Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout20201021_HEUAC_Minutes_ApprovedCITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE ADVISORY COMMITTEE MINUTES CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS – 100 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 21, 2020 REGULAR MEETING – 6 P.M. I. CALL MEETING TO ORDER – 6 p.m. II. WELCOME AND ROLL CALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Larry Tucker, Jeffrey Bloom, Susan DeSantis, Elizabeth Kiley, Geoffrey LePlastrier, Stephen Sandland, Ed Selich, Debbie Stevens MEMBERS ABSENT: Paul Fruchbom, (Ex Officio Member) Will O’Neill (excused) Staff Present: Community Development Director Seimone Jurjis, Deputy Community Development Director Jim Campbell, Principal Planner Jaime Murillo, Senior Planner Ben Zdeba, City Traffic Engineer Tony Brine, Administrative Support Specialist Clarivel Rodriguez III. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS Jim Mosher remarked that a loophole in the Housing Crisis Act allows people to merge lots and demolish multifamily housing if the new development is limited to a single unit, which seems contrary to the intent of the Housing Crisis Act. IV. CONSENT CALENDAR a. Minutes of the October 7, 2020 Meeting Recommended Action: Approve and file the minutes of October 7, 2020 Chair Tucker advised that Mr. Mosher has suggested some minor corrections to the October minutes. Chair Tucker moved, seconded by Committee Member Selich, to approve the minutes of the October 7, 2020, meeting with Mr. Mosher's revisions. AYE: Tucker, Bloom, DeSantis, Kiley, LePlastrier, Sandland, Selich, Stevens NO: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Fruchbom V. CURRENT BUSINESS a. Presentation by The Kennedy Commission Recommended Action: Receive a presentation from Cesar Covarrubias of The Kennedy Commission followed by brief questions and answers. Chair Tucker indicated The Kennedy Commission is an affordable housing advocacy group that was founded in 2001. The Housing Element Update Advisory Committee (HEUAC) is interested Housing Element Update Advisory Committee Meeting October 21, 2020 Page 2 of 7 in hearing about strategies, policies, and incentives that will result in affordable housing development. Cesar Covarrubias shared information regarding median home price, household income, affordability, and Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) allocations for Orange County. Two cities in Orange County have specific policies for affordable housing and have met their RHNA allocations in the very-low-income and low-income categories. Overlays and specific plans can encourage housing as part of mixed-use developments. Institutional and church campuses are potential sites for mixed-use concepts. The Surplus Land Act, a mixed-income housing ordinance, an affordable housing strategic plan, housing opportunities zoning or an overlay, and an affordable housing land trust support affordable housing. The Veterans and Affordable Housing Bond Act, the No Place Like Home program, the Orange County Housing Finance Trust/JPA, the Orange County Housing Trust, the Orange County Housing Bond 2020, and the Mental Health Services Act can be used to fund affordable housing. Chair Tucker commented that there are areas in the City where property owners may be enticed to build housing on their properties. Policies that relax development standards and increase allowed density can encourage housing development, but at some point increased density makes construction costs infeasible. Mr. Covarrubias suggested incorporating the City's housing objectives into an overlay or zoning change. Changes to the State Density Bonus Law may result in more affordable housing. Office buildings can be redeveloped with a more intense and intentional use. Adopting policies and programs for affordable housing is essential to the development of affordable housing. In answer to Committee Member Sandland's question, Mr. Covarrubias advised that The Kennedy Commission is reviewing the potential for housing located in areas such as Banning Ranch and portions of the Airport Area located within the 65 dB CNEL contour. Planning growth around existing uses is challenging but doable. In reply to Committee Member DeSantis' query, Mr. Covarrubias indicated he is aware of cities discussing agreements to use funding from one city to build affordable housing in the other city. However, he did not anticipate such agreements would work well because of each city's need to fulfill its allocation for low and very-low-income housing. In response to Committee Member Stevens' comment, Mr. Covarrubias remarked that if amenities are located close to housing, residents will probably make fewer vehicle trips. b. Orange County Mayors' Letter to the Southern California Council of Governments (SCAG) Recommended Action: Receive and file. Chair Tucker felt the Mayors' letter could be more fruitful in reducing RHNA allocations than other approaches. The public should be aware of the letter. Jim Mosher inquired regarding the reasons for the Mayors of Dana Point and San Clemente not signing the letter. Housing Element Update Advisory Committee Meeting October 21, 2020 Page 3 of 7 c. Subcommittee Progress Reports Recommended Action: Receive verbal updates from each subcommittee, as appropriate. Chair Tucker reported that the subcommittee for opportunity sites in the remainder of Newport Beach met the prior day, and a report will be scheduled for the next HEUAC meeting. The affordable housing subcommittee will review different approaches to obtain affordable housing at different income levels and may craft an inclusionary plan. d. October 20, 2020 Virtual Housing Workshop Recap Recommended Action: Receive an overview of the first virtual housing workshop and discuss any takeaways. Provide feedback or direction to staff and the consultants on any changes or considerations for future workshops. David Barquist, Kimley-Horn and Associates, reported 72 people participated in the workshop. Analysis of feedback provided during the workshop is underway, and a report will be available via the Newport Together website. Engagement occurred during the workshop and will continue online. During the workshop, members of the public inquired about a no housing response to questions. In light of the draft RHNA allocation for Newport Beach, the consultant team does not believe a no housing response is practical. In subsequent stages of outreach, the team can explore the most appropriate locations for growth and development and different types of housing. The public can view the workshop and provide feedback on the Newport Together website. In reply to Committee Member Stevens' question, Mr. Barquist advised that the team will explore methods to obtain public input for individual opportunity sites during both in-person and virtual meetings. Committee Member Stevens remarked that the interactive portion of the workshop was easy and a good start to obtaining public feedback. Committee Member DeSantis suggested future virtual workshops include more opportunities for two-way communication. The presentations and polling were well done. The workshop could have been longer to allow more dialog with the community. She emphasized the importance of creating visions for opportunity areas while reviewing parcels in the areas. Mr. Barquist noted the difficulty of sustaining the public's attention for an extended period of time. Engagement will build and improve as the schedule progresses. The team is working with the City's Public Information Officer to distribute information to the community through different avenues. The public and committee members can assist by sharing links and posts to meetings and information. Deborah Allen, Harbor View Hills Community Association President, advised that she discussed the workshop with seniors at OASIS, a number of whom attended the workshop, and neither the seniors nor she felt the technology was easy to use or the workshop encouraged community input. The input may have been too structured for a community that is accustomed to voicing their opinions. Questions have to have a no project response. If the goal is to obtain community input, the public has to be allowed to express opinions. Nancy Scarbrough noted 18 of those present for the workshop were staff and committee members. The inability to converse was extremely frustrating. Future workshops need to be more interactive with the public. Jim Mosher concurred with comments regarding the lack of two-way communication. The workshop did not mention HEUAC meetings, and the website does not list all HEUAC meetings. Housing Element Update Advisory Committee Meeting October 21, 2020 Page 4 of 7 Adriana Fourcher felt the workshop was not collaborative. In-person meetings with small group discussions should be possible. She had some difficulty participating in the polling and did not believe her responses were counted. Input from the business community is needed. Melanie Schlotterbeck, representing Olen Properties, expressed disappointment with the repetition of information during the workshop. She supported the use of breakout rooms during virtual meetings to allow individuals to comment. There has been no mention of new and innovative housing types and mixed-use development. Housing options need to include a range of sizes, prices, and affordability. The City needs a vision for the Airport Area. Hoiyin Ip suggested community groups will help distribute information about meetings and workshops. One city in Orange County has been assessing in-lieu housing fees for many years. David Tanner