Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSS03 - General Plan Housing ElementFLEW PpRr O O ��(,fOPx�Y CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT 3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658 (714) 644 -3200; FAX (714) 644 -3250 Agenda Item No.: 3 Staff Person: REPORT TO THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: Update of General Plan Housing Element SUGGESTED ACTION: Discussion and Direction to Staff BACKGROUND ,1 Study Session Christy Teague (949) 644 -3207 The City Council discussed the update of the General Plan Housing Element at the Study Session held April 26, 1999. The City Council directed staff to work with The Irvine Company, and return to City Council with options for providing affordable housing. For a more thorough discussion of the Housing Element process, the Circulation Improvement and Open Space Agreement ( CIOSA), and Ford Agreement, the April 26, 1999 staff report is attached for your reference, as are the Study Session minutes. The Planning Department is preparing the State required Housing Element update due June 30, 2000. The Housing Element is intended to be a planning tool to assure housing needs for all incomes can be met in the City according to the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA). The Housing Element must include RHNA goals and programs to help meet housing needs for all income levels. The need to update the Housing Element and meet RHNA goals, the increasing demand for affordable housing units for seniors and families, plus the outstanding obligations from the CIOSA and Ford agreements indicate the urgency for City attention to housing issues. Because of its reputation as a high cost city, Newport Beach needs to be prudent about addressing the challenge of affordable housing provision. Housing advocates periodically call the City to check on the status of the Housing Element and housing issues. AFFORDABLE HOUSING REQUIREMENTS The Orange County Council of Governments has distributed the County RHNA numbers prepared by SCAG among cities in the County. The numbers have been distributed based on household growth, vacancy need, and replacement need. These numbers are housing units recommended to be • produced during the planning period of January 1, 1998 to June 30, 2005. The latest RHNA numbers for Newport Beach are summarized below. The complete list for Orange County is attached. Income levels are based on the County median household income annually determined by HUD. The current median income for Orange County is $68,300. -1- VERY LOW INCOME (0 -50% median) 0- $34,150 86 LOW INCOME (50 -80 %) $34,150- $54,640 53 MODERATE INCOME (80 -120 %) $54,640- $81,960 83 ABOVE MODERATE TOTAL INCOME UNITS (120 % +) $81,960+ 254 456 Staff expects that the above moderate income units will be provided by the development community in response to market demand. However, the 139 very low and low income units will probably not be produced by the market alone, and the 83 moderate income units may require assistance. The following summary comparing outstanding developer commitments and RHNA numbers shows that most of the City's affordable housing need for this planning period can be provided, if the City enforces the CIOSA requirements and uses the Ford in -lieu fees. CIOSA Units (based on 20% of 861 units) 172 CIOSA Units (based on 15% of 861 units) 129 Ford Development Units (based on 15% of 404 units) 61 Total Required by CIOSA and Ford (172 +61)/(129 +61) 233/190 RHNA Very Low and Low Income Units Needed (86 + 53) 139 RHNA Moderate Income Units Needed 83 Total Very Low, Low and Moderate Income Units Needed (86 +53 +83) 222 While Newport Beach may not have a short-term issue with affordable housing, the City has lost many affordable housing units in recent years as various affordable housing agreements have expired, and the Housing Element update must include this analysis. In addition, we can expect additional needs for affordable housing in the future, as another RHNA process will occur for the next planning cycle from 2005 to 2010. Affordable housing goals will become increasingly difficult to meet as remaining parcels of land in Newport Beach are developed and land costs continue to be high. The Housing Element should include programs to prepare for future needs, and the provision of affordable housing should be a consideration for development projects on the sites remaining in Newport Beach. Affordable housing assistance could come from in -lieu fees from market rate developments or future CDBG funds. Programs also could include density bonuses, fee waivers or fast - tracking programs, which are existing in the Housing Element today. 