Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01 - Minutes - AmendedCity of Newport Beach Study Session and Regular Meeting June 8, 2021 June 22, 2021 Agenda Item No. 1 some flexibility, the buffer allows flexibility without the units actually being built, and perhaps in the end the buffer means there is less of a mandate for the number of low-income housing or other units to be built. In response to Council Member Brenner's questions, Community Development Director Jurjis reiterated that the 15% in the inclusionary ordinance is staffs interim number while Council figures out the permanent number, the City is obligated to determine an interim number in six months and a permanent number in three years, staff will follow Council's direction for scheduling a discussion of the number, the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) has to accept the buffer, the goal is to provide a compliant Housing Element, in the past the Banning Ranch Conservancy was not receptive to any type of housing opportunity, staff is exploring a way for existing ADUs to comply with code requirements and count toward the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA), and an ADU can be improved to comply with code requirements, but it is expensive. In response to Mayor Pro Tem Muldoon's questions, Community Development Director Jurjis reported that Option 1 is the Council's direction from the prior itudy Session, if development of Coyote Canyon did not supply the proposed units, it would util all buffer units and force the City to find and rezone opportunity sites in six months, ad n the Airport Area can be increased to provide a hybrid of Options 1 and 22. Council Member O'Neill clarified his earlier c mments rWing a hybrid of Options 1 and 2 resulting in some areas, particularly the Airport Area and Newport Center, absorbing more units. Community Development Director Jurjis agreed that reducing the number of affordable units in Coyote Canyon means the numberunits has to increase elsewhere. In response to Council Member Dixon's questions, staff reported the challenge is identifying parcels that have the potential to build to these levels and further, no one is preventing a developer from proposing a 100% affordable housing project, the buffer is needed for projects that provide less than the pr sed number of affordable housing units, this is a plan that provides the maximum op ity at all income levels, there may not be an opportunity for trading between parcels e parcel represents has to be listed in a document, the numbers are not fungible by district, the City has to provide the opportunity to develop to the RHNA number, and the inclusionary ordinance will drive the level of affordability. Staff stated that HCD was skeptical of the proposal for 1,000 ADUs and wanted a robust set of policies and incentives to achieve that goal; therefore, the next Housing Element draft will include additional incentives and programs for ADUs. Council Member Dixon supported Council Member Brenner's suggestion to legalize existing ADUs and listing 1, 000 ADUs in the Housing Element. In response to Council Member Duffield's questions, Community Development Director Jurjis advised that affordability is based on a family of four and the average income for the County, the Areaverage Median Income (AMI) for Orange County is approximately $100,000, very -low income is $50,000, moderate income is $100,000, the table lists housing units by affordability, the City has to plan for and make available housing units for people making $50,000 per year, the City has to plan for 617 housing units in the Airport Area, a significant number of housing units are also planned for Newport Center, Coyote Canyon, and Banning Ranch, and where to put the housing units is a challenge. Council Member Duffield took issue that it appears that the Airport Area is the dumping zone for most of the units and staff is putting it all in one place rather than spreading the units throughout the City. In response to Council Member Blom's questions, Community Development Director Jurjis related that HCD is not just going to approve the draft Housing Element but is obligated to provide feedback, the initial plan will not be accepted, and the intent is to have as few corrections to the plan as possible. Council Member Blom stated the initial draft is a baseline to begin negotiations, Coyote Canyon and Banning Ranch lacks infrastructure, going beyond 15% in the inclusionary ordinance is a concern because it could lead to looking for 100% affordable housing Volume 65 - Page 59 City of Newport Beach Study Session and Regular Meeting June 8, 2021 IV. Council Member Duffield expressed the opinion that very -low-income and low-income projects will be built in the Airport Area because developers specialize in affordable housing, the 600 units will reduce property values in the Airport Area, this has to be spread throughout the City to reduce the impact on surrounding properties, and dumping affordable housing in his district is not a solution. Council Member Brenner supported the suggestion to delay submitting the draft Housing Element, indicated her struggle with choosing between Options 2 and 3, recalled affordable housing developers' comments regarding low-income tenants and housing, and noted Council's need for additional discussions. Council Member Dixon suggested the solution is a 60/40 mix of market -rate and affordable housing, the number for the Airport Area can be reached by adjusting the percentage with a few more hundred market -rate units, and stated that staff adjusted the Airport Area number so that market -rate units subsidize affordable units. She supported, listing ADUs at 1,500 units, scheduling a Council discussion relative to the inclusionary*dinance sooner rather than later, and delaying submission of the draft Housing Element. Mayor Pro