesday, July 9, 2024 1:02:08 PM (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: City Clerk's Office Subject: FW: Today's agenda -----Original Message ----- From: LYNN LORENZ <lynnierlo@aol.com> Sent: July 09, 2024 1:01 PM To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: Today's agenda [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Unfortunately I am unable to attend today's City Council meeting re the Land Use Element. I am very concerned though that you put the Land Use Element up to a vote by the citizens of Newport Beach because that was the purpose of the Greenlight Initiative. To put the vote only before the Council is to thwart the democratic intent of the Initiative. Thank you, Lynn Lorenz, 434 Redlands Avenue, Newport Beach 92663 Received after Agenda Printed July 9, 2024 Mulvey, Jennifer Item No. SS3 Subject: FW: Housing Element Study Session today From: Ronald Rubino <erecords.ron@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, July 9, 2024 12:58:38 PM (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: Grant, Robyn <rgrant(&newportbeachca.gov> Cc: City Clerk's Office<CityClerkC�new gortbeachca.gov>; Dept - City Council <CityCouncil(o)newportbeachca.gov> Subject: Housing Element Study Session today 7/9/2024 Robyn Grant, City Councilmember RE: Housing Element Decision I wish to amplify my reason to request the Housing Element should be put to a vote. As a Eastbluff Homeowners' Community Association Director for the past 10 years I feel I am representative of a majority of residents concerned about the final numbers of potential new units the City is planning to submit for State certification. At you study session this afternoon I hope these points will be considered: 1. Green Light vote should be required because this action approves zoning for over 5,000 units and with buffer and low -moderate density bonus units, it could result in over 10,000 new units. An election should be held to let voters decide on the final Housing Element and number of potential units and zones. 2. The Housing Element will result in approval of future development that will not require an EIR or voter approval for 100 units or more. Residents need to know the building site, proposed units, density, design and impact on traffic, water, schools. public safety, shopping and environmental impact. Specific sites should be selected for low -moderate priced housing and senior housing. They should be part of a specific plan for development. Projects of 100 units or more should be voter approved. 3. The Housing Element submitted to the state for certification should include the minimum units required 4,885 less credits for units in the pipeline.. Once the 4,885 units are approved the other zoning and pre -approval should terminate. No open-ended development approval should be approved. 4. The required number of units for this planning cycle should be reduced for units currently underway. This includes units in the pipeline = 1,591, ADU's = 1,000 and 5th cycle sites = 388. This totals 2,979 units which should be credited to the RHNA obligation of 4,845. This leaves the balance of required RHNA units at 1,988 units. I believe a 20% buffer above the 1,988 units would be adequate. Total units should be limited to 2,385 units. There is no penalty in the future if the numbers are not achieved because it depends on the private sector finding specific sites and obtaining financing to develop. (A better solution is to require a development of 100 units or more to include a mandated number of low and moderate priced units. I suggest a 30% mandate be included.) 5. The rezone area totals 9,120 units. This is excessive. Rezoning areas should not include Banning Ranch. The 1,475 units will never be built in this nature preserve. 6. State officials are not likely to act against the City if our effort continues to adopt a plan. The State is likely to respect the process that includes voter approval. The education process should precede the vote on the Housing Element. My recommendation is for the City Council to take the time to modify the proposed zoning and 2,385 NET New Units and the revised plan should be submitted to voters for approval. Further, I recommend a low and moderate price housing inclusion mandate of 30% be adopted for all development projects that are 100 units or more. Thank you for the opportunity to share my recommendations with you. Ron Rubino 2845 Alta Vista Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 z Received after Agenda Printed July 9, 2024 Mulvey, Jennifer Item No. SS3 Subject: FW: Housing Element Study Session today Attachments: Yorba Linda -Housing Element Election.pdf From: Ronald Rubino <erecords.ron@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, July 9, 2024 1:26:07 PM (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: Grant, Robyn <rgrant@newportbeachca.gov> Cc: City Clerk's Office <CityClerk@newoortbeachca.gov>; Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.4ov> Subject: Re: Housing Element Study Session today Dear City Council Members, Attached is an article by By MICHAEL SLATEN I mslaten(@scng.com, April 2024 describing the process being used by the City of Yorba Linda to allow voter education and approval of their Housing Element. This is a process the city can utilize after it modifies the number of units and zoning to be a lower and more acceptable number, which Newport Beach residents can support. Ron Rubino 2845 Alta Vista Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 On Tue, Jul 9, 2024 at 12:58 PM Ronald Rubino <erecords.ron(@amail.com> wrote: 7/9/2024 Robyn Grant, City Councilmember RE: Housing Element Decision I wish to amplify my reason to request the Housing Element should be put to a vote. As a Eastbluff Homeowners' Community Association Director for the past 10 years I feel I am representative of a majority of residents concerned about the final numbers of potential new units the City is planning to submit for State certification. At you study session this afternoon I hope these points will be considered: 1. Green Light vote should be required because this action approves zoning for over 5,000 units and with buffer and low -moderate density bonus units, it could result in over 10,000 new units. An election should be held to let voters decide on the final Housing Element and number of potential units and zones. 