9 11 • Page 2 The remainder of this report discusses possible sites for affordable housing, which could be used to satisfy the CIOSA requirement, in conjunction with in -lieu fees, or to improve the City's affordable housing position in the future. POSSIBLE AFFORDABLE HOUSING SITES Bayview Landing The Irvine Company recently expressed interest in constructing senior affordable housing on this site. They have suggested that the requirement be 15% of the CIOSA market rate units, similar to the requirement on the Ford project, instead of 20 %. The number of units on the Bayview Landing site is yet to be determined, but previous studies of the site suggested 120 to 240 units are feasible. If developed for residential, the current zoning limits the site to 120 senior units. Therefore, it appears likely that development of this site could satisfy the CIOSA obligation. Bonita Canyon When Bonita Canyon was annexed into Newport Beach, The Irvine Company had already negotiated related affordable housing with the City of Irvine. However, there may be an opportunity for some units within the new apartments being constructed to meet some of the moderate income need. This may be an option to consider if Bayview Landing does not meet the CIOSA obligation. • Newport Village This site on Avocado, north of the Central Library, has been dedicated to the City as an open space site pursuant to CIOSA. The agreement also allows the site to be used for senior affordable housing. The City and The Irvine Company have considered an affordable senior housing project at this site, but it is no longer being actively pursued. This site is currently being discussed as a location for a cultural and arts and education center in association with the Central Library. The City Council will be considering the arts and education center at the December 13" meeting. Newport Center As part of the comprehensive planning for the future of Newport Center, housing is being studied to reduce the traffic associated with commercial growth and to increase pedestrian activity. A housing component also could provide a portion of housing for future employees. High land values would require a greater subsidy for housing in Newport Center than in other areas in the City. Banning Ranch The proposed Banning Ranch project, located in the City and in Unincorporated Orange County, includes up to 1,750 units. These units will be of a variety of housing types, from low density single family residences to higher density apartments. In addition to affordable housing required within the project, there may be an opportunity to construct additional lower income housing • through use of affordable housing in -lieu fees from Ford and other developers. Page 3 The portion of the project currently located within City limits will be expected to provide its fair share of affordable housing according to the existing Housing Element guideline of 15% to 25 %. The County may not require any portion of the units in its jurisdiction to be affordable. However, this area will probably be annexed to Newport Beach in the future, and the City may wish to ask the developer to meet the Newport Beach guideline for the entire project. This would result in 263 (at 15 %) to 438 (at 25 %) affordable units. Preliminary discussions with the Banning Ranch developer indicate a willingness to work with the City on determining a fair number and/or percentage of affordable housing units. Rehabilitation of Existing Units Rehabilitation is an alternative for providing affordable housing. Three older apartment buildings which could possibly benefit from rehabilitation and conversion to affordable housing have been identified. Units rehabilitated for use as affordable housing do not currently satisfy RHNA requirements, although that could change in the next planning cycle. Nonetheless, these units do provide additional needed low cost housing and can meet other City goals, such as neighborhood improvement. In -lieu fees could be used to facilitate rehabilitation projects. CONCLUSION In order to move forward with the Housing Element update, staff is requesting City Council direction on these questions: I. Should the Newport Village site be considered for affordable housing? 2. Should the City consider both new construction and rehabilitation projects to provide affordable housing? 3. How much affordable housing should the City require of the Banning Ranch development? Should the requirement apply to the entire project or just the City area? 4. Should the City accept 15% of the 861 market rate units as satisfying the CIOSA affordable housing obligation? 