hoped the City would work with The Kennedy Commission to learn about the effects of affordable housing on public services. Staff is intentionally misinforming the public regarding the scope of the Housing Element Update by discussing only RHNA information. Dorothy Kraus remarked that workshop participants were the usual group who attend or participate in public meetings. Staff and the consultants need to use more traditional means to notify the public about meetings. Chair Tucker advised that the State has disrupted the City's planning process and shortened the time for a planning process. Staff has not intentionally misled anyone. Public comments have included some valid criticisms of the outreach process. The HEUAC is charged with preparing a plan to comply with State requirements. Consequently, no development is not an option. Committee Member Stevens related that the City's Public Information Manager asked the outreach subcommittee to distribute information about the workshop, and the subcommittee sent emails to almost 1,000 people. The community may not be interested in planning efforts. e. Sites Rundown: Airport Area Recommended Action: Review the list of potential sites and discuss feasibility. Solicit input from the public on the list and the Committee's discussion. Chair Tucker directed staff to begin contacting the owners of properties identified as feasible or potentially feasible for housing. He assumed members of the public would agree with the subcommittee's designations for sites as the public has expressed interest in locating housing in the Airport Area. He reviewed the subcommittee's consideration of parcels 43, 113, 37, 69, 95, 87, 23, 70, 80, 81, 111, 9, 24, 131, 135, 38, and 79 and the Saunders site. Committee Member Sandland suggested the parcel numbers for the Saunders site should be provided. If the prohibition of housing in the 65 dB CNEL is relaxed, parcels 87 and 23 may be potentially feasible rather than infeasible. Chair Tucker indicated the subcommittee may reconsider designations for parcels located within the 65 dB CNEL if the prohibition is relaxed. Committee Member Bloom commented that abandoning streets so that parcels may be combined would theoretically create more land and larger parcels. Parcels could be even more feasible for housing. Chair Tucker clarified the comment as abandoning private circulation rather than streets. Housing Element Update Advisory Committee Meeting October 21, 2020 Page 5 of 7 Jim Mosher did not recall the HEUAC agreeing with the subcommittee's approach of not considering parcels within the 65 dB CNEL. Based on the statement that the subcommittee is not considering parcels within the 65 dB CNEL at this time, he inquired when the subcommittee would consider those parcels. Chair Tucker suspected the subcommittee would consider those sites if all other sites do not provide sufficient housing to comply with the RHNA allocation or if someone proposes a project on a parcel within the 65 dB CNEL. In reply to Chair Tucker's inquiry, Deputy Community Development Director Jim Campbell related that a policy in the Noise Element of the General Plan states parcels within the 65 dB CNEL are not appropriate for housing development. The Airport Land Use Commission would find housing development incompatible with the 65 dB CNEL. Chair Tucker reviewed the subcommittee's consideration of parcels 51, 72, 88, 71, 91, 122, 52, 138, 77, 68, 106, 121, 19, 33, 117, 116, 119, and 120. Adriana Fourcher remarked that the dB rating pertains to jet traffic. Noise studies are needed for small plane traffic because the departure pattern for small planes is over the parcels being considered for housing. Deputy Community Development Director Campbell advised that the noise contours are based on a composite of both runways and represent a 24-hour average of all aircraft traffic. Chair Tucker reviewed the subcommittee's consideration of parcels 66, 67, 83, 61, 62, 63, 76, 16, 105, 47, 31, 13, 99, and 104. The subcommittee omitted parcels 39 and 89, which are located partially within the 65 dB CNEL. Parcel 39 is small, and the building on parcel 89 has been refurbished. Therefore, parcel 39 is infeasible and parcel 89 is feasible. Committee Member Stevens expressed concern that airplane noise was last studied and the CNEL contours determined in 1985. Deputy Community Development Director Campbell indicated an update of CNEL maps is not on the horizon. Staff could discuss the topic with Airport Land Use Commission staff and provide a report to the HEUAC. Chair Tucker reviewed the subcommittee's consideration of parcels 4, 1, 5, 6, 2, 3, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13- 16, 17, 12, 37-42, 43-69, 70, and 71-76. Adriana Fourcher advised that helicopters from a helicopter school and the Orange County Sheriff's