CORRESPONDENCE - #08 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

The amendments run afoul of the City Charter's explicit restrictions on changing the "general scope" of the proposed HOO ordinance after its introduction. (City Charter Art. IV, Div. 2, Sec. 413 ["A proposed ordinance may be amended or modified between the time of its introduction and the time of its final passage, providing its general scope and original purpose are retained."].) Because the proposed amendments changed the "general scope" of the ordinance by substantively altering its provisions, the proposed ordinance must be re -introduced before adoption, allowing for another waiting period to pass before the modified ordinance can be adopted.' This important step helps to ensure that laws, especially those as consequential as the HOO, are drafted carefully and are provided with a full and open review by the public before their ultimate approval.' The City Council's vote on the HOO amendments provides context on why these guardrails should be in place. When the City Council voted on the Mayor's substitute motion containing the variety of newly proposed amendments —introduced mere minutes before the rushed vote at approximately 1:30 am —the voting screen only stated "Substitute motion" without providing additional context about the exact changes proposed. Because of the proposed ordinance's changed scope, it appeared that some City Councilmembers were confused over what was proposed while they cast votes on those very amendments. The HOO amendments were a moving target, even up until the final seconds before their early morning approval. BIA/OC objects to the changes to the HOO introduced by the City Council and respectfully requests that the motion approving the rushed array of new amendments changing the ordinance's general scope be sent back to the Planning Commission for further review. Sincerely, Adam Wood Vice President Building Industry Association of Southern California Orange County Chapter i Foley, Ordinances and Resolutions: Practice Tips for Effective Legislation, League of California Cities Annual Conference<https://www.cacities.org/uploadedfiles/leagueintemet/53/530f101f-f778-47cf-8995-3fca3e8bal29.pdf> (as of December 1, 2021), stating "Alterations (other than for typographical or clerical errors) prior to second reading require re -introduction for all non -urgency ordinances" (emphasis added). 'How Local Agencies Make Things Happen, Institute for Local Government (June 2014) <https://www.ca- ilg.org/sites/main/files/file-attachments/how_agencies_make_things _happen_june_2014.pdt> (as of December 1, 2021), stating "If substantive changes are made to a proposed ordinance after it is first introduced, it generally will need to be re -introduced and another waiting period must pass before the modified ordinance can be adopted. These steps ensure that laws are drafted as carefully as possible and to ensure that a full and open review of the ordinance occurs that permits the public to review and comment on the proposed law prior to its approval" (emphasis added).