Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutIVa_Draft Minutes of August 14, 2024Attachment No. 1 Draft Minutes on August 14, 2024 Page 1 of 5 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE STEERING COMMITTEE MINUTES CENTRAL LIBRARY FRIENDS ROOM – 1000 AVOCADO AVENUE August 14, 2024 REGULAR MEETING – 5 p.m. I. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER – 5:00 p.m. II. WELCOME AND ROLL CALL Present: Chair Nancy Gardner, Committee Member Phillip Brown, and Committee Member Kimberly Carter Staff: Deputy Community Development Director Jaime Murrillo and Planning Manager Ben Zdeba III. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS - None IV. CURRENT BUSINESS a. Meeting Minutes of June 19, 2024 Motion made by Committee Member Carter and seconded by Committee Member Brown to approve the minutes of June 19, 2024, with edits by submitted by Jim Mosher, a member of the public. The motion carried unanimously 3-0. b. Implementation Plan Analysis and Technical Diagnostic Memo On July 29, 2024, the General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC) met and reviewed the Implementation Plan Analysis and Technical Diagnostic Memo prepared by Dudek. Attachments 2 and 3 included excerpts of the PowerPoint displayed at the GPAC meeting, the Implementation Plan Analysis, and the Technical Diagnostic Memo. While there was some feedback given primarily on the analysis in the Technical Diagnostic Memo for environmental justice, the GPAC received and filed the documents. Recommended Actions: 1- Provide any feedback on the GPAC’s efforts; and 2- Receive and file Attachments 2 and 3. No additional comments were shared by the General Plan Update Steering Committee (GPUSC). Jim Mosher noted a matter heard by the Zoning Administrator that relied on a policy in the General Plan that had been weakened over time to help support the recommendation for approval. Planning Manager Zdeba correlated it with the importance of keeping the General Plan’s implementation program meaningful. Susan DeSantis, a member of the public, relayed other cities that implement the General Plan daily, thought it should be the City’s intent to do the same, and agreed to forward more information on those cities to Chair Gardner. General Plan Update Steering Committee Meeting August 14, 2024 Page 2 of 5 In reply to Committee Member Brown’s question, Planning Manager Zdeba relayed that staff does not use the General Plan to govern all daily operations. He emphasized that it is primarily being used for land use decisions, planning, recreation and senior services; however, staff can explore using the General Plan differently as part of the General Plan Update process. Deputy Community Development Director Murillo stated that the Community Development Department is the most versed in the General Plan and is an expert for land use implementation, other departments such as Public Works also implement it, and the City Council receives a General Plan annual progress report to review implementation. Chair Gardner mentioned that the General Plan annual progress report is primarily focused on land use. She suggested that implementing an expanded review program could help address more areas and bring the City into better alignment with the General Plan. She proposed the topic be added to the agenda for discussion at a GPAC meeting. c. Phase One Outreach Summary On July 11, 2024, City staff provided the draft Phase One Outreach Summary to the GPAC Outreach Subcommittee prior to the design phase for awareness of findings and to ask if there are any key themes or big-picture items heard at an event that are not listed. The Phase One Outreach Summary was intended to be public-facing and reflect community feedback. If received and filed, it will be added to the resource library for reference throughout the process and will help to guide the effort into Phase Two. Several GPAC Outreach Subcommittee members responded and provided feedback. It was presented to the GPAC at the July 29, 2024, meeting. It was received and filed and has been posted online to provide interested community members with a recap of what has been heard so far. Attachment 4 included the Phase One Outreach Summary and an excerpt from the PowerPoint displayed at the GPAC meeting. Recommended Actions: 1- Provide any feedback on the GPAC and GPAC Subcommittee’s efforts; and 2- Receive and file Attachment 4. Chair Gardner asked staff to remind the consultants to communicate with City commissions or committees. In reply, Planning Manager Zdeba noted that this will be part of the Phase Two Outreach and included in the outreach governing document. There were no comments by the GPUSC or public. d. Noise Subcommittee Recap The GPAC Noise Subcommittee met on June 18, 2024, to receive updates on Dudek’s support for the Noise Element, review noise complaint data, and to determine next steps. The GPAC Noise Subcommittee also met on July 25, 2024, to primarily review Dudek’s Memo prepared by Senior Acoustician Dana Lodico evaluating the current Noise Element and identifying possible areas for improvement. Subcommittee Chair Mosher provided an overview of the Subcommittee’s discussions and actions at the July 29, 2024, GPAC meeting. Based on Dudek’s memo and the discussions at the Subcommittee meetings, Subcommittee Chair Mosher posed four questions to the GPAC for feedback: (1) Is updating the existing and forecasted noise contours useful?; (2) Would it also be useful to conduct a community noise survey?; (3) Are there new or additional noise sources anticipated in the future?; and (4) Would it be helpful to have a joint meeting of the GPAC Noise Subcommittee and the GPAC Safety Subcommittee on the topic of Advanced Air Mobility (e.g., air taxis and drone deliveries) to assess expected impacts? In summary, the GPAC supported questions 1, 2, and 4, and held a brief discussion about possible noise sources in response to number 3. Attachment 5 included a cover memo, action minutes from the Subcommittee meetings, the PowerPoint displayed at the July Subcommittee meeting, Dudek’s memo, and an excerpt from the PowerPoint displayed at the GPAC meeting. Recommended Actions: General Plan Update Steering Committee Meeting August 14, 2024 Page 3 of 5 1- Provide any feedback on the GPAC and GPAC Subcommittee’s efforts, including the request for additional work related to the Noise Element, and 2- Receive and file Attachment 5 to express concurrence with the GPAC’s actions. Chair Gardner announced that she will work with staff to coordinate the approach to the City Council regarding the request for additional work to the Noise Element. Planning Manager Zdeba offered to envision a cost estimate for the work. In reply to Committee Member Carter’s inquiry, Chair Gardner confirmed that the questions included will be addressed in the