5. Is Bayview Landing an appropriate site for senior affordable housing? Submitted by: Prepared by: SHARON Z. WOOD CHRISTY D. TEAGUE, AICP Assistant City Manager Senior Planner Attachments. Regional Housing Needs AssessYnent for 1990o 2005 General Plan Housing Element Staff Report dated April 26, 1999 City Council Study Session Minutes of April 26, 1999 Page 4 • So Calif Assn of Gov 10/21/99 10:53 .PAGE 2/5 RightFAX • � O N ' � A b O N $ B2 >fl V B II II II II II II II O T ' Y , 1 ;e ;e e o R e 5 6 Y P7 a '$ Fr C M N N A 01 a Y M O O 1- N to 0 0 0 N N r .gc .tit, V Q Q 0 N e N o N c _ 1;e 0 N t �+ C N LO r 10`9 n N co 100 d j N O m � N p a e e o 1 E Y p y M W ♦Y M r N M u r r r r r r r W M M a co M M cl ch V j r i o Y ae e e oe ve o e N r co N o C N N N r rN SS N y J $ h_ N N N 0 i3 F N m Q 9 v C 3 Z '4 O 0 O ti O r 5 0 C k m ` m w I� 10 N C U o c z. d C 3 anm C Z 4 0.,: O O .: N 1 0 LO O C M r !� O r r r r V u U r CD N 0 p U Zi w r y • o z C � a 0 a 5� IL N 1r2 O �a m m u u o LL So Calif Assn of Gov 10/21/99 Raa me @, GptFAx . � ° wf. ~ ! §k LO . % La / / R § C-4 § _ . § )�f g a a a ■ ) / . C-4 C-4 . . c - • • \ _ • _ ` • Q . @ , OR e a a E - / © - / } . . - Ile \ ! / f f f a / . . ! go { } _ . _| §){ 04 ° § « 04 § r, / N 04 ;| 2 \\ MT { - � . £- , .. . . .. . .. .. : .� ... ./ ■|f } �« LO W) N N : - , W ! \ e 3 \ / / ° }\ § \ F k m k\ $ & )`{ § § k § 2 k § § `! § k# . U. ) m k \ § § v; ) So Calif Assn g Gov gGS9 333 PAGE 4/5 RightFAX / \\ / a § cc ■ 2 ` w ' § § 2 \ »f f \ f CIA LO en m \ \ . \ ° \ © LO \ . _ — Ile ¢ @ a - ( £ — © cb ! .4n M , | a a a . N co © { } _ � — §) .2 {i } \^ ° m - m 2 § $t u `! ^t- `. )# o - _ 00 - j j, \ o ;! $ ® § / ) « 9 ® ! _ IL § e 0 § § ! 2 ® q E r « k 2 \ § ! } ®\ _# ~ / w ) § \ / ) q !] d § § § 0 0 / k k / So Calif Assn of Gov 10/21/99 yaa PAGE ws 2ghtFAx . � t / t K ` ; . |ƒ [ § § CIL $ / } ) j f C4 . . j cc �CO) IWO co C-4 $ ) _ ` — N _ . % E5 a E 4) § ) — — — _ . • _ Cc, § . LO 44 cq Ile a a , @ @ £ | } N _ ; & _ ^ . 17 2 Q )� {�. n co § ~ N cq {% ...... k \ �} y« � } /. : \ c: ( ) / I - ~ ° n T 0 LO to :, § / )] _ u / §) ; ■ 2 \ § 2 §. _ ® } & \ % § k 7 § ! ƒ 7 \ - § o (L \ E / § k ¢ / a E k / ` !! \ ƒ zEW PoRr CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Hearing Date: April 26, 1999 c"% a COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Agenda Item No.: Study Session PLANNING DEPARTMENT Staff Person: Christy Teague •�" 3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD (949) 644 -3207 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92655 (714) 644 -3200; FAX (714) 644 -3250 REPORT TO THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: Update of General Plan Housing Element FILE U U- F Y" SUGGESTED ACTION: Discussion and Direction to Staff BACKGROUND: Council member Debay requested a discussion of the Housing Element update at the City Council meeting of March 22, 1999. Cities have not been required to update housing elements since 1992 because the State has not funded the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) process since that time. The funding was reinstated recently and the RHNA work is nearly finished. Cities are required • to submit updated housing elements to the State by June 30, 2000 HOUSING ELEMENT REQUIREMENTS Housine Element Update State planning law requires cities to adopt housing elements that address regional needs for housing affordable to all income levels. The time period to be covered in the next Housing Element update is from January 1, 1998 to June 30, 2005. It must be submitted to the State Department of Housing and Community Development by June 30, 2000. Cities are required to include the housing need numbers produced by the RHNA process in their housing elements as goals. Although cities are not required to spend their funds to develop affordable housing, the Housing Element must include policies and programs that facilitate and make possible production of the needed housing units. The required components include: an assessment of housing needs; an analysis of household characteristics; an analysis of existing assisted housing developments that are eligible to change from low- income housing uses during the next 10 years due to expiration or termination of agreements; a statement of the community's goals, quantified objectives, and policies relative to the maintenance, preservation, improvement, and development of housing; a program which sets forth a five -year schedule of actions to achieve the goals and objectives of the housing element; identification of adequate sites for housing; assistance in the development of adequate housing to meet the needs of low and moderate - income households; • removal of governmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing; programs to conserve and improve the condition of the existing affordable housing stock; and an analysis and program for preserving assisted housing developments. In addition, the -1- 1.) Housing Element update must include a report on progress in achieving the goals of the previous Housing Element. As preparation for meeting these requirements, staff suggests the City Council begin discussing affordable housing needs, the affordable housing requirements of the CIOSA and • One Ford Road development agreements, and potential programs to meet the City's housing needs. Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) The RHNA is a state - mandated estimate of housing needs that cities are required to use in housing elements. In the past, SCAG has handled this process for the Southern California region. For the current update cycle, the Orange County COG has chosen to take the lead with the County, using SCAG housing projections for the County. These overall county projection numbers are distributed among jurisdictions based on household growth, vacancy need, and replacement need. This process results in an assignment of the number of housing units to be produced in each jurisdiction during the planning period of January 1, 1998 to June 30, 2005. Because City staff previously worked with the OCCOG to develop population projections, housing needs in Newport Beach are based on a projection in which the City has confidence. The City of Newport Beach has been assigned a need of 498 dwelling units within the planning period of January 1, 1998 to June 30, 2005, as shown on the attached RHNA summary of construction need for Orange County. The next step in the RHNA process is for the total number of housing units needed to be broken down by income category, providing a "fair share" number of affordable housing needs within each jurisdiction. In the last housing element cycle, Newport Beach's affordable housing need was 20% of the total housing units recommended. This would result in a need for approximately 100 units for low- income households in the current cycle. • CIOSA The Circulation Improvement and Open Space Agreement ( CIOSA) was approved by the City Council in 1992. CIOSA granted entitlements for several properties held by The Irvine Company, including entitlements for 861 market rate housing units. Because CIOSA is silent on a specific affordable housing requirement, staff believes the 20% requirement of the Housing Element should be used, resulting in an obligation to provide 172 affordable housing units. The City and The Irvine Company have discussed the development of senior housing facilities at Newport Village in Newport Center and also at Bayview Landing. Agreement could not be reached on the Newport Village site, and The Irvine Company has not pursued the Bayview Landing site. All of the market rate units entitled by CIOSA have been built. Staff believes the Housing Element update will be stronger if the City has a plan from The Irvine Company to meet its affordable housing obligation, which will demonstrate progress in implementing the existing Housing Element. Ford Agreement The Ford development agreement approved in 1995 specified that Ford's affordable housing requirement is 15% of the 404 units, or 61 units. In lieu of constructing affordable housing units, the developer paid the City $5,000 for every market rate unit developed, for a total of $2,020,000, to facilitate affordable housing in Newport Beach. These funds were received in May of 1997, and • have been held in an account while the City has explored the best use of these funds for affordable Page-2' housing goals. Since negotiations with The Irvine Company on use of these funds for a project at . Newport Village have terminated, staff believes the City should consider other uses of these funds so that a plan can be included in the Housing Element update. POTENTIAL HOUSING PROGRAMS Private Sector Development of New Affordable Housing Units with City Assistance The construction of new housing units may be the most feasible way to meet the numerical RHNA fair share goals. This could be an option for the Ford money available for affordable housing, but may be difficult for the City to accomplish due to the lack of available land in Newport Beach. The Irvine Company may be in the best position to construct new units because they have available land and are experienced in housing development. Negotiate Extensions of Expired and Soon -to- Expire Affordable Housing Agreements The Irvine Company owns most of the projects with affordable housing agreements in Newport Beach. In the last five years, the agreements have expired on 294 of these units. There are an additional 17 units due for termination. If extensions are negotiated, these units would not be eligible to apply toward the "fair share" goals of the RHNA, but they would meet the requirement of "conserving and improving the condition of the existing affordable housing stock" set forth in the state law. Saving affordable units soon to be converted to market rate units is a possibility for The Irvine Company obligation and for use of the Ford money. • Rehabilitation of Existing Units and Conversion to Affordable Housing Units • There are a few projects potentially in need of rehabilitation assistance in Newport Beach. Rehabilitated units do not count towards the RHNA goal unless units