Office fly over the area and beneath the departure pattern for small planes. A noise study is needed. Chair Tucker reviewed the subcommittee's consideration of parcels 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 19, 20, 25-27, 31, 21-24, 28-30, 34-36, and 83. Adriana Fourcher noted many property owners oppose the residential project proposed for the parking lot of Koll Center Newport. Melanie Schlotterbeck, representing Olen Properties, indicated parcel 19 is an Olen Properties building and is not part of a residential project. The review of parcels focuses on site selection rather than the integration of sites with their surroundings. She questioned whether sites would be excluded if a property owner did not respond to a request for information. This is an opportunity for the City to partner with landowners and developers to enact a vision for the area. The focus on housing and not mixed uses is a lost opportunity to create a community. The Airport Area could Housing Element Update Advisory Committee Meeting October 21, 2020 Page 6 of 7 become a vibrant, walkable, bikeable, mixed-use, urban core that attracts a range of residents, incomes, and opportunities. She encouraged the HEUAC to create a vision for the Airport Area. f. Sites Rundown: West Newport-Mesa Recommended Action: Review the list of potential sites and discuss feasibility. Solicit input from the public on the list and the Committee's discussion. Committee Member Selich noted the West Newport Mesa area contains medical office uses, mobile home parks, various densities of residential uses, older single-story industrial/commercial buildings, and a series of institutional uses. The subcommittee has discussed the need to preserve opportunities for smaller-scale industrial and service businesses and recommends a zoning overlay concept as some but not all parcels may convert to residential uses. It is important not to convert everything to residential in order to have a well-balanced land use plan. He reviewed the subcommittee's consideration of parcel 56 (Newport Health Care); parcel 27 (Ebb Tide); parcels 62 and 64 (Road & Track Building); parcel 63 (Coastline College); the private school site north of parcel 50; the City Utilities Yard; the City General Services Yard; parcels 36, 116, 123, and 182 (four mobile home parks); the area bordered by Superior, 15th, and Monrovia; the area bordered by Hospital Road, Placentia, and Superior; and parcels 12, 41, 42, and 49. Commissioner Member Sandland suggested combining parcels 13 and 11 could result in a designation of potentially feasible. Perhaps staff could send a letter to the property owners inquiring about interest in building housing on the parcels. Committee Member Selich noted the demand for medical office buildings is high at the current time. Committee Member Kiley concurred with sending a letter as the owners can indicate no interest. Chair Tucker advised that parcels 14 and 44 will be designated infeasible and parcels 13 and 11 will be designated potentially feasible. Committee Member Selich reviewed the subcommittee's consideration of the small residential parcels between Dana and Flagship; parcels 3, 39, 48, 117, 124, and 228; parcels 74 and 122; parcels 24 and 40; parcels 17 and 51; parcels 2, 10, and 23; parcels 5-7, 9, 18-22, 26, 28, 29, 31- 34, 36, 37, 46, 47, 53, 55, 60, 61, and 227; parcels 4 and 16; and parcels 50 and 59. The HEUAC may wish to consider contacting Hoag Hospital regarding construction of workforce housing in the area. Deputy Community Development Director Campbell advised that the business located on parcel 47 has some air quality issues and has installed equipment to hopefully resolve the issues. Committee Member Stevens indicated the business has been reviewed for both ground and soil contamination. The cleanup requirements for industrial uses are different from the requirements for residential uses. The time and expense to clean up the site for residential uses may be prohibitive. An unidentified speaker appreciated the suggestion to contact Hoag Hospital. The small amount of land available for construction is dismaying. The Mayors' letter may be the best approach to seek a reduction in the RHNA allocation. Housing Element Update Advisory Committee Meeting October 21, 2020 Page 7 of 7 VI. COMMITTEE ANNOUNCEMENTS OR MATTERS WHICH MEMBERS WOULD LIKE PLACED ON A FUTURE AGENDA FOR DISCUSSION, ACTION OR REPORT (NON-DISCUSSION ITEM) Chair Tucker noted the subcommittee for housing sites in the remainder of Newport Beach will report at the next meeting. He requested a discussion of inclusionary zoning and fees. Committee Member Sandland requested a discussion of large employers that could support housing. VII. ADJOURNMENT – 8:53 p.m. Next Meeting: November 4, 2020, 6 p.m. in the City Council Chambers.