memo. There were no further comments, and the summary was considered, received, and filed by the GPUSC. e. GPAC Applicants to Fill Two Vacancies At the June 19, 2024, GPAC meeting, City staff announced the resignation of two GPAC members. The City Clerk’s Office promptly posted a Notice of Unscheduled Vacancies, which closed on July 15. There were seven applicants for the GPUSC’s consideration to recommend as GPAC members to the City Council for appointment. Recommended Actions: 1- Discuss each GPUSC member’s list of most-qualified and best suited candidates and, if appropriate, identify the two most-qualified applicants for recommendation to the City Council as an appointment to the GPAC, and 2- Consider identifying at least one applicant as a back-up recommendation. The GPUSC selected Janine Padia and Virginia Anders-Ellmore. Rita Goldberg was selected as a backup member. Dennis Baker, a member of the public, questioned disqualifying a candidate based on a past affiliation with the Picerne Group. In response to Jim Mosher’s comment, Chair Gardner announced that she will contact the GPAC members who have been absent to assess their participation or inform them that they will be replaced and suggested the City Clerk be responsible for the task in the future. f. Presentation: Overview of Upcoming Deliverables, Objectives, and Outreach City staff shared more information about current work, upcoming deliverables, and expected next steps. Planning Manager Zdeba noted that a draft Vision Statement is under review by staff and expected to be shared with the Vision Statement Subcommittee tomorrow and the full GPAC in September. Additionally, a draft Phase Two Outreach Plan is being reviewed and will be brought to the GPAC meeting in September and followed by the Phase Two General Plan Update development, including goals and policy exploration, community workshops, and vetting with Commissions and Committees. Chair Gardner encouraged continued momentum. In support, Planning Manager Zdeba stated he will work with the GPAC to create a schedule for the next five to six months. There were no further comments, and the summary was considered and received by the GPUSC. g. Open Discussion Regarding the Housing Element Given the recent progress of the Housing Element Implementation Program Amendments, this item provided an opportunity for the GPUSC to ask questions. General Plan Update Steering Committee Meeting August 14, 2024 Page 4 of 5 Chair Gardner expressed concern that the density bonus units are in addition to the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) count. In reply, Deputy Community Development Director Murillo clarified that density bonus units will count towards the RHNA, bonus units in re-zoning and development limits in focus areas are above and beyond development limit caps, and a confirmation letter is anticipated from the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). In reply to Committee Member Brown’s question, Planning Manager Zdeba stated that staff has not explored limiting the number of building permits in an area, thought that State housing laws would preclude a cap or moratorium on housing building permits, relayed how the Housing Element contemplates compliance with the RHNA allocation, clarified that the development limit is the number of total units for a focus area, noted that the City has to provide adequate demonstration of sites that have a propensity to redevelop as housing in the planning period with no responsibility for unit production, and clarified that the density bonus is included in the environmental impact report (EIR) project description from a programmatic perspective. Deputy Community Development Director Murillo stated that calculating a finite number of density bonus units is difficult because eligibility for density bonus is a range and it is speculative to determine the number of potential density bonus units that can evolve. He noted this can be acknowledged in the document to satisfy the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and answered questions from the GPUSC regarding density bonus eligibility and rules. In reply to Chair Gardner’s question, Planning Manager Zdeba stated that Coyote Canyon is in the City’s jurisdiction, and although it is owned by the County of Orange, the City would get the RHNA credit. In reply to Jim Mosher’s question, Deputy Community Development Director Murillo stated that lower income housing obligations would be satisfied, and the density bonus units would be classified as affordable in the case of a 100% affordable housing project. He noted that the typical project in Newport Beach has provided a small amount of on-site affordable units within the project by the developer and additional bonus units from the incentive are above moderate income. Jim Mosher relayed an instance in the City of Clovis that used overlays to meet the RHNA requirement, failed to develop housing, and rezoned properties to residential to force the development. Additionally, he did not think the goals set in the General Plan are plausible by the end of the planning period. Committee Member Brown noted that development is not guaranteed even by rezoning to residential. A member of the public noted her background in real estate development, offered to help on the GPAC, and relayed the impact on development from financing opportunities. In reply, Chair Gardner invited the speaker to attend the GPAC and Subcommittee meetings. In reply to Susan DeSantis’ inquiry, Planning Manager Zdeba provided an update on the City Council’s action to adopt to the Land Use Element, an amendment to the Housing Element submitted to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) and second reading of two ordinances, EIR certification by the Council, Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) override, and adopted resolution to amend the Land Use Element and initiate the Housing Element amendment. Furthermore, he noted public information resources and recommended signing up for eNotifications to be included in communication related to HCD. In reply to Committee Member Carter’s question, Planning Manager Zdeba relayed the Housing Element amendment to Section 3 and Section 4 changing the implementation process. General Plan Update Steering Committee Meeting August 14, 2024 Page 5 of 5 In reply to Jim Mosher’s inquiry about flexibility for how the RHNA requirement is met, Planning Manager Zdeba described some of the flexibility contemplated in terms of the composition of units produced through accessory dwelling units (ADUs) or across each focus area. V. COMMITTEE ANNOUNCEMENTS OR MATTERS WHICH MEMBERS WOULD LIKE PLACED ON A FUTURE AGENDA FOR DISCUSSION, ACTION OR REPORT (NON-DISCUSSION ITEM) None VI. ADJOURNMENT - With no further business, Chair Gardner adjourned the meeting at 5:59 p.m.