Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutGPAC_2003_06_23*NEW FILE* GPAC 2003 06 23 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE AGENDA June 23, 2003 7:00-9:00 p.m. Police Department Auditorium 870 Santa Barbara Drive 7:00 I. Call to Order 7:05 II. Approval of Minutes June 9, 2003 7:15 III. Discussion on the Draft Housing Element 8:45 IV. Public Comments �J DRAFT E 0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE Minutes of the General Plan Advisory Committee Meeting held on Monday, June 9, 2003, at the Police Department Auditorium. Members Present: Roger Alford Ernest Hatchell Patrick Bartolic Bob Hendrickson Carol Boice Tom Hyans Gus Chabre Mike Ishikawa John Corrough Kim Jansma Laura Dietz Mike Johnson Florence Felton Bill Kelly Nancy Gardner Lucille Kuehn Louise Greeley Phillip Lugar Members Absent: Phillip Bettencourt Todd Knipp Karlene Bradley Donald Krotee Grace Dove Ed Siebel Alex Kakavas Jackie Sukiasian Staff Present: Patricia Temple, Planning Director Patrick Alford, Senior Planner Tamara Campbell, Senior Planner Shirley Oborny, Administrative Assistant Members of the Public Present: John Allen Dennis Baker Carol Hoffman Everette Phillips James Quigg Dean Reinemann Tom Wolff Marie Marston Catherine O'Hara Carl Ossipoff Charles Remley Larry Root James Schmiesing Jan Vandersloot Ron Yeo I. Call to Order • Ms. Gardner called the meeting to order. II. Approval of Minutes The minutes of the May 12, 2003, meeting were approved. III. Discussion of Draft LCP Land Use Plan and Subcommittee Report Patrick Alford, Senior Planner, presented an overview of the draft LCP using a PowerPoint Presentation (presentation attached). Ms. Dietz asked whether EQAC would also be commenting on the document. Mr. Alford said they have formed a subcommittee to review it. Mr. Johnson asked how unhappy the locals in Malibu were with the settlement. Mr. Alford said property owners groups, private developers, the City and environmental groups all lobbied for different aspects of the LCP. They had to adopt it by September 15, 2002, so they were rushed. They had completed their land use plan and the implementation plan at that point. Our risks aren't great but if the plans we submit are repeatedly rejected by the Coastal Commission, then we could run that risk. • Mr. Hendrickson asked what key areas the Coastal Commission might object to. Mr. Alford said he'd have a better understanding after receiving comments from their staff by the end of the month. When they reviewed our current land use plan they pointed out deficiencies in some of the environmental protection policies, water quality, and policies relating to the operation of the harbor. Ms. Jansma said a big issue in Malibu was beach access near private dwellings and had read about that being an issue here at Cameo Shores. Mr. Alford responded that there might be some isolated areas that have access issues but Newport Beach is one of the more successful cities of the coast. Ms. O'Hara asked when the implementation of the policies would take affect. Mr. Alford explained a lot would depend on the comments from the Coastal Commission. Ms. Dietz asked what percentage of Newport Beach meets the public access criteria. Mr. Alford said it would be fairly high, as a general rule of wanting to have vertical access for every 200 feet; we come close to that on the Peninsula already. Overall, the public access requirement is more than met. Ms. Hoffman asked what process will be utilized to reconcile comments received • from various groups and/or individuals prior to any changes that may be resubmitted to the Coastal Commission. The LCP Certification Committee will 2 review the comments and it will be up to them to reconcile any conflicts from the • various reviewing bodies and public comments. There will be additional opportunity for public comment at the hearings at the Planning Commission, the City Council and before the Coastal Commission itself. Ms. O'Hara asked whether the format of this document would be changed to a similar format to the General Plan after it's adopted for ease of use. Mr. Alford responded that it doesn't have to be and it may be something to consider. Mr. Saunders asked whether the subject of flexibility has been addressed. The Coastal Commission tends to approve something and then it becomes engraved in stone. Is there anyway to build flexibility or would we need to go back to the Coastal Commission if we want to change something? Mr. Alford said we have tried to set the groundwork for that issue in this document. Regarding the implementing actions of the zoning section of the LCP, Ms. Hoffman asked whether the intent is to take just the different zoning designations and include them as sections within the implementing actions and then insure that the existing zoning implements the policies in the LCP portion. Mr. Alford said that this is something we are still formulating an approach on. • Mr. Vandersloot commented that the Coastal Zone boundary is kind of arbitrary because sometime it's less than 1,000 yards from the shoreline. Mr. Alford said the boundary was established by the State legislature and only they can change it. GPAC LCP Subcommittee Report Ms. Gardner reviewed the Subcommittee's Report and invited comments from the full GPAC. Committee members discussed the following areas of the LCP (any recommendations agreed upon by the full committee are noted): ❖ Page 2-4 Special Planning Area 1 (Banning Ranch) — the group wanted to recommend additional language be added in this section to point out the potential environmental resources and recreational value of the area ❖ Page 2-33, Policy 2.7.3-6 — the group agreed with the Subcommittee's recommendation to change "structures" to "methods" ❖ Page 2-54, Policy 2.8.3-9 ❖ Page 2-48, Policy 2.8.1-4 ❖ Page 2-22, Policy 2.4.1-3 — the group discussed the phrase "Maintain the Marine & Recreational Designation" and recommended leaving the language as is ❖ Page 3-6, Policy 3.1.1.