Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutIV(c), IV(d)_Additional Materials Received_TannerAugust 7, 2022 Diane Dixon, Chair City of Newport Beach General Plan Steering Committee Subjects: General Comments on the August 8, 2022 Agenda items Chair Dixon, I wish to thank the Committee members for their service to our community. Like the city of Newport, many local governments are having difficulties complying with their 6th Cycle Housing Element RHNA allocations. However, the challenges the city is facing to comply with the 6th Cycle Housing Element RHNA allocation are unprecedented and unique. I offer the following general comments to help the Steering Committee steer the General Plan Update process to obtain Housing and Community Development (HCD), City Council and ultimately, voter approval. 1.First - Assemble a team of general plan update and CEQA experts (in addition to the city’s existing experts/consultants) to re-evaluate/refine the city’s strategy. These experts should work with the city’s experts to identify what alternative strategies exist, if any and their likelihood of achieving the desired outcome. Below are a few of the important factors to be considered in re-evaluating/refining the city strategy: a.The experts should include ones that have successfully received 6th Cycle Housing Element HCD approvals (recommend contacting the County of LA and City of LA (and/or their consultants)). b.Unlike other local governments, the City of Newport Beach General Plan Update Project must also be approved by the voters to become effective. The strategy employed must weigh the likelihood of approval. c.What are the realistic consequences to the city if the city fails to obtain HCD approval? What will HCD do if numerous cities fail to achieve timely Housing Element approvals? d.The likelihood of the city meeting its RHNA housing objectives during the planning period should be considered along with the ramifications to the city if the city fails to meet its objectives. 2.Second - Clearly define the Project. This is required for the updated service agreement with KHA (Attachment 2 to the Committee Agenda) and for the RFP soliciting additional General Plan Element update services (Attachment 3 to the Committee Agenda), not to mention the benefits of having an informed public. Attachments 2 and 3 are intentionally vague which has led to additional public confusion as to what the Project is and how the General Plan Element Updates and Municipal Code amendments are related. This confusion has existed since the city received its RHNA allocation in 2019. At that time, the city believed the Housing Element Update could be processed independently; it would be exempt from CEQA; and not meet the City Charter requirement for voter approval. This belief is invalid as pointed out by HCD in written comments to the city. a.The Banning Ranch is identified as a “primary area of opportunity’ in the June 2022 draft Housing Element Update. If the Banning Ranch is no longer a prime area of opportunity, where will the units previously earmarked for the Banning Ranch be distributed? The June 2022 draft Housing Element Update and the language in Attachments 2 & 3 are inconsistent with regard to the Banning Ranch. b.The Housing Element Update is part of the Project (Project Description). The Housing Element has not been approved by HCD. Therefore, the Project Description is incomplete and subject to change. General Plan Update Steering Committee - August 8, 2022 Item No. IV(c), IV(d) - Additional Materials Received Draft Revised Scope of Work for Kimley-Horn & Associates Draft Request for Proposal for the General Plan Update c. The Housing Element Update is linked to the Land Use Element, other General Plan Element Updates and Municipal Code/zoning amendments required to implement the Housing Element Update. Below is but one of a number of examples in Attachments 2 & 3 which link the draft Housing Element Update to the other General Plan Element Updates and Municipal Code amendments. “The update of the Land Use Element will be primarily driven by the need to implement the Housing Element to provide appropriate zoning for housing development for the Housing Opportunity Sites identified within the Housing Element within this three-year timeframe.” (Source: Attachment 2) Note: The June 2022 Housing Element Update text describing the relationship between the Housing Element Update to the other General Plan Element Updates and Municipal Code amendments is grossly inconsistent with the statements in Attachments 2 & 3 and yet the public is told to rely upon the June 2022 Housing Element Update. d. Since the Land Use Element Update is linked to the Housing Element Update and the Land Use Element Update is subject to CEQA, the Housing Element Update is subject to CEQA. If this is the case, State law prohibits the City Council from approving the Housing Element Update without first certifying a CEQA document for the Project. At best, what the City Council previously approved was a preliminary draft Housing Element Update intended to obtain HCD