are "unfit for human habitation prior to their rehabilitation" and "at imminent risk of loss to the housing stock," among other criteria. However, this strategy does meet the requirement of "conserving and improving the condition of the existing affordable housing stock" set forth in the state law, as well as improve the neighborhood in which the units are located. This is a possibility for use of the Ford money designated for affordable housing. Community Development Block Grant Funds In the mid- 1990s, during the last housing element period, CDBG funds were successfully used to assist development of affordable housing. The City has focused Community Development Block Grant funds on Peninsula revitalization in recent years, and the City Council has given that direction for the upcoming fiscal year. The focus of future CDBG funds could be on affordable housing if the final RHNA numbers and Housing Element analysis show the need cannot be met with other resources. Pag� ,�- CONCLUSION The issue of affordable housing must be addressed by the City. The State requirement including "fair share" affordable housing units must be incorporated into a comprehensive Housing Element of the General Plan over the next year. There are outstanding obligations to provide affordable housing units by The Irvine Company through the CIOSA Agreement and also by the City for use of the Ford funds accepted upon receipt of their housing entitlements. Staff is seeking City Council discussion and direction regarding the alternatives for meeting affordable housing goals in Newport Beach. Submitted by: SHARON Z. WOOD Assistant City Manager Prepared by: CHRISTY D. TEAGUE, AICP Senior Planner I � Attachments: Regional Housing Needs Assessment Summary Letter on Affordable Housing from Julie Mirrow Dated March 13,1999 • • • Pages 13 • 00 Z C N O p V d i C N C •w U co W O) N t _C l6 •E i (6 0i CL E C o o w I �O m M M N (O n m ( (O O V m (O O O (O (O V n n O V w M r r M to (O I N N r n n r 0 0 M co ( (0 V M I� M O O co) O N N r r V r (O (O 4 47 V N (O r ( (O 10 O ('j a r r r r 1 1 1 N N O r r M M r N r r M r r r M 7 d r Z � Z O U C m (O N M h V V M r (O N N V ( (O N O M V V (O w m w N N r V r N ( (O N m m W I I� r N V r r r r M M ( (0 M r r r N N N N r L L0 r r r r W E ( (O CD W z a d a O m r to r 0 ( (O N (O m r 0 0 M Om M 0 N N V r to O V V r O r w m m m m (O (O V V O O � („( a ( (n ( (17 N r r r N N N D7 V V (D N N r r r r r m C O N N y U Z > U) O r M N C CO) O V N M M r m 0 I� ( (0 N M N M I I� M w n M N N V M m m r r t0 W (0 O m m OJ m r r V V m N 0 I r r O M O O r N N m (O M O O n V O r r V O d ?� O O r r ' 'o N N r N N N r r O y Q r O GGO 2 .O O O V V (O Om P P (O r 1� O 1 V M m N N r V N m ( (O N M M ( (O l0 N M M N 0 w M M (O W V M 0 0 O M I r r M h m V m m O O O r r r� N m m m m M V r V_ m m m 0 (0 . 0 r N N r O 2 N m m o1 N N l0 l l0 m M O M r r 0 (O 1� OJ O O n l0 O O M M 1� M M O O r N o1 M ONO (O .O m m N 0 N (O N N m m V V (O N r N m m O r O O O V V N N co Co ( (O (h n N L7 4 47 OC V m m N O m V M M O V 47 0 0 M O M ( (n m m L O m m r N M (O r r r r V V n n V r r N N r r M M M V r r r r h r r N N N r O d O m m O x N N M M to O ( (O M M h 0 0 (O (O M N M M m r O (O O O N V W O V V r m M N N N M CD N m V (O (O N N I O M (O V V (O m m O O O r N N r m m m N r r (O O n n n N m V O co N N N N OD V L L0 M I� N i0 r r (O OJ V r m m r 0 W V O O N 0 m O r (O O N 0) mrN M(Or r rr V V V V r r MMM ` M Nr 0)4 m m CD V i s. D Alr- � ir IU-7-T A/- /atazlq� • 0 in w =E _lj Date — Copies Sent To: a a nager ----O- Attorney-- - - - - -- O O -------- - ------ _ in w Date — Copies Sent To: a a nager ----O- Attorney-- - - - - -- O O -------- - ------ _ CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Page 2 of 18 • 2. UPDATE OF GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT. (4:15 P.M.) Assistant City Manager Wood explained that there was a delay in requiring a Housing Element update because the State did not fund the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) process. However, she indicated that the deadline to have the Housing Element completed is now June 30, 2000 and that some of the State requirements are outlined in the staff report. She reported that the significant issues for the City are The Irvine Company's (TIC) requirement to provide affordable housing as part of the CIOSA agreement and what the City intends to do with Ford's in lieu fees. She stated that staff is looking for guidance on these issues, as well as direction as to the types of housing programs the Housing Element should focus on. Council Member Debay reported that this was last.done 10 years ago. She reviewed the previous process in which the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) provided cities with growth forecast numbers and stated that SCAG now receives these numbers from the cities themselves. Council Member