-5 Page 3-7, 3.1.1-8 • ❖ Page 3-7 Policy 3 1 1-11. and 3.1.1-12 3 Page 3-21, Policy 3.1.8-1 • Pape 4-13 ❖ Pape 4-2, Policy 4.1.2 ❖ Page 4-33, Policy 4.2.1-5 d• Pages 4-29, Policy 4.1.3 Eelgrass — the group agreed to amend the language in the first paragraph to: "Loss of eelgrass as a result of coastal development is considered to be a significant environmental impact, and any potentially impact to this resource must be avoided or minimized (delete `or compensated for') under the provisions of the Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy." ❖ Page 4-37, Policy 4.2.3-1 — the group agreed that they want to strengthen the language regarding the coastal bluff preservation to ensure adequate setback to avoid erosion taking up public access IV. Public Comments No further comments offered. • • • Local Coastal Program Certification Coastal Act • Passed by the Legislature In 1976 • Established a permanent, statewide California Coastal Commission (CCC) • 12 voting members —four each appointed by the Governor, Senate Rules Committee, and Speaker of the Assembly isAL NORM 1 � _ LEGEND__1 J N Warrnpan•,•now,aq � 0 45 F? mt. Proposition 20 • Approved by voters in1972 • Established temporary state and regional commissions • Permit required for developmentwilhin 1000 yards of mean high tide line • Prepared statewide plan for coastal protection Goals of the Coastal Act • Protect, maintain and enhance natural and artificial coastal resources • Balance utilizallon and conservation of coastal resources • Maximize public access and recreational opportunities • Priority for coastal•dependenU-relateddevelopment Local Coastal Programs • Coastal Act policies are primarily Implemented through the preparation of Local Coastal Plans (LCPs) • Each local government is required to prepare a LCP for that portion of the Coastal Zone within its jurisdiction • LCPs must be certified by the CCC • LCPs consist of a Land Use Plan and a Implementation Plan 1 n U • • Coastal Land Use Plan 'Land use plan' means the relevant portion of a local governments general plan, or local coastal element which are sulficiendy detailed to indicate the kinds, location, and Intensity of land uses, the applicable resource protection and development policies and, where necessary, a listing of Implementing actions. Coastal Act Section 30108.5 The land use plan portion of the Newport Beach's LCP was first certified by the CCC in 1982. However, the Implementation plan was never prepared CCC Retained Permit Jurisdiction • Submerged lands (lands below MLT line) • Tidelands (lands located between MHT and MLT lines) • Other public trust lands (histonctidelands that are presently filled or reclaimed— Newport Dunes, Balboa Bay Club, Beacon Bay, Marina Park, etc.) Implementation Plan ...zoning ordinances, zoning district maps, and within sensitive coastal resources areas, other Implementing actions, which, when taken together, meet the requirements of, and implement the provisions and policies of, [the Coastal Act] at the local level. Coastal Act Section 30108.6 After Certification • Coastal development permit authority Is delegated to the local government • CCC retains original pennitlurisdiction over certain specified lands (public trust lands, such as tidelands) • CCC serves as an appellate authonty over development approved by local government In specified geographic areas CCC Appeal Area • Lands between the sea and the designated first public road paralleling the sea • 300 feet from inland extent of any beach or of the Mean High Tide Line, whichever is greater • 100 feet of streams and wetlands • 300 feet of top of seaward face of coastal bluffs 2 • • Why certify the LCP now? • Mandated by SB 516 (Newport Coast Annexation) • Must submit LCP by June 30, 2003 • Shorttenn: late fee of $1,000 per month • Long term: CCC could impose LCP (Malibu) Public Access/Recreation Vertical access "At Horizontal access 1 "'W alufltop access Vessel launching Support facilities Impediments CLUP Land Use Land Use Designations • No land use changes are proposed • Current land Use Element dwelling unit and FAR limits translated into new land use designations • CLUP Map depicts location, type, densltyMtensity of land uses in the Coastal Zone Land Use and Development Visileo-serving Recreational Coastal -dependent Coastal -related t;.. Hazards Transportation Protection of Coastal Resources Sensitive habitats Scenic and visual qualities tandforms Historic Waterquality Dredging Land Use cmw]m•xovnxroertL]smcu.,wal Element Statistical Area Table mma `"`°� rrgwve ]�„° �."'"., ]�",•., L wvww n n a a b I IM44M IY 101 8 8 a ] sn.aa]o�ys a -0 a suvo a,sso sawn ♦ f,n4VM M) a -0 a wJY nPs af>t L I,mem]YM sm sm -0 a a a L C„ �M(vv 8 8 -0 Y.Yt IMyb ftOY ] Pmm]Yy Y tl 1 a -0 L Mrml,Ye+ M T 31 a -0 f 1Mfw Y Y -0 4 -0 a Ia we,h sY m s a -0 -0 IL Ymrm]w� a a b 4>ss saw] I,No m]u tan t•t] n sAm auw uzu] hN✓ wM Z.o ss 3 C • CLUP Map Detail What's Next • LCPCC review of comments from CCC staff, EDC, GPAC, Harbor Commission • Local public hearings (Planning Commission & Council) • Formal application to the CCC • CCC hearings • Adoption of CCC revisions -? GPAC's Role • Form a consensus onCLUPpolicies • Submit comments and recommendations to LCPCC • Continue General Plan update • LCP will be amended as needed after certification to reflect updated General Plan policies (CCC approval required) M •: • New core Planned developments on Jamboree Road could lead to a modern downtown in Irvine. — Proposed downtown area saxProposed CenterLine route .._.. � .� . .... li ... .'?ti..,`/•.v'^+�+:.:`�'+;fir. ^%.^.'b"V�. s t`4 .\!1im-PTim PR Cfn ff rP.1]nit.S Los Angeles "L'imes First Irvine, Now Comes Its Downtown The city that helped define suburbia has plans to create its urban core, including mass tj[vansit; stores and high;rise housing. ByDA-xrar.Yr, „ 71=3 4ff lv`ifer . s Imagirie -a verdantJpark-sur rgirniibd by high-rise apartment: Vaditigs; round-the-clock rail and ba service, people walking to work or strolling to grocery stores, restaurants, movie thea- tArs. Chicago? Boston? New York? How about Irvine? k The Orange County city that helped define modern suburbia In the next several years, de- opers expect to build more m 4,000 apartments and con- mfnfus, including two or trem18-story residential build- s, on a 2-mile stretch of Jam- ree Road straddling the San ego Freeway, where much of 'lire's commercial develop- Dosa Devctopment Corp. THE PLAN: Bosa Development Corp. is starting apartment towers this summer near what's planned as the city's new core. ment already has occurred. Withhomeswill come super- markets, entertainment venues and shuttle services to ferry resi- dents along Jamboree, city offi- cials say. They hope that many of those who work in the area will also choose to live and play in this new downtown. It is a harbinger of future de- velopment in Orange County and the rest of Southern Califor- nia, urban planners and develop- ers say. As rising home prices force people farther and farther