New year, new agenda – but with some big projects held over some last year.

While the big ticket item on the agenda is the draft inclusionary housing ordinance in New Business Item #2, I’m not going to break this topic more than I already (exhaustively) have. I will say that the newest version is a big improvement, from my perspective, on the one that was presented to the Planning Commission, which in turn was a step forward from the IHO that was presented over the Summer. So while I would still prefer we ax the entire idea, if we have to have it, it is definitely moving in the right direction.

Working backwards through the agenda, the other item that will garner extensive discussion is an appeal of the Planning Commission’s rejection of a new charter school, Vista Meridian Global Academy. At the Planning Commission, Commissioner Jon Zich made the motion to deny based on two factors: first, that the planned location of the school fell into the so-called “Green Zone”, which is where Measure X zones are, and second, that the parking and circulation plan for pick-up and drop-off seemed somewhat complicated and dependent on a joint parking agreement. So in other words, he viewed that the development was not “substantially compatible” with developments in the same area and didn’t accord with the General Plan, which are both findings the Planning Commission had to make to approve.

Vice Chair Russell Toler, who was the lone Commissioner to support Vista Meridian’s proposal, countered that the Measure X zone covers only cannabis manufacturing and distribution and not retail, meaning that those developments were indistinguishable from any other similar operation. He also addressed the parking and circulation issue by pointing out that the traffic impact study did not indicate there would be a detrimental impact on the level of service on the surrounding roads, and that, beyond that finding, any issues with queuing or spilling into the street at drop off and pick up times would be a matter for enforcement rather than the Planning Commission (side bar: he’s completely right about this; note that many of our public schools routinely have pick up and drop off lines spill into the street, and little to nothing has been done to mitigate that. So frankly it’s hard to believe avoiding traffic impacts from schools is a city or district priority).

As has been the pattern of late at the Planning Commission, the general discussion amongst the Planning Commissioners showed a disturbing willingness to expand the Planning Commission’s role into a free-floating “morals” police that grounded their judgements in personal taste rather than the code and the General Plan. For example, Commissioner Andrade stated that her decision to deny the application was based on General Plan Policy LU-1.1, which is to “provide for the development of a mix and balance of housing opportunities, commercial goods and services, and employment opportunities in consideration of the needs of the business and residential segments of the community”. “[This proposal]”, Commissioner Andrade commented, “is not giving us a mix or a balance of opportunities or services that our community needs,” which shows the extent to which a truck could be driven through Policy LU-1.1. It’s hard to resist the conclusion that Commissioner Andrade just doesn’t like charter schools generally, and so found a policy to hang her hat on to deny it.

Similarly, Chair Ereth based his denial on a personal judgment that, because the proposed location lacks outdoor space for the high schoolers to use, the proposal was “materially detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the public.” This was because, in his educated view (he degree-dropped his PhD in public health), schools without outdoor space are not healthy environments. While I would personally agree with him, that really isn’t for the Planning Commission to decide. Recall that this is a charter school, not a public school, and therefore it is a school of choice. If I had to choose between a school with outdoor space or no outdoor space, all else equal, I would pick the one where kids can be outside. But often all things are not equal: if I had to choose between putting my kid in a beautiful but socially and academically failing school, or a high-achieving school with a good group of kids that was in an office park, I would not love my options but I would pick the high-achieving school ten times out of ten. So again, Chair Ereth illustrates that personal preference, not strict adherence to the rules, seems to be in control at the Planning Commission.

We’ll see what the City Council does with that. It seems clear that Mayor John Stephens is unhappy with the Planning Commission’s performance, given that he called this one up to appeal himself rather than letting the applicant appeal and pay the associated fees.

The rest of the agenda is crammed into to consent calendar, but there are some interesting items to highlight:

• The Outdoor Dining Ordinance, which I discussed in an earlier post, will get its second reading via the consent calendar, which just goes to show the level of consensus at the Council level around this issue.
• The decorated police dog Bodi, who was instrumental in nabbing millions of dollars of drugs off the streets, will be retired and sold for $1 to his Partner, Officer George Maridakis. Awwww.
• The City Council will approve architects and engineers for the renovations of both Shalimar and Ketchum-Libolt Park. This is worth watching as the initial public engagement about these renovations has been disappointing thus far, so it will be interesting to see how the public reacts to the initial plans. It will also be interesting to see how these plans evolve given that the City still has a vacancy at the director position for the Parks and Community Services Department.

Last but not least, there is a consent calendar item to approve a $1.5 million (over three years) “Clean Mobility Options Voucher Pilot Program” with proposed partner, Circuit Transit, to operate an “on-demand” electric vehicle taxi service, provided to the City by OCTA. The service would operate three electric vehicles throughout the Westside plus the 17th Street corridor all the way to Dover Drive. While this sounds super cool, buried deeeeeep in the agenda is a catch: the City must put up 50% matching funds in FY 2027-2028 to receive the funds. I’m just a lawyer but 50% of $1.5 million = $750,000, which seems like an awful lot of money to jam quietly into the consent calendar. So while I’m a big fan of enhanced mobility options, I’m not so jazzed about hiding the fiscal ball on this one.