Debay also reported that the State has written legislation permitting subregional coordinators, like the Orange County Council of Governments (OCCOG), to administer these numbers. In response to Council Member Glover's questions, Ms. Wood stated that the Bayview Landing site was the site that TIC initially wanted to pursue for senior affordable housing but that the City has not heard from them regarding this for several months. Ms. Wood indicated that TIC does not have a deadline; however, stated that staff believes that the plan would most likely be accepted and certified by the State if a plan was included to address both TIC's requirement and Ford's in lieu fees. Council Member Ridgeway expressed the opinion that the staff report suggests that the City needs to provide a new Housing Element and provide reporting, but does not put an affirmative obligation to provide affordable housing. Ms. Wood reported that there is no State mandate that the City must spend any of its own funds to produce affordable housing since the City is already required to include SCAG's numbers as the City's affordable housing goal and must provide a series of programs that addresses how the City will facilitate the development. Ms. Wood stated that, if the City did not have land to develop property on or the land was underutilized, the City can utilize redevelopment methods. Council Member Ridgeway reminded Council that the Newport Village site was discussed at a previous study session and that it was concluded that TIC would be able to meet their 172 affordable housing unit requirement at this location. Carol Hoffman, The Irvine Company, stated that, at the time the CIOSA agreement was adopted, TIC was given a variety of locations to meet the affordable housing requirements but that only two sites were suitable. She noted that many members of the community told them that the Lower Bayview Landing site was also not the best location for affordable housing. Mayor O'Neil pointed out that TIC indicated to Council that they would build an affordable housing project on Lower Bayview Landing. Mayor O'Neil asked if TIC has thought about dedicating the Lower Bayview Landing site to the City just as they did with the Newport Village site. Ms. Hoffman stated that they would be willing to meet in order to explore the many options and that this option has not been discussed with them. Council Member Debay asked if TIC discussed extending the agreements that are expiring or have expired. Ms. Hoffman stated that this would be TIC's least deferred option on the apartment projects. http: / /www. City. newport - beach. ea .us /CouncilAgendas/Mn04- 26.htm 11/16/1999 ,� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Page 3 of 18 Council Member Noyes stated that the City made a good faith agreement with TIC and released building permits for Corporate Plaza West. In return, TIC almost guaranteed that • they were going to move forward with the affordable housing project at Lower Bayview Landing. He believed that the site is only appropriate for affordable housing. Ms. Hoffman indicated that TIC has felt there has been ambiguity from all parties relative to what is the best way to meet the goal. Regarding Corporate Plaza, there are no direct ties between commercial and affordable housing permits. Additionally, TIC indicated that they would pull back from the Newport Village site affordable housing project so there would be no further complications with regard to Corporate Plaza. Ms. Hoffman stated that they would move forward if the City wanted TIC to proceed on the Lower Bayview Landing site. Mayor O'Neil recommended that staff meet with TIC regarding affordable housing and review the following various concepts: 1) building on Lower Bayview Landing; 2) dedicating the land; and 3) providing fees in lieu of providing housing/land. He suggested bringing the information back at a study session in 60 days and hoped that this will bring this issue to a conclusion. Mayor Pro Tem Thomson asked if there is the possibility of acquiring new land or using other TIC -owned land for the senior affordable housing project. Ms. Hoffman stated that the only vacant parcels TIC has left are the Lower Bayview Landing, Lower Castaways, and Avocado North (part of Newport Village) sites. Mayor O'Neil noted that other opportunities may also be opened if the City annexes the coast area. Council Member Glover believed that the City may not be in a position to have a report in 60 days and wondered about possibly converting the older apartments in the City into affordable housing. She asked if the City can talk to LINC to get them involved again. Council Member Debay stated that the City spoke with Jim White who indicated that he • would be willing to redevelop the old trailer park site on Pacific Coast Highway and a code - violated, motor residence on