afield, the region's jammed freeways are expected to only get worse. One solution, planners say, is to keep downtown workers from leaving once they punch out from theirjobs. From Los Angeles f o San Di- ego, cities have, encouraged more downtown housing in re- cent years, either through con- struction or renovation of com- mercial buildings,, The ventures seek to transform; -downtown business districts into urban cores where people can live and entertain themselves as well as work — a radical shift in Southern California, where for decades developers have put the three in separate zones. That shift is now underscored with Irvine, a young city with no definable downtown, poised to create one from scratch based on a mixed-usemddel, planners and developers say. "If you look at Paris, Rome, New York, Chicago, they work because they have mixed use," • said Donna Alm, a vice president of the Centre City Development Corp., a public nonprofit organi- zation charged with San Diego's downtown redevelopment over the last 30 years. It's easier to create a mix of urban uses from the ground up than to try it with an existing downtown, she said. "Irvine is doing the rightthingbyplanning it from the start." - - Irvine, long seen as emblem- atic of Orange County's�subur- ban south, is now taking on the traits of the more urban north. "That is the future as Orange County grows out of its subur- ban adolescence into urban ma- turity," said Scott Bollens, pro- fessor of planning, policy and design at UC Irvine. "This could create some sense of place, a sense of centrality in Irvine that the city has lacked in the past." That future does not sit well with everybody. "If you want a downtown ex- perience you can move to San Francisco or downtown Los An- geles," said former Irvine Coun- cilman Greg Smith. "The city of Irvine was originally conceived as a master -planned suburban community. People who live here have spent their hard-earned [See Irvine, Page B12j Irvine Has High -Rise Ambitions;. City, Makes Plans to Create a Downtown [Irvine, fromPage BIl money to buy homes on that as- sumption.... They came here to escape the city." . 'Irvine's mayor and longtime proponent of a downtown forthe city, which incorporated In 1971, disagrees. Founders' Vision "The early visionaries of Ir- vine didn't think of it as a subur- ban utopia," said Larry Agrdn. "They thought of a planned city with a blend of high -density and low -density housing." The new downtown will not destroy the city's master - planned flavor, he said. "I think of Irvine' as an evolved modern city that incorporates the best features of city and suburban life," About half of the housing in the 47-square-mile city of 160,000 is single-family homes; the rest is' a blend of high -end townhomes, condominiums and apartments. •That proportion could change drastically in the next few years. The more than 4,000 multi -family residential units planned along Jamboree Road more than double the number of homes originally zoned for the business district. The homes are destined for land previously planned for busi- ness use and will not dramati- cally change traffic in the area, cityoflicials say. . The new residential projects are approved on a case -by -case basis. The area is now a collection of corporate headquarters and shoppineplazas with a smatter- ingof apartments. 0 CenterLine Election Irvine voters go* to the polls from 7 am. to 8 p.m. today to decide whether the city should be part of the county's proposed Center - Line light -rail project. A yes vote on Measure A approves an alignment from UC Irvine to the Irvine Business Complex to John Wayne Airport. A yes vote on Measure B would prohibit the city from any participation in Center - Line. For information on poll- ing places, contact the city clerk's office at (949) 724- 6205. On the western end of the road close to UCI, several viDa- style, low -profile apartment complexes have been completed recently with others ready to hit the market soon. Just a block east, however, is where the most drastic changes are planned. Construction is set to begin next month on twin 18-storyresi- dential towers at the intersec- tion of Jamboree Road*and Mi- chelson Drive, next to the San Diego Freeway. Bosa Develop- ment Corp., a Canadian com- pany, expects the 240 condomin- iums to be priced between $500,000 and $1.5 million. On a 42-acre lot across the street, another developer plans to build an equally tall apart- ment building, plus townhomes, offices and stores around a rec- reational park. In total, the proj- New core Planned developments on Jamboree Road could lead to a modern downtown in Irvine. — Proposed downtown area Proposed CenterLine route Source: TYmes sfggmports Loa A"Oelea Time, ect, still being planned, would add 1,740 homes, 220,000 square feet of office space and 21,400 square feet of retail stores. "We are calling it Central Park," said Thn Strader Jr., president of Irvine -based Star- pointe Ventures, a development and consultingfirm representing the land's owner, Highgate Holdings. "This is the right place and the right use." It is also a more profitable use. With the market for office space declining, developers are now hoping to cash in on the hot housingmarket. + But downtown Irvine is far from a done deal. To create a vi- brant, pedestrian-frlendly oasis In the middle of suburbia, the city needs a mass-transporta- i tion system that will bring -shop- pers and workers to the area and ; take local residents to airports, services and jobs elsewhere. + t CenterLine Seen as Key A key component is the pro- posed Orange County Center - Line, a 11.4-mile light rail system; thatwould cross Jamboree Road, and include stops at John Wayne i Airport, the Santa Ana train sta* tion and South Coast Plaza'in+ Costa Mesa. ; But critics of the line say it would be a waste of money and do little to solve the region's traf- fic problems. Irvine voters will decide today whether to allow; CenterLine to go through their city. If they vote it down, it could spell the end of the controversial ; project. ' Agrari said that with Center - Line, downtown Irvine would be "more accelerated and far more successful," but that even with- out it the concept could flourish with a good bus system. He envisions a Southern Cali- fornia of small, relatively self- contained downtowns surround- ed by traditional suburban de- velopments and interlocked by mass transit. "It may sound farfetched now," he said, "but I don't think in flve,10 years people will