approval. Unfortunately, HCD determined the draft Housing Element Update was deficient and continues to be deficient to this date, despite the city’s best efforts. This should be clarified in Attachments 2 & 3 and to the public. e. According to Attachment 3 (see excerpt below) a General Plan Advisory Committee (Advisory Committee), is expected to be seated in late 2022 or early 2023. The Advisory Committee will be tasked with evaluating current goals and policies for change in a public forum to involve the community. Therefore, the Project Description will remain undefined/subject to change for some time. As a result, the “Scope of Services section purposefully lacks a lot of specificity on desired changes”. What the city is soliciting with this RFP is the retention of a consultant(s) based on qualifications indicating that the project details will be provided later in 2022 or 2023. Without being provided a precise project description in the RFP, the cost estimates received in the proposals will be approximate and subject to change (potentially significant increases). These facts should be made clear to the public. “The Steering Committee will provide recommendations on the formation of a General Plan Advisory Committee (Advisory Committee), which is expected to be seated in late 2022 or early 2023. The Advisory Committee will be tasked with evaluating current goals and policies for change in a public forum to involve the community. As such, the Scope of Services section purposefully lacks a lot of specificity on desired changes, as those will largely be identified by the Advisory Committee and the community as part of the outreach process.” f. A clearly defined Project is necessary to demonstrate internal consistency between the General Plan Elements and Municipal Code/zoning, and provides the basis for analysis of the Project’s environmental (CEQA) analysis. g. The term “May” is used repeatedly in Attachment 3 and should be defined. Why? The term “May” is non-committal. If all of the non-committal statements were removed from attachments 2 & 3 one would see the city has very little actual steps/programs it is committing to at this time. h. The definition of “Project” contained in Attachment 3 (see excerpt below) is incorrect and needs to be revised to be consistent the June 2022 draft Housing Element Update and the RFP’s Scope of Work. General Plan Update Steering Committee - August 8, 2022 Item No. IV(c), IV(d) - Additional Materials Received Draft Revised Scope of Work for Kimley-Horn & Associates Draft Request for Proposal for the General Plan Update ““Project”: Working closely with the City and Steering Committee on executing a comprehensive community outreach program while working to review and prepare required and desired updates to the General Plan.” 3. Third - Clarify the scope of the CEQA document. This is required for the updated service agreement with KHA (Attachment 2) and the RFP (Attachment 3), not to mention the benefits of having an informed public. Without a clearly defined Project Description CEQA impact analysis should not proceed. It is clear from the above statement that a complete project description containing the project details necessary for analysis will not be available until later in 2022 or 2023. While not discussed in Attachments 2 or 3, the CEQA document should discuss the existing physical and regulatory setting/conditions. Therefore, existing Housing legislation, incentives and concessions adopted following the 5th cycle Housing Element update should be discussed as part of the existing setting. The effect of the legislation, incentives and concessions on the existing environment over the project timeframe should be identified. This information should serve as the baseline upon which Project impact analysis occurs (project impacts are in addition to this baseline). This discussion should also be included in the Housing Element Update and other General Plan Element Updates as appropriate. The use of assumptions within the June 2022 Draft Housing Element Update should be justified. CEQA defines a “project” as an activity that (1) is a discretionary action by a governmental agency and (2) will either have a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect impact on the environment. Section 15378 of the CEQA Guidelines provides the following definition of a project: (a) “Project” means the whole of an action, which has a potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. In this case, the “Project” for CEQA analysis includes all of the proposed General Plan Element Updates and proposed changes to the Municipal Code/zoning. Attachment 3 provides confusing and mixed signals about the scope of the CEQA analysis. Attachment 3 is inconsistent with the June 2022 Housing Element Update text. The CEQA scope should not be limited to the Housing Element and Land Use Element Update as stated in Attachment 2 below. “Task 9 from the executed agreement is hereby incorporated by reference and will satisfy the appropriate California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements related to updating the Land Use Element and implementation through rezonings. The Project Description will be revised to include any new nonresidential components that are identified through the Land Use Element review, including the Market Assessment and Fiscal Analysis.” 