Tem Muldoon noted the buffer benefits the City r an the State and does not have to be incredibly high and a potential solution for the i t ea is a mix of 60% above - moderate units and 40% affordable units. Charles Klobe directed and encouraged Council o consiO.Vome version of Option 3 because it has the highest buffer in each area and suggested that ADUs spread the pain around the City PUBLIC COMMENTS Avery Counts, Constituent Services ] that Supervisor Foley advocated for during the budget discussion and ins Council Member Blom recused P Orange County 2nd District Supervisor Foley, reported assist with homelessness efforts and the environment Beach residents to attend upcoming events. Item IV.B due to real property interest conflicts. City Attorney Harp ieported thatIre City Council would adjourn to Closed Session to discuss the items listed in the Close W ion agenda and read the titles. CLOSED SESSION - Council Chambers Conference Room A. CONFERENCE WIX LABOR NEGOTIATORS (Government Code § 54957.6) Agency Designated Representatives: Grace K. Leung, City Manager, Carol Jacobs, Assistant City Manager, Barbara Salvini, Human Resources Director, and Charles Sakai, Esq., Negotiators. Employee Organizations: Association of Newport Beach Ocean Lifeguards (ANBOL) and Newport Beach Police Association (NBPA). B. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS (Government Code § 54956.8): 1 Matter Properties: 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA 92663 and 475 32nd St, Newport Beach, CA 92663. Agency Negotiators: Seimone Jurjis, Community Development Director. Negotiating Parties: Robert D. Olson, President of Olson Real Estate Group, Inc. the Manager of Lido House, LLC, a California limited liability company. Volume 65 - Page 61 City of Newport Beach Study Session and Regular Meeting June 8, 2021 Finance Director Catlett utilized a presentation to review key budget messages, proposed budget revisions, revised General Fund (GF) sources and uses, position classifications and salary ranges, the proposed budget amendment, and Finance Committee and staff recommendations. In response to Council Member Brenner's questions, staff reported the previous Council discussion added $112,000 to the budget for additional trash receptacles, portering service, additional cleaning and trash pickups in the evening; staff will continue to accommodate needs as they arise; pressure washing is a focus; complaints are taken seriously and responded to; staff is working to stabilize resources; and complaints about dirty sidewalks shouldbe reported to the Public Works Department at 949-644-3311. Council Member Blom commended staffs preparation of the budget and the Finance Committee's detailed review, and indicated balancing the budget is always important, with a budget of approximately $300 million, $32,000 is not a variancet, many cuts have been proposed to balance the budget, residents and visitors demand a certain level of service, Council wants to provide as many services as possible, but bigger projects and Capital Improvement Program projects have to take priority, business owners are responsible for cleaning side alks, staffing levels have not decreased due to a hiring freeze, public safety has done a great job somewhat limited resources, Council has looked at bringing dollars back into the City in ord unexpected needs, and every problem does not start and stop at the dais. QW Council Member Dixon noted the challenge of finding funds fo nexpected needs, utilized slides to demonstrate dirty sidewalks and trash, stated that business o ers are not going to clean sidewalks daily, the Public Works budget needs a line item to keep the community clean, the state of the community is embarrassing, requested a line it m to increase the budget for power washing because the current schedule is not sufficient, and h�e the City Manager could find a creative way to keep sidewalks clean. Council Member Duffield was not awee of another city that is inundated with 250,000 to 300,000 people on a regular basis through the summer and related that visitors do not spend a lot of money in the City to help pay for s 3i egular cleaning is expensive and often cost prohibitive, the City purchases machinery to rem rash from sand on the beaches, finding money to pay for these things is tough, these problems are not new, taxing businesses to pay for problems created by visitors is difficult, and staff is doing a good job in trying to address these issues. Council Member O'Neill reed the 2020 Finance Committee discussions of a regular budget and one month later having to regroup and reduce expenses, and advised that staff were not furloughed and continued to prove services, revenues are healthier than the prior year but still below normal levels, costs will increase due to new programs and requirements, continued investments in capital improvements will make the City second to none, property values are rising because people want to move to Newport Beach, Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) revenue will rebound, the City will continue to support the hospitality industry and the business community, slightly less than 30% of the GF supports public safety, and continuing to pay down the pension liability matters to the long- term health of the City. He thanked the Finance Committee, staff, and Council Members for all their efforts in developing a balanced budget. Council Member Brenner stated that expressing concern regarding the solving of additional problems does not diminish Council's appreciation for how hard staff and the Finance Committee work. Council Member Dixon indicated sidewalks are a small part of the overall well-managed community, and comments about sidewalks do not diminish the excellent work performed by City staff. Council Member Muldoon opposed the proposed full-time positions. Volume 65 - Page 71