be' surprised to learn that there are people living in Irvine who don't own an automobile." CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH • CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE TO: General Plan Advisory Committee FROM: Sharon Wood, Assistant City Managerx"u) DATE: June 18, 2003 SUBJECT: Draft Housing Element Background: California's Planning and Zoning Law requires cities to update general plan housing elements every five years. In addition to having an update requirement, housing is the only general plan element for which the State has developed a set of guidelines and the only element that is required to be certified by the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) as complying with the law. Without such certification, a city could be vulnerable to litigation challenging the adequacy of its entire general plan. • There are three significant requirements that must be met to attain HCD certification: Identify Housing Needs. This includes analyzing special housing needs, such as for senior citizens or the homeless and, most important, including objectives for new housing construction that include the city's "fair share" of regional housing need as identified in the Southern California Regional Housing Needs Analysis (RHNA). Inventory Land Suitable for Residential Development. The State requires that housing elements identify sufficient sites to accommodate the housing units identified in the RHNA. Housing Plan. The element must include goals, policies and programs for the five-year planning period, which will facilitate the City achieving its housing objectives. The Planning Commission held a study session on the first draft of the revised Housing Element in June 2001. Since then, the City's planning staff has worked with HCD staff to gain certification of our Housing Element. In response to HCD comments, staff had to revise the element to include additional information and analysis. HCD was especially interested in information on sites that could accommodate Newport Beach's share of the regional housing need. It was only • after a visit to Newport Beach by three HCD staff members, during which we showed them the sites identified in our element, and the density and good condition of our existing housing stock, that HCD concluded that the City had • identified all feasible sites for new housing construction. Finally, on May 8, 2003 the City received a letter from HCD indicating that the latest draft met the statutory requirements and that compliance had been obtained. A copy of the letter is attached. There are several conditions that HCD is attaching to the City's "certified" status. One is that the City play a proactive role in ensuring that build -out of the Bayview Landing project will provide a minimum of 120 housing units affordable to lower -income households. Another condition is that the City rezone the Avocado/MacArthur site to a designation that will allow development of 56 multi -family units within one year of certification of the Housing Element. The last condition is that the City commit to providing, the necessary development incentives that will encourage and facilitate the development of affordable housing on the Banning Ranch site. The City will be required to report its progress to HCD by October 1 of each year. It is important to note that substantial changes to the element at this point will require resubmittal to HCD for further review and could impact the City's certified status. Analysis: Housing Needs • The Housing Needs section includes the RHNA numbers for Newport Beach, which are the City's housing development goals for the 1998-2005 time period. (The goals are retrospective due to a hiatus in State funding of the RHNA program.) Newport Beach's overall goal is 1,421 new housing units, with approximately 25% of these units for very low (86), low (148) and moderate (83) income households. These numbers include Newport Coast's RHNA of 95 low- income, 850 above -moderate units. In addition to acknowledging these goals, the Housing Needs subsection makes reference to the "special needs" population most in need of affordable housing, senior citizens. This sets the stage for the Inventory of Land Suitable for Residential Development subsection and Housing Plan sections that follow. • Inventory of Land Suitable for Residential Development One of the State's strongest requirements for housing elements is to identify sufficient sites to accommodate the housing units identified in the RHNA. As a community that is nearly built out, this is a challenge for Newport Beach. Nonetheless, three sites have been identified that, together, could accommodate 582 housing units. With a density bonus of 25%, a total of 727 units could be developed. Banning Ranch is shown to accommodate 406 dwelling units while the Avocado -MacArthur site is shown to accommodate 56 units. Bayview 2 Landing is identified as being able to accommodate 120 dwelling units (150 with • a density bonus). The City recently approved Bayview Landing for 150 low-income senior housing units. The project is now before the Coastal Commission where issues pertaining to wetlands and landform alteration have been raised. The City is pursuing approval of the project. The potential for redevelopment or "infill" is greater than for new development, with 1,100 housing units possible. As the few remaining vacant sites in the City are developed, infill potential will become more important in the future. It will be essential for the General Plan Advisory Committee to consider implications to the potential for future housing development when conducting the General Plan Update. A recent amendment to housing element law provides that a city may not reduce, require or permit the reduction of residential density from what was used by HCD in certifying the housing element, without making certain findings. The findings include that the remaining sites identified in the housing element are adequate to accommodate the city's share of regional housing need, or RHNA. If the remaining sites are not adequate, the city must identify additional, adequate and available sites. Housing Plan • In preparing this Housing Element update, staff built on the five-year plan in the existing element. Most of the changes to this section were made to eliminate redundancies, delete outdated material and rewrite and/or reorganize items to improve clarity. Newport Beach's most important housing program is under Policy 2.2, an inclusionaryprogram