4. Fourth – Clarify the planning process between the Housing Element Update and the CEQA analysis. a. Will the Update General Plan Elements and Municipal Code amendments be completed prior to CEQA review and analysis, or will the analysis occur concurrently? Note: The Project’s proposed changes define the CEQA Project Description. If the planning and CEQA process are done concurrently, this will allow for CEQA review of the planning policies, objectives and implementing measures and allow for modification to the Project/project description as potentially significant environmental impacts are identified and mitigated through project modifications. Having some information about the Project’s potentially significant environmental impacts during the planning process represents significant information which will help the Steering Committee, the to be formed General Plan Advisory Committee and the public provide guidance to the city. General Plan Update Steering Committee - August 8, 2022 Item No. IV(c), IV(d) - Additional Materials Received Draft Revised Scope of Work for Kimley-Horn & Associates Draft Request for Proposal for the General Plan Update 5. Fifth – re-initiate public involvement. a. I strongly recommend and support additional public workshops. Having a public meeting where staff provides a progress report and the public is given 3 minutes each to respond to what they have just heard is not adequate public outreach. Public outreach is critical to obtaining required voter approval. b. Public engagement should not be limited to “Public review and comment on the draft amendments” (see excerpt from Attachment 2 below). The public needs to be involved in the initial decision-making processes to ensure their input is incorporated to guide the city’s decision making, and to increase the probability of voter approval. “Meaningful public engagement is important in this update process; Public review and comment on the draft amendments will be encouraged through a series of public workshops and General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC) meetings. Kimley-Horn & Associates (KHA) will also attend and provide support at General Plan Update Steering Committee (GPUSC) meetings and monthly GPAC meetings.” Note: In the statement above, there is no General Plan Advisory Committee in existence at this time. A new General Plan Advisory Committee is anticipated to be formed later in 2022 or 2023. c. Public Workshops should be held to obtain public input on the proposal to remove the prohibition on residential dwellings within the 65-70 dBA Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) area. (See quote from Attachment 2 below). “To support new housing opportunities in the Airport Area, the Noise Element needs to be updated to remove the prohibition on residential within the 65-70 dBA Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) area. KHA will provide recommendations on possible design considerations in higher noise areas including design standard” The precedent this action will set by permitting existing and future residential uses within 65-70 dBA CNEL noise areas must be fully evaluated. The public needs to understand why this is a good idea! i. The workshops should provide a clear explanation of future long-term liabilities from aircraft related accidents, health risks associated with air quality and exposure to unburnt aviation fuels within these areas. ii. Input from the County of Orange, operator of the John Wayne Airport to this proposed change should be presented to the public prior to any decision to move forward with this proposal. 1. Will the County see this proposal as a constraint to potential for future expansion? 2. Will the County see this proposal as a constraint to the airport’s emergency takeoff and landing flight paths? iii. Will this proposal increase risk to the city of a CEQA challenge/litigation? iv. Will this proposal require Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) approval(s)? If yes, what is the likelihood of obtaining ALUC approval(s)? v. Will the added review time and additional costs dissuade housing developers, and particularly affordable housing developers, from developing housing in this area? vi. The likelihood of obtaining HCD approval of this proposal, particularly if this area is proposed to contain a higher-than-average level of affordable housing. vii. Alternatives to locating RHNA housing in high noise areas or areas subject to contaminates should be discussed. 