2. The Housing Element will result in approval of future development that will not require an EIR or voter approval for 100 units or more. Residents need to know the building site, proposed units, density, design and impact on traffic, water, schools. public safety, shopping and environmental impact. Specific sites should be selected for low -moderate priced housing and senior housing. They should be part of a specific plan for development. Projects of 100 units or more should be voter approved. 3. The Housing Element submitted to the state for certification should include the minimum units required 4,885 less credits for units in the pipeline.. Once the 4,885 units are approved the other zoning and pre -approval should terminate. No open-ended development approval should be approved. 4. The required number of units for this planning cycle should be reduced for units currently underway. This includes units in the pipeline = 1,591, ADU's = 1,000 and 5th cycle sites = 388. This totals 2,979 units which should be credited to the RHNA obligation of 4,845. This leaves the balance of required RHNA units at 1,988 units. I believe a 20% buffer above the 1,988 units would be adequate. Total units should be limited to 2,385 units. There is no penalty in the future if the numbers are not achieved because it depends on the private sector finding specific sites and obtaining financing to develop. (A better solution is to require a development of 100 units or more to include a mandated number of low and moderate priced units. I suggest a 30% mandate be included.) 5. The rezone area totals 9,120 units. This is excessive. Rezoning areas should not include Banning Ranch. The 1,475 units will never be built in this nature preserve. 6. State officials are not likely to act against the City if our effort continues to adopt a plan. The State is likely to respect the process that includes voter approval. The education process should precede the vote on the Housing Element. My recommendation is for the City Council to take the time to modify the proposed zoning and 2,385 NET New Units and the revised plan should be submitted to voters for approval. Further, I recommend a low and moderate price housing inclusion mandate of 30% be adopted for all development projects that are 100 units or more. Thank you for the opportunity to share my recommendations with you. GO1 . 91We 2845 Alta Vista Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 Housing Element Approval Process Yorba Linda residents have second chance to approve new housing plan By MICHAEL SLATEN I mslatenCa)_scng.com PUBLISHED: April 23, 2024 at 9:53 a.m. I UPDATED: April 23, 2024 at 10:15 a.m. Bryant Ranch Center in Yorba Linda on Saturday, March 30, 2024. (Photo by Leonard Ortiz, Orange County Register/SCNG) Yorba Linda residents this fall can expect to consider housing plans that would allow more than 2,400 units of housing to be built, two years after voters overwhelmingly rejected a previous plan by the city. Yorba Linda needs to adopt an updated housing element — the state - mandated plan that shows where new housing can be built throughout the city — and Yorba Linda Planning Manager Nate Farnsworth said the city is up against a deadline. If not approved by November, the city could face consequences such as financial penalties and having less say over some lower- and middle -income housing construction. "This is a state requirement, so there's no getting around it," Farnsworth said, adding, "We'll call it the lesser of two evils when you get a choice between either meeting the state requirement under your own terms or meeting the state requirement under the state's terms." Yorba Linda must plan for at least 2,415 units of new housing, though that doesn't mean all will actually get built, the zoning just has to be in place for developers to have the opportunity. Yorba Linda is one of the few California cities where voters must approve zoning changes, under Measure B passed in 2006. The state has given the city more time to get voters to approve a housing element, and now some of the residents who were opposed to the last proposed plan are in support of the latest draft. In the 2022 election, voters overwhelming rejected the city's housing plan, with only 24% of voters in favor. The city scrapped that proposal and created a 17-member resident working group to hammer out what would be an agreeable plan. With the state giving conditional approval to the latest plan, many of the previous opponents will now be asking their neighbors to support the city's new plan. "We think that it's very important that this passes so that we have a certified element," said Janice Morger, who campaigned against the 2022 measure and was a member of the working group. "Let's face it, nobody wants any of this. Is it perfect? No, but it's something we can all live with." Morger said it's important residents pass the new one so the city doesn't face builder's remedy, which allows developers to bypass local density limits provided they build a minimum number of affordable units. Morger said she and other residents pushed the no vote on the 2022 plan because it put too much housing on the west side of town. The new shifts units to Savi Ranch, helping to limit multi -story buildings from being built around single-family homes, Morger said. While the housing element hasn't been formally placed on ballots, the City Council is expected to do so. The city's housing element won't be the only housing plan on people's