that requires developers of new market -rate housing to also provide affordable housing. The existing element has a fairly complicated sliding scale with specific requirements for the percent of affordable units in a project and the duration of the affordability covenant, depending on the size of the project, the type and amount of government assistance, the level of affordability, and whether the project is for renters or owners. Staff has found this approach confusing, making it difficult for a developer to understand the City's requirements and for City staff to implement the program. The draft element retains and focuses on the concepts of the existing element, while simplifying them and applying them equitably to all housing projects. Another significant change to the plan is Program 2.2.1's introduction of an option to contribute a fee in lieu of providing affordable housing for projects with fewer than 50 units. This formalizes a practice the City has followed for some recent developments (One Ford Road, Sailhouse, and Cannery Lofts), and • establishes a standard for the size of project that must or may use this option. 3 • This standard will limit the number of in -lieu fees paid and therefore the City's responsibility to produce affordable housing units, as well as relieve the City of inefficient monitoring of small numbers of affordable units. GPAC's Role: As explained in this memorandum, the City has already invested a lot of time and effort in the Housing Element update, which has resulted in certification by HCD. Staff would prefer not to make substantive changes to the Housing Element, so that the City can maintain its certified status. It is important for GPAC to understand the State's requirements for housing elements, how Newport Beach is meeting those requirements with the current update, and how those requirements will impact the overall General Plan update. If, during the course of its General Plan update work, GPAC determines that the Housing Element should be changed, amendments can be made along with the General Plan update or as part of the next required Housing Element update in 2005. In 05/eB/2003 14:35 9163272643 HPD PAGE 02/04 DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND 0 Division of Housing Policy Development ISM TMrd Smrt SWtc 430 P. 0. Boa 952053 . Sammanlo, CA 94252.20S3 a+H0,td m ro, (916) 32]•]175 /PAX; 321•2643 May 8, 2003 Ms. Patricia Temple, Planning Director City of Newport Beach Newport Beach City Hall 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92663-3884 Dear Ms. Temple: RE: Review of the City of Newport Beach's Revised Draft Housing Element Thank you for submitting revisions to Newport Beach's housing element, received for our review on April 1, 2003. In accordance with Government Code Section 65585(b), the Department of Housing and Community Development (Department) is required to review draft housing elements and report our findings to the locality. A November 13, 2002 visit to Newport Beach, along with a series of telephone conversations with Ms. Tamara Campbell, Senior Planner, helped facilitate the review. . We are pleased to find the revised draft clement addresses the statutory requirements raised in the Department's August 17, 2001 letter. The element now reflects stronger commitment on the City's part to facilitate the development of housing affordable to lower -income households. For example, the City will now play a proactive role in ensuring that buildout of the Bayview Landing project will provide a minimum of 120 housing units affordable to lower -income households (Program 3.2.2), Further, Program 3.2.3 commits the City to initiating, a rezone of the 3.5-acre Avocado/MacArthur site to a designation that will allow development of 56 multifamily units. This rezone will be initiated within one year of certification of the housing element. Our finding of compliance is conditioned on the effective and timely implementation of multifamily development and rezone strategies (Programs 3.2.2 and 3.2.3), along with the City's commitment to provide the necessary development incentives that will encourage and facilitate the development of housing affordable to. lower income households on the Banning Ranch site. This 45.2-acre sitelis zoned P-C (Planned Community) and can theoretically be developed at densities significantly less those described in calculating the potential unit capacity (i.e, 406 multifamily family units as described on page 41 of the element). While wd acknowledge that development of the entire site is not necessary for the City to accommodate its RHNA for the 2000-2005 planning period, .it is critical that Newport Beach take the appropriate actions to ensure that a sufficient portion of the site (that is not subject to identified permit processing constraints as desctibed in the element) is designated at densities that will encourage and facilitate development for lower -income households (commensurate with its remaining need of 58 units). Using its general plan implementation progress report, required • pursuant to Government Code Section 65400, Newport Beach should report on actual buildout yields, including acreage, density, and affordability within Banning Ranch. The aforementioned statute requires the housing implementation component of the progress report to be submitted to this Department by October 1 of each year. 05/08/2003 14:35 9163272643 HPD PAGE 03/04 Ms. Patricia Temple, Planning Director • Page 2 If by November 2004, such reporting determines development has not proceeded with densities sufficient to accommodate housing affordable for lower -income households the element would no longer identify adequate sites and require amendment. The City would need to amend the element to identify alternative sites with minimum densities of no less than 26 dwelling units per acre (consistent with the Bayview Landing project), or otherwise demonstrate the adequacy of its site strategy. Newport Beach's housing element now reflects a stronger commitment to meet the housing needs of its lower -income residents through a variety of development strategies and programs. Effective implementation of these strategies will assist Newport Beach in overcoming the development challenges and obstacles that face many coastal communities in Orange County. The element will be in compliance with State law when. adopted (with all revisions) and submitted to this Department for review pursuant to Government Code Section 65585(g). We appreciate the insight Ms. Campbell provided during the course of our review, and look forward to receiving Newport Beach's adopted housing element. If you have any additional questions, please contact Don Thomas, of our staff, at (916) 445-5854. We are also pleased to report, as a result of the passage of Proposition 46, a historic increase in funds available, on a competitive basis, through the Department to assist in addressing housing and community development needs. Information on these programs, including Notices of Funding Availability (NOFA), will be posted on the Department's website. For program information and funding availability, please consult our homepage at www.hcd.ca.