6. Sixth – Provide the public the opportunity to comment on the updated service agreement with KHA (Attachment 2) and the RFP (Attachment 3). Do not release the RFP on August 12, 2022 as stated in the Tentative RFP Schedule (page 5). General Plan Update Steering Committee - August 8, 2022 Item No. IV(c), IV(d) - Additional Materials Received Draft Revised Scope of Work for Kimley-Horn & Associates Draft Request for Proposal for the General Plan Update a. All attachments to the agenda are labeled “Draft” or “for informational purposes only”. Attachments 2 and 3 are full of errors and omissions. Attachments 2 & 3 are grossly inconsistent with language in the June 2022 draft Housing Element Update. Attachments 2 & 3 should contain: i. A detailed Project Description (see Comment #2) ii. An expanded Scope of Work for the CEQA document (see Comment #3) iii. Unclear vague language must be clarified and the public must be given the opportunity to comment. These clarifications should be incorporated into the Project Description. For example: The intentionally unclear and vague statements below are from Attachment 2 and are part of the Project’s Description. “The Land Use Element must support this flexibility and must also set a maximum amount of residential density that is consistent with Section 4 (Housing Plan) and Appendix B (Adequate Sites Analysis) of the 6th Cycle Housing Element.” “With residential overlays, or other zoning strategies, there must be a maximum amount of residential density that is consistent with Section 4 (Housing Plan) and Appendix B (Adequate Sites Analysis) of the 6th Cycle Housing Element. As touched upon in Task 3.2, the City may direct and adopt future zoning strategies that are more or less than the identified targets in this Housing Element provided the total unmet RHNA need by income category is accommodated.” “to reflect additional nonresidential growth to support the new housing units.” “Also, as part of the development of the zoning overlays, there needs to be an allowance for residential supporting commercial and services where there may not exist any today. As an example, in the Industrial (IG) District of the West Newport Area, nonresidential uses are somewhat limited; the historic purpose and intent has been to provide an area for light manufacturing and industrial users. Over time, this area has shown a propensity to transition away from industrial towards more trendy nonresidential uses, including creative offices, coffee roasters, winery tasting rooms, and fitness facilities.” 1. What is the “maximum amount of residential density that is consistent with Section 4 (Housing Plan) and Appendix B (Adequate Sites Analysis) of the 6th Cycle Housing Element.”? 2. How much “additional nonresidential growth to support the new housing units” will be proposed, where will it be located and what will be its composition? 3. What are the densities/descriptions of the Project alternatives to be considered? These ae critical questions must be answered to establish the Project parameters. Initially the city told the public that growth will be limited to the RHNA allocation (4,845 du). Then the city told the public in order to meet RHNA’s affordability requirements the total number of housing units required will be closer to 9,600 du (based on an arbitrary assumption that 40% of all future housing developments will be affordable). The June 2022 Draft Housing Element indicates the density will not include density bonus units. Density bonus units and other legislative housing incentives and concessions to achieve housing and particularly, affordable housing will have a direct impact on the environment and quality of life within the city, and should not be ignored. Now the public is seeing statements from the city indicating a much larger housing number including “additional nonresidential growth to support the new housing units”. It is clear, at this time the city is proceeding without having a well-defined project description and acknowledge they have intentionally prepared Draft Attachments 2 and 3 with vague non-descript language. The existing state of the June 2022 draft Housing Element Update should not be overlooked by the Steering Committee. General Plan Update Steering Committee - August 8, 2022 Item No. IV(c), IV(d) - Additional Materials Received Draft Revised Scope of Work for Kimley-Horn & Associates Draft Request for Proposal for the General Plan Update The inconsistencies between the June 2022 draft Housing Element Update and Attachments 2 & 3 should not be ignored by the Steering Committee. The Steering Committee needs to work with staff and the public to address the unprecedented and unique challenges faced by the city to meet the city’s RHNA allocation and to help strike a balance between the city and the public moving forward. A balance based on the desired compliance strategy to obtain the required HCD, City Council approvals; and the will of the public to obtain their required approval pursuant to City Charter, Section 423. Thank you for considering my recommendations. Should you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Dave Tanner 223 62nd Street Newport Beach, CA 92663 dave@earsi.com General Plan Update Steering Committee - August 8, 2022 Item No. IV(c), IV(d) - Additional Materials Received Draft Revised Scope of Work for Kimley-Horn & Associates Draft Request for Proposal for the General Plan Update