ballots. A separate "We think that it's very important that this passes so that we have a certified element," said Janice Morger, who campaigned against the 2022 measure and was a member of the working group. "Let's face it, nobody wants any of this. Is it perfect? No, but it's something we can all live with." Morger said it's important residents pass the new one so the city doesn't face builder's remedy, which allows developers to bypass local density limits provided they build a minimum number of affordable units. Morger said she and other residents pushed the no vote on the 2022 plan because it put too much housing on the west side of town. The new shifts units to Savi Ranch, helping to limit multi -story buildings from being built around single-family homes, Morger said. While the housing element hasn't been formally placed on ballots, the City Council is expected to do so. The city's housing element won't be the only housing plan on people's ballots. A separate measure has already been placed, asking voters to rezone the Bryant Ranch Center shopping mall on the east side of the city to allow for more housing and new retail to be built there. The shopping mall owner sought the public vote after city discussions turned toward downsizing what could be built there. Bryant Ranch Center has been struggling since 2017, according to Michael Tinio, a consultant for the property. "We have a high vacancy rate, and a lot of tenants haven't been able to survive," Tinio said. So the center is looking at the possibility of building a mixed -use. development where residents live on site and there is more "focused retail and shopping," Tinio said. If approved, the shopping mall could have up to 320 apartments built at up to four stories tall. The Bryant Ranch Center plan, which is being called the Yorba Canyon Community initiative, was certified by the City Council on April 16 as having gathered enough signatures for the November ballot. The city formed a resident working group that met from last May to June to discuss how best to form a new housing element. The group recommended that the city use Savi Ranch to create a new mixed -use, downtown -like space for Yorba Linda. Elizabeth Hansburg, executive director of People for Housing OC, said the process to get to a new housing element was flawed since the city turned to the loudest voices against density and rental housing and relegated opportunities to build higher -density affordable housing to one part of the city around Savi Ranch. "We have concerns that they are limiting all of the higher -destiny housing to one part of town, which happens to be ... close to the freeway," Hansburg said. "You just reinforce that socioeconomic segregation and you put people at risk." Hansburg said the state approved a sub -par plan and "the city is getting away with it." Russ Heine, another member of the resident working group who opposed the 2022 plan, said there were a lot of heated discussions in the group to reach a consensus and move a plan forward. "The fact that we were able to mitigate a lot of those high -density clusters in the middle of residential neighborhoods at least helped us feel like we were protecting some of the previous character of the neighborhoods while still conforming with the state mandate," Heine said. "That was a fine balancing point." Heine echoed the sentiment that approving the new housing element is "the better of two bad choices" by keeping a say in what gets built. "We really just need to get 25% of the people to understand what the risks associated with the no vote are," Heine said of the 50% majority that would be needed to approve the housing plan on the November ballot. The city is hosting community meetings to discuss housing plans. There will be a meeting at the East Lake Village Association club house from 6 to 9 p.m. on May 1, another on May 9 at the same time at Bryant Ranch Elementary School and a third on May 23 at the Yorba Linda Community Center. Yorba Linda's Planning Commission and City Council will begin public hearings in the coming months to discuss the housing element. Mulvey, Jennifer Subject: FW: Housing Element Study Session today From: Susan Dvorak <Susan dvorak@hotmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, July 9, 2024 1:07:29 PM (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: Grant, Robyn <rgrant@newportbeachca.gov> Cc: City Clerk's Office <CityClerk@newportbeachca.gov>; Dept - City Council<CityCouncil(a)newportbeachca.gov> Subject: Housing Element Study Session today Good afternoon Councilmember Grant, I support all of the Housing Element suggestions outlined below by Ron Rubino and hope you will take these ideas into consideration during your deliberations. Regards, Sue Dvorak From: Ronald Rubino <erecords.ron@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, July 9, 2024 12:58 PM To: ROBYN GRANT<rgrant@newportbeachca.gov> Cc: City Clerk's Office <cityclerk@newportbeachca.gov>; citycouncil@newportbeachca.gov<citvcouncil@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: Housing Element Study Session today 7/9/2024 Robyn Grant, City Councilmember RE: Housing Element Decision I wish to amplify my reason to request the Housing Element should be put to a vote. As a Eastbluff Homeowners' Community Association Director for the past 10 years I feel I am representative of a majority of residents concerned about the final numbers of potential new units the City is planning to submit for State certification. At you study session this afternoon I hope these points will be considered: 1. Green Light vote should be required because this action approves zoning for over 5,000 units and with buffer and low - moderate density bonus units, it could result in over 10,000 new units. An election should be held to let voters decide on the final Housing Element and number of potential units and zones. 