¢ov. In accordance with requests pursuant to the Public Records Act, we are forwarding copies of this letter to the persons and organizations listed below. Sincerely, 6�W4 Cat4E.011 Dep cc: Tamara Campbell, Senior Planner, City of Newport Beach Mark Slivers, Senate Committee on Housing & Community Development Suzanne Ambrose, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, AG's Office Terry Roberts, Governor's Office of Planning and Research Nick Cammarota, California Building Industry Association Marcia Salkin, California Association of Realtors Marc Brown, California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation • _ Rob Weiner, California Coalition for Rural Housing John Douglas, AICP, Civic Solutions 05/08/2003 14:35 9163272643 HPD PAGE 04/04 .w is C� J 4) Ms. Patricia Temple, Planning Director Page 3 Deanna Kitamura, Western Center on Law and Poverty S. Lynn Martinez, Western Center on Law and Poverty Alexander Abbe, Law Firm o(Riebards, Watson & Gershon Michael G. Colantuono, Colantuono, Levin & Rozell, APC Uene J. Jacobs, California Rural Legal Assistance, Inc. Ralph Kennedy, Orange County Housing Coalition Crystal Simms, Legal Aid Society of Orange County Jean Forbath, Orange County Human Relations Kenneth W. Babcock, Public Law Center EIlen Winterbottom, Attorney at Law Jonatban Lehrer-Graiwer, Attorney at Law Dara Schur, Protection & Advocacy, loc. Greg Spiegel, Western Center on Law and Poverty David Boober, California Housing Council Ana Marie Whitaker, California State University Pomona Veronica Tam, Cotton, Bridges and Associates Lynne Fishel, Building Industry Association Joe Carreras, Southern California Association of Governments Scott Darrell, Kennedy Commission Dara Kovel, Mercy Charities — Housing California Janet Falk, Mercy Housing California Maya Dunne, St. Joseph Health System Mark A. Gordon, Public Law Center Christine Diemer Iger, Manatt, Phelps & Phillips Won Chang, Attorney at .Law, Davis and Company Jacob Lieb, Southern California Association of Govemments Karen Warner, Karen Warner Associates John Douglas, AICP, Civic Solutions GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE Monday, June 23, 2003 Roger Alford Patrick Bartolic ." Phillip Bettencourt Carol Boice Karlene Bradley Gus Chabre F�-bj John Corrough Laura Dietz A Grace Dove Florence Felton Ab5k�t- Nancy Gardner • Louise Greeley Ernie Hatchell kb6o - Bob Hendrickson Tom Hyans Mike Ishikawa Kim Jansma Mike Johnson Alex Kakavas k6w,, Bill Kelly Todd Knipp pb6Av'- Donald Krotee Lucille Kuehn k,500f" Philip Lugar Marie Marston • Catherine O'Hara 11 Carl Ossipoff • Charles Remley Larry Root John Saunders Pb6w�- James Schmiesing Ed Siebel k64v, - Jackie Sukiasian A66&�- Jan Vandersloot Jennifer Wesoloski A�*k Ron Yeo Pj6wd-- 0 • 2 .— 1% GENERAL PLAN ADOSORY COMMITTEE Monday, June 23, 2003 PUBLIC SIGN -IN NAME ADDRESS/PHONE E-MAIL ADDRESS fqIpit) &&�_ GENERAL PLAN AASORY COMMITTEE Monday, June 23, 2003 PUBLIC SIGN -IN NAME ADDRESS/PHONE E-MAIL ADDRESS r� u CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE Minutes of the General Plan Advisory Committee Meeting held on Monday, June 23, 2003, at the Police Department Auditorium. Members Present: Roger Alford Louise Greeley Phillip Lugar Phillip Bettencourt Tom Hyans Marie Marston Carol Boice Mike Ishikawa Catherine O'Hara Karlene Bradley Kim Jansma Charles Remley John Corrough Mike Johnson Larry Root Grace Dove Bill Kelly James Schmiesing Nancy Gardner Donald Krotee Jan Vandersloot Members Absent: Patrick Bartolic Bob Hendrickson John Saunders Gus Chabre Alex Kakavas Ed Siebel Laura Dietz Todd Knipp Jackie Sukiasian Florence Felton Lucille Kuehn Jennifer Wesoloski Ernest Hatchell Carl Ossipoff Ron Yeo Staff Present: Sharon Wood, Assistant City Manager Patricia Temple, Planning Director Tamara Campbell, Senior Planner Woodie Tescher, EIP Consultant Debbie Lektorich, Executive Assistant Members of the Public Present: Allan Beek I. Call to Order Phillip Lugar called the meeting to order. II. Approval of Minutes • Mr. Lugar pointed out a correction to the minutes on Page 2, under III, last line in the fourth paragraph; the word "successful" should be changed to "accessible". The minutes of the June 9th meeting were approved with this correction. III. Discussion of the Draft Housing Element Tamara Campbell reviewed a Power Point presentation outlining the laws and requirements of Housing Elements. The presentation is attached. During and after the presentation the following questions were raised. Nancy Gardner asked about the RHNA numbers and if other considerations (such as land availability) were taken into account before assigning them. Patty Temple explained that land availability and cost have no impact on the allocation. Jan Vandersloot asked if it had to be open land or if we could incorporate existing apartments. Ms. Temple explained that RHNA numbers must be met with construction of new units; however it does not have to be on vacant sites, rezoning is an option. Sharon Wood added that the RHNA numbers include all income levels, so they are not just low income units. The City focuses on the low income units because it is difficult to meet that need. Charles Remley asked if rezoning was restricted to industrial/commercial areas or if housing areas could • be rezoned also. Ms. Temple said all areas could potentially be looked at. Tom Hyans asked for more explanation on how employment affects the RHNA numbers. Ms. Temple indicated the State's goal is to provide housing for everyone who lives and works here, if a city has a lot of growth projection in jobs then the city will be expected to provide housing for those people. Ms. Gardner asked about the penalties if a city did not meet the goals. Ms. Temple indicated litigation and possible loss of building permit