Planning Commission
City of Laguna Beach
505 Forest Ave.
Laguna Beach, CA 92651

October 21, 2008

Dear Planning Commissioners,

Village Laguna considers the Land Use Element of the General Plan critical to maintaining the character of our city, and accordingly the board has asked me to review the current draft and comment on it on its behalf. In my reading, the draft manages to maintain the essentials of the twenty-five-year-old original while introducing details that reflect the community's experience in the intervening years and the challenges that face us today.
    
Particularly noteworthy in the updated version is that it makes preserving the character of our residential neighborhoods Goal #1. Other valuable additions are the sections on enhancing the visitor experience while maximizing protection of coastal and other natural resources and on climate protection. The subcommittee is to be commended for its efforts to listen to the community and craft a useful document.

     For all its strengths, however, this draft seems tentative where the original Land Use Element was forthright. The repeated use of expressions such as "to the extent feasible and reasonable," "where feasible," "if necessary," "whenever possible," and "where appropriate" vitiates the assertions of which they are part by suggesting that economic or some other unspecified criteria will determine whether the proposed action is taken. The effect is to convert the goal into a statement of what we'd like to do unless someone objects. 

For example, Policy 4.2 on avoidance of negative impacts on natural resources states:

"Any required mitigation should be located on-site rather than off-site whenever feasible; any off-site mitigation should be located within the City's boundaries and, if possible, close enough to the project to benefit those impacted by the project whenever feasible."

The goal here is to avoid negative impacts to natural resources and adjacent development. Is it likely, given this wording,  that impacts will ever be avoided or that mitigation will ever occur on-site?

Again, in Policy 1.11, instead of

"Consistent with the principle of view equity set forth in the Municipal Code, and to the greatest extent feasible and reasonable, retain visual public access by siting all new structures and ancillary facilities in a manner that protects the public viewshed; and when not feasible and reasonable, best efforts should be made to site new development in locations that minimize adverse impacts on views from public locations (e.g., roads, bluff top trails, visitor-serving facilities, etc.)."

we might say

"Consistent with the principle of view equity set forth in the Municipal Code, site all new structures and ancillary facilities in a manner that maximizes views from public locations (e.g., roads, bluff top trails, visitor-serving facilities, etc.)."

A "maximum" is, according to Webster's, "the greatest quantity or value attainable or attained" and "an upper limit allowed (by a legal authority) or allowable (as by the circumstances of the case)."  And what is "attainable" and "allowable" will of course be determined by the circumstances of the particular property. (This logic works for "minimize" as well.)
    
Under Policy 3.3 on protecting access to coastal resource areas, Action 3.3.1 reads

"Continue to pursue dedication and acceptance of beach access wherever appropriate."

If the policy is to protect access, when would it be "inappropriate" to pursue it?

Instead of Policy 5.2, which reads

"Preserve and, where appropriate, increase the City's stock of motel and hotel rooms available for short-term visitors."

why not just say "Preserve and increase . . ."?

And in Action 5.2.2, why not simply say "Discourage the conversion of hotels and motels to institutional uses such as alcohol or drug rehabilitation" or, if by mentioning the Municipal Code we mean "prohibit," why not say "Prohibit . . ."?
    
In short, the whole document would benefit from a global search for words that drain the life out of its policies and actions and their replacement with positive (or negative) alternatives. I note that the City Attorney has suggested some of this wording, and I think it would be helpful to know why and whether other cities' land-use elements use similarly ambiguous language.
    
     Beyond this general concern, there are some specific policies or actions that seem to me to call for comment:

1. For Action 1.1.1, could we say instead "Establish neighborhood-specific
house-size limits citywide"? The alternative methods would all be part of the process of "establishing" such limits and would not need to be spelled out. Village Laguna tends to favor a formula based on the average size of houses in the neighborhood (say, within the block, or a certain number of houses in each direction) because it would be manageable and very specific, but it's possible that some other method would be found preferable after study.  At the very least, the words "based on neighborhood intent" should be eliminated because this language would open the way for a few property owners in the neighborhood who would like mansions to override the requirement of compatibility that Policy 1.1 expresses. 

     2. In Action 1.1.2, the term should be "anti-mansionization," for clarity. I know that "mansionization" is the shorthand people use, but the printed version should be accurate.

     3. Action 1.1.3 seems intended to be neighborhood-specific. What about clarifying this  by saying, "Adjust the allowable site coverage on lots over 8,000 square feet in the R-1 zone to ensure compatibility with existing developed building sites in their neighborhoods."

     4. In Policy 1.2, can we be more specific about what makes a building "special"?

     5. In Policy 1.4, it might be wise to clarify that the standards of any specific plan or overlay zone should not be less restrictive than the standards of the underlying zone.
.
6. Could Policy 1.7 not simply begin with "Require"?
    
7. In Action 3.1.1, why not say "Conduct an inventory . . ."? It seems unnecessary to specify whether the City would hire a consultant, set up a task force, or ask a nonprofit to do the actual work.

     8. Is Action 5.4.1 expressed clearly enough? Does it mean "Explore the possibility of (or Encourage?)  public/private partnerships for the provision of low- and moderate-income housing"?
    
9. In Action 5.6.2, suggesting "incentives such as open space exemptions to encourage residential development within commercial zones" runs counter to the Planning Commission's recent recognition of the increasing scale of proposed mixed-use developments and its impacts on village character, traffic, and compatibility with adjacent residential neighborhoods. We were hoping that these developments would have more open space rather than less.
Furthermore, because this kind of development is most likely to be happening on the Coast Highway, with ocean views, it is probably not going to be supplying the rental units that Policy 5.6 refers to. (The two recent proposals, north and south, both envision house-sized condominiums.)  To this end, would you consider specifying that the residential part of mixed-use developments in commercial zones be rental?

10. Again, given the desirability of the ocean views from two-story Coast Highway buildings, Policy 5.11, promoting mixed-use development in commercial zones, seems unlikely "to encourage the provision of lower-cost housing" unless the housing is specified to be lower-cost.

     11. In Action 6.1.9, could we specific "clean" bus or trolley transportation?    
I recognize that this isn't part of the Climate Protection Plan's language, but I suggest that it should be.

12. Policy 8.6, "Prohibit new roads or extensions of existing roads that are inconsistent with the Municipal Code and General Plan," seems unnecessary and, worse, to suggest that we're in the habit of violating the Municipal Code and General Plan policy and need to be reminded not to. Surely it can be assumed that the City Council will uphold the law?

13. The action items under Policy 8.6 are important but not clearly related to the policy and could stand alone under some other policy statement.

14. Policy 9.9 and its Action 9.9.1 seem unnecessary and counterproductive. Why would we assume that the city would fail to "enforce existing ordinances and General Plan policies"?

     15. Throughout the document, the language could be tightened: "Continue to . . ." could be replaced with the verb that applies to the policy or action, and "Evaluate and, if appropriate,  . .  ." could become "Consider . . ."
    
     16. Action 1.15 is exactly the same as 1.1.3, and Policy 7.8 is printed twice.

      We look forward to working with the Commission on this draft and the next.

Sincerely,

Barbara Metzger
for the Village Laguna Board