2. The Housing Element will result in approval of future development that will not require an EIR or voter approval for 100 units or more. Residents need to know the building site, proposed units, density, design and impact on traffic, water, schools. public safety, shopping and environmental impact. Specific sites should be selected for low -moderate priced housing and senior housing. They should be part of a specific plan for development. Projects of 100 units or more should be voter approved. 3. The Housing Element submitted to the state for certification should include the minimum units required 4,885 less credits for units in the pipeline.. Once the 4,885 units are approved the other zoning and pre -approval should terminate. No open-ended development approval should be approved. 4. The required number of units for this planning cycle should be reduced for units currently underway. This includes units in the pipeline = 1,591, ADU's = 1,000 and 5th cycle sites = 388. This totals 2,979 units which should be credited to the RHNA obligation of 4,845. This leaves the balance of required RHNA units at 1,988 units. I believe a 20% buffer above the 1,988 units would be adequate. Total units should be limited to 2,385 units. There is no penalty in the future if the numbers are not achieved because it depends on the private sector finding specific sites and obtaining financing to develop. (A better solution is to require a development of 100 units or more to include a mandated number of low and moderate priced units. I suggest a 30% mandate be included.) 5. The rezone area totals 9,120 units. This is excessive. Rezoning areas should not include Banning Ranch. The 1,475 units will never be built in this nature preserve. 6. State officials are not likely to act against the City if our effort continues to adopt a plan. The State is likely to respect the process that includes voter approval. The education process should precede the vote on the Housing Element. My recommendation is for the City Council to take the time to modify the proposed zoning and 2,385 NET New Units and the revised plan should be submitted to voters for approval. Further, I recommend a low and moderate price housing inclusion mandate of 30% be adopted for all development projects that are 100 units or more. Thank you for the opportunity to share my recommendations with you. Ron Rubino 2845 Alta Vista Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 Received after Agenda Printed July 9, 2024 Item No. SS3 Mulvey, Jennifer From: O'Neill, William Sent: July 09, 2024 2:16 PM To: Brown, Leilani Subject: FW: Greenlight Vote on General Plan Update Attachments: Charter Section 423 (Greenlight) Preclusion Exception v2.pdf Will O'Neill Newport Beach Mayor From: Larry Tucker <tucker@gtpcenters.com> Date: Tuesday, July 9, 2024 at 1:58 PM To: O'Neill, William <woneill@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: Greenlight Vote on General Plan Update Good afternoon Will, I don't believe the Council has an easy choice today in deciding whether to have a Charter Section 423 vote on the changes to the Land Use Element of the General Plan (which are necessitated by our certified Housing Element). And I don't have a dog in that fight. But after thinking about the alternatives, I believe the preclusion clause of Charter Section 423 applies based upon the attached analysis. Coincidentally, it seems to be the option that would be least likely to result in our Housing Element being found out of compliance by the State. Where that could lead is anyone's guess. The good news for you is if that were to happen, you would no longer be on the Council and have to deal with that problem! Best regards, Larry As a Planning Commissioner, I went through the 4th Cycle and 5th Cycle Housing Element Process. We spent almost no time reviewing the Housing Element and the mandates were weak. State Legislation applicable to the 6m Cycle has changed that completely. Now, once an agency has a certified Housing Element, updated/new housing laws mandate that the agency must take all actions to enable the units shown for each parcel in the Sites Inventory of its Housing Element to actually be built. Failure to do so exposes an agency to draconian financial and regulatory penalties. The only way to avoid those penalties is for an agency to change its General Plan (specifically the Land Use Element) and zoning for each and every listed Site by a set date so the densities shown in the Sites Inventory can be built on the land an agency claims in its Housing Element will accommodate a given number of units. So for example, if a two -acre site is shown in the Sites Inventory of the Housing Element as being planned for 50 dwelling units per acre, or 100 units, the City must take all steps necessary so that Site can actually be built out with 100 units. That's right, the City has to conform its General Plan and Zoning Code to the promises it made in its Housing Element. The City Council does not have a choice but to change its General Plan and Zoning Code so the units can be built at the density listed in the Sites Inventory. State law is superior. As our friends in Huntington Beach keep finding out, the State does not care what a City Council or the public thinks when it comes to Housing laws. But wait, we have Charter Section 423 (Greenlight). That requires an affirmative vote of the public if there is a proposed change to the General Plan that adds more than 100 housing units in a Statistical Area. Surely, our Charter is more important than State Law. Our electorate passed Charter Section 423 by a wide margin of thousands of votes, so our people have spoken. And if our voters vote down the changes to the General Plan mandated by the Housing Element, then agencies that do not have a Greenlight type of Charter provision can plan for the housing units our voters do not want our City to plan for. The other agencies should have thought ahead like we did and passed their own Greenlight law! Ok, writing