authority. Woodie Tescher added that legislation is pending which would add substantial financial' penalties to communities that don't meet the needs. • John Corrough pointed out that it is important to get the State housing people to visit and see the landscape in the area to show them some areas on maps are not suitable for building. Ms. Temple indicated that we did have HCD visit and tour our City. Mr. Remley asked what would happen if our RHNA numbers were reduced, would some other area be increased? Ms. Wood indicated that if Orange County numbers were reduced, the numbers would be increased in another county, such as Riverside County. Mr. Vandersloot asked if this need for housing is taken into account by Council when looking at a jobs rich development like Newport Center and requiring the developer to add affordable housing in the area. Ms. Wood 2 indicated that it is an accepted practice to place the responsibility for affordable • housing on residential developers instead of the commercial developers. In the case of Newport Center, the major residential developer in the area is also the developer of Newport Center so The Irvine Company was required to provide affordable units due to the residential building they were providing. Mr. Hyans asked if this policy had been affective in Newport Beach. Ms. Wood said yes it had been. Don Krotee asked if GPAC could suggest a policy requiring commercial developers to provide affordable housing. Ms. Wood said that would be possible and she had heard of in -lieu fees paid by commercial developers. Her preference would be to discuss this further during the General Plan Update process. Mr. Tescher indicated he would do some research and report back on what other communities have done. Mr. Hyans asked if there were any affordable housing units currently in the City because he had not noticed any. Ms. Wood indicated that was the plan; the units don't look any different, the rents are just lower. Ms. Campbell indicated there was a table in the Housing Element with the locations of the affordable units (page 15). Ms. Wood added there is a problem with some of the current units because covenants are expiring. Mr. Lugar asked about what happens after the covenant expires. Ms. Wood indicated that when updating the housing element all of this information is analyzed and the numbers end up reappearing in our RHNA numbers eventually. Kim Jansma asked about the resale price on • affordable units. Ms. Temple indicated that most of the City's units are rentals, however with the few "for sale" units we have, there are covenants restricting their resale price as well as requiring the purchaser to be income qualified. Ms. Gardner asked if there is anything that helps teachers and/or City employees live here? Ms. Temple indicated that most City employees and teachers would fall into the moderate income which would be 80-120% of the County median income for a family of four. Ms. Wood indicated she just did a rental survey looking at market -rate rents for two bedroom units and most would meet the standard for moderate income households. Our focus, with the programs we are developing, is for units affordable to low and very low income households. Mr. Hyans asked about the amount of assistance government is required to provide to create these units. For example, the hotels create jobs and revenue for the City, however if the money is then going out toward affordable housing, the City is not seeing benefit from the business. Ms. Wood pointed out that the money used to help with the Lower Bayview project is not General Fund or tax dollars, the fund is entirely money paid by developers of market -rate housing. Ms. Gardner asked if Banning Ranch is identified as a future site for affordable housing and then the City buys the property, can the units be shifted to another • location. Ms. Wood said yes, however we would have to find a site large enough 0 to accommodate the same number of units. Mr. Vandersloot pointed out that • the airport area had been discussed by this committee as an area that might work for affordable units. Ms. Wood added that during the General Plan Update process we could look at that area. Mr. Lugar asked if we had 5 years to build the units listed in this element. Ms. Wood explained we only have until 2005. Mr. Lugar asked if we have to build out all 1,400 units by then. Ms. Wood stated that more than half of the units are above market -rate units and the ongoing development of Newport Coast would take care of most of those. In addition, if the Lower Bayview project is successful there will be another 150 units and if we can do another project and/or use in -lieu funds to extend affordability on some existing units we would show a lot of progress. Mr. Corrough asked about Pages 46-48, which indicate many of the pre-1950's areas of the City are designated as "Residential Infill Sites". Ms. Temple indicated the analysis is intended to show areas where current zoning would allow additional housing capability which would show the State we can meet our housing needs. Bill Kelly asked if the opposite is actually true where multi -family lots are being rezoned to R-2. Ms. Temple explained that we haven't done a lot of rezoning. Some adjustments were made after the 1988 General Plan Update to correct districts zoned R-3 but where the lot size only allowed one unit. Catherine O'Hara asked how the City could convince developers to extend the • covenants on affordable units. Ms. Wood indicated the City would pay them for the extension. Mr. Remley asked if that money would be from the in -lieu funds. He felt the money should be used to get additional units built. Ms. Wood pointed out that we would do some analysis to see if it made sense before we did it. Mr. Vandersloot asked if the City had considered a program used by Huntington Beach where a developer could purchase an apartment house away from the new development and use it for the affordable units. Ms. Temple said our program could accommodate that concept. However Ms. Wood stated it would have some disadvantages because it would not be considered a new unit and would not count toward our RHNA. Ms. Gardner asked about Newport Coast and if that area counted toward the County's numbers or the City's. Ms. Wood indicated the RHNA numbers covering that area are incorporated into our housing element. Ms. O'Hara asked if there were any policies requiring developers of office or commercial buildings to contribute to housing requirements. Ms. Wood said there was nothing in place; however she would be open to talk about it. 0 Mr. Corrough asked about government programs to encourage developers to • build below market housing. Ms. Wood indicated there is not as much money as there used to be, however money and programs are available. Louise Greeley asked if the in -lieu fees affected RHNA numbers. Ms. Wood explained that the number is only reduced when a unit is built. The in -lieu fees make sense on the smaller developments where under 10 units of affordable housing would be provided. Ms. Greeley asked if mixed -use areas would be apropriate for affordable housing. Ms. Temple said yes, and indicated that the 289 Street Marina was an example. Mr. Lugar asked how the City monitors the affordability. Ms. Temple answered that we send out annual questionnaires which are required to be completed and returned with documentation. Carol Boice asked if the in -lieu funds from One Ford Road were still available. Ms. Wood said we had all of those funds plus money collected from two other developers. Ms. Boice also asked how long the City can retain the funds. Ms. Wood didn't think there was a time limitation. Mr. Kelly asked how the in -lieu fee was calculated. Ms. Wood stated it has not been a formalized program and staff is still working on that along with an economist who specializes in affordable housing issues. Mr. Kelly asked if the City could force developers to build affordable housing instead of taking the in -lieu fees. Ms. Wood stated that if that were the case it would increase the monitoring burden on us and by • allowing in -lieu fees for the smaller developments it gives the City funds to use as incentives to larger affordable housing projects. Ms. Jansma asked if the One Ford Road development didn't want affordable units included because it would reduce the value of their project. Ms. Temple indicated she did not work on the project, however said the decision was made by the City Council to accept the in - lieu fees. Mr. Hyans asked if the City would consider rezoning areas where there are buildings not being used (PacBell building on the Peninsula) to allow for housing. Ms. Wood said that kind of idea is what we need to talk about during the General Plan Update, so we've got a more realistic list of sites for the next update of the Housing Element. Ms. Temple added that she and Ms. Wood had talked to 40 or 50 different groups regarding housing on Superior when the property was available but no one was interested in developing housing there. Mr. Johnson asked about trailer parks and if it was the most efficient way to use the land. Ms. Wood indicated she had referred people to the owners of the properties on Coast Highway however they have not met with success. Also, there is a whole body of State law surrounding the closure of a mobile home park. 5 Mr. Lugar asked if we could add a requirement for residency in affordable units. • Ms. Wood indicated we cannot do that, the only criteria that can be used is income. Ms. Gardner asked why we are focusing on a senior housing project if we are not supposed to give bonuses for people who live here and are we sure that seniors are in need of affordable housing. Ms. Wood indicated that seniors are one of the defined special needs groups in the State housing law and the census data backs up the fact that we have a large number of seniors that are at low and very low income levels and are overpaying for their housing. Mr. Hyans pointed out that it seems like the terminology "Senior Housing" and "Affordable Housing" are interchangeable in the document. Ms. Wood indicated that was not the intent and she would look into it. Once we get the Lower Bayview project done we will be focusing on a family project, which is also the message from HCD. Mr. Lugar asked about the in -lieu fees paid by the Cannery Lofts project. Ms. Temple pointed out that the project was designed as individual lots, each building will house one commercial and one residential unit, so in -lieu fees seemed to make sense with this project. Ms. Wood added that because this development is in the coastal zone, we had the developer do an economic feasibility study which showed affordable housing was not feasible because of the very high property value. Ms. Boice asked about the Domingo Drive apartments and whether the affordability will be extended beyond 2005. Ms. Wood indicated that unless the owner agrees to extend it, the covenant expires and the City has no authority to force its continuance. Ms. Gardner asked about Page 52 where it refers to buildings higher than three stories. Ms. Wood indicated the point we were making is that for Newport Beach higher density, which often means going up, doesn't necessarily make for greater affordability like it does in other communities. Mr. Johnson asked if the word was out about the Lower Bayview project or if it was being quietly marketed locally. Ms. Wood explained that the word was probably out and by law you can't restrict those units to people who already live here, although the developer has indicated they will focus marketing efforts in Newport Beach to draw the greatest pool of applicants from this area. Ms. Jansma asked if the view would be blocked with the Lower Bayview project. Ms. Wood pointed out that the housing project and view park would be done simultaneously and the view will actually improve after the projects are complete. 0 0 0 Ms. Boice asked about Appendix 2, and wanted to know why the Assistance League of Newport -Mesa was not listed. Ms. Wood said we didn't know about it and asked Ms. Boice to provide some information to Tamara so it can be added. Ms. Greeley asked for a revision of the zoning for Banning Ranch, she feels it is out of date. Ms. Wood said this was a little premature at this time. Banning Ranch will be discussed during the upcoming studies, as well as when we get into alternative land use scenarios. Ms. Temple pointed out that language recommended by GPAC is being forwarded to the LCP Committee regarding Banning Ranch. Phillip Bettencourt asked to go on record that he would not be a participant in any action this Committee may take on the Banning Ranch due to his professional relationships. IV. Public Comments Allan Beek stated he thought the focus is wrongly being placed on supplying housing instead of population control. He feels a requirement for the affordable housing units should be employment in Newport Beach instead of only income level. iA