this paragraph was fun, but does anyone realistically think our residents have the right to vote to avoid State law while other agencies that don't have a Greenlight type of Charter provision must comply with State law? Which brings me to the last sentence of Charter Section 423 which reads: "This Section shall not apply if state or federal law precludes a vote of the voters on the amendment" So, how does one determine if state or federal law "precludes" a vote? I do not recall ever seeing language in a federal law that actually states that it precludes State law, nor in State law that states that it precludes local law. That is just the natural result of having a pecking order of laws which take precedence over other laws, starting with the supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution. So, the statutory framework of Housing laws of the State would effectively preclude a vote under local law if there is only one result that is allowed under State law- -passage. In other words, why would you need to have a vote under Charter Section 423 when the result has to be yes? The electorate does not have the right to vote no because a no vote means the General Plan would not then be changed to enable sites in the Sites Inventory to be built for housing at their planned density. If the voters of the City can't vote no, then isn't the City precluded from having an actual vote on a Land Use Element amendment that the State mandates must be adopted by the City, like it or not? I have also heard some discussion about having a second Charter Section 423 vote if a first vote were to fail. I am not sure how a second vote would work, but if changes would be proposed in the Sites Inventory with the goal of placating opposition in certain areas of town, then the California Department of Housing and Community Development would have to approve those proposed changes to our certified Housing Element. It would seem that a second ballot proposition would either propose reducing the number of Sites to remove Sites viewed as being electorally problematic (although that might mean increasing the density of the remaining Sites to keep the unit count the same). Or the City would propose to increase the number of Sites which would mean reducing the density of each Site to keep the total unit count the same. However, our Housing Element already includes what the Housing Element Update Committee believed were all (or virtually at[) Sites that could feasibly accommodate housing, so there would be no meaningful opportunity to add more Sites. So, what choices does the Council have? The Council could go for the perfect solution: Have a Section 423 vote and hope it passes. If that happens, the next Council would be eternally grateful. However, if there were opposition to the Charter 423 vote that had campaign funding, it is not hard to envision a Charter Section 423 vote failing. Rightly or wrongly, people confuse homeless housing with affordable housing, so a campaign that is less than forthright about the affordable units (where they would be located and who would live in them) would have to be anticipated. And who would (and who legally could) spend the time and raise the money to support a yes vote? So, the Council should consider what would happen if a Charter Section 423 vote were to fail. If it did fail, five of you would then have an all -consuming problem to deal with after November 5 - - a non -compliant Housing Element. A Housing Element that is no longer compliant and that can only be cured by another vote that might also fail, unless the Council were to belatedly shift gears and claim it didn't need a vote in the first place. Risking a non -compliant Housing Element looks to be the least palatable option. Also, the Council seems obligated to determine whether the last sentence of Charter Section 423 applies to changes to the General Plan that are made because they have to be in order for the General Plan to become consistent with the requirements of Housing laws. The wording of the preclusion clause is not optional ("shall not apply"), so the Council should at least make a formal determination of whether the preclusion clause renders Charter Section 423 moot in the circumstances. Of course, if the Council determines the preclusion clause applies, then it seems very likely that the City would be sued for failing to have a Greenlight vote. So, which would be the safer path? The risk of having a Charter Section 423 vote that fails resulting in a non -compliant Housing Element, or the risk that the City gets sued for not having a Charter Section 423 vote because the Council believes such a vote is precluded by State law? There is no obvious, easy choice for the Council to make since no one would like to deny our voters a chance to vote on such an important issue. But in this situation, I believe that the City Council is obligated to determine if preclusion by State law would apply under Charter Section 423. That will only occur after a public hearing and testimony. Again, a finding of preclusion will likely result in a lawsuit over that interpretation. In that event, what happens next will at least be known: A Court will make a decision whether preclusion applies based upon the language in Charter Section 423 and the public record of the City Council's hearing on the matter. Typically, a court gives deference to elected bodies' interpretations of their own laws if there is a reasonable basis for that interpretation. And State support seems highly likely in the form of an Amicus brief since the State has supported its Housing law requirements at each opportunity to do so in other jurisdictions. The alternative would be to risk the fallout from a non -compliant Housing Element, and who knows how bad that could get. The one certainty is that the City will have to comply with State housing law, regardless of Charter Section 423. It is unrealistic to expect any other result.