Placentia using the Ford in lieu fees. She hoped that those two sites will be looked at. Council Member Ridgeway pointed out that the staff report indicates that rehabilitation of existing units does not count toward the RHNA requirement. He believed that having staff bring back a report in 90 days may still be accelerating something since the coast area will probably not be annexed by that time. He indicated that he mentioned the Newport Village site because individuals from the OASIS Senior Center made a strong case that it was a good site, especially since the location is close to all services, public transportation, and medical facilities. Council Member Noyes stated that he has lost faith with the process. He noted that the City reached an impasse to the point that the only way TIC could get past the City was to agree to build on the Lower Bayview Landing site, which they have yet to build on. Mayor O'Neil stated that it is not in the City's best interest to try to push a site that is controversial and that it may be better to accept title to the Lower Bayview Landing site and /or accept an in lieu fee to move this along and resolve it. Council Member Ridgeway expressed the opinion that he would rather have TIC oversee LINC, or a similar body, who could build a quality project in a good area. Noting that the City took $5,000 per unit from Ford, Council Member Debay asked if a decent unit can even be built with that money. Council Member Ridgeway clarified that the in lieu fee came from a fee being charged on the total number of approved units; that it http: / /www.city.newport- beach .ca.us /CouncilAgendas/Mn04- 26.htm 11/16/1999 I� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Page 4 of 18 would cost $60,000 to $70,000 per unit, not including the land; and that Ford really had 61 units that would be considered affordable units. Council Member Debay emphasized that, if • the City takes money from TIC, the City should receive a suitable amount that is equal to the number of units. Regarding rehabilitation of existing units, Ms. Wood confirmed that those units would not count toward the RHNA goal unless the units were uninhabitable. However, doing this would still provide affordable housing; extend the life of the City's affordable housing stock; improve the neighborhood in which they are located; and satisfy other State laws and parts of the Housing Element. She stated that Council may still want to keep this option for consideration. Following discussion, Mayor O'Neil clarified that The Irvine Company will meet with staff to review the concepts of either building on the Lower Bayview Landing site; dedicating the land; or paying in lieu fees. He stated that everything can be considered, including the Newport Village site and the Newport Coast annexation. He hoped that this can be brought back in 60 to 90 days. Ms. Wood stated that they will meet with TIC within the 60 to 90 day period and look at other options for the use of the Ford in lieu fees and the possibility of TIC money. In response to Council Member Glover's questions regarding TIC's building permits, Mayor O'Neil reiterated that there were discussions during the time that the committee was negotiating with TIC over whether or not a project would be built on the Newport Village site. Those negotiations ended because no one was able to agree on a suitable substitute site to replace the property north of the library. Mayor O'Neil stated that, after that, there was a need for TIC to pull building permits in connection with their Corporate Plaza project. He indicated that Council instructed the City Manager to not issue TIC building permits and • that this was within their authority. He reported that commitments were made and correspondence was exchanged between the City and TIC whereby, in exchange for issuing the building permits for Corporate Plaza, there was a commitment on behalf of TIC to move forward and build an affordable housing project on Lower Bayview Landing. He stated that it was Council's and TIC's understanding that this was an agreement and that he is unsure why TIC did not move forward with the project. Following Council Member Glover's request that the City Clerk provide Council with the minutes concerning this, Mayor O'Neil stated that he believed that this occurred during closed session. City Attorney Burnham stated that he was confident that no open session took place regarding this. Council Member Ridgeway commented that maybe TIC realized that Lower Bayview Landing is not necessarily the best site for a senior affordable housing unit and believed that the building permits were probably just delayed rather than stopped. Mayor O'Neil pointed out that TIC does have an obligation under the CIOSA agreement to provide 172 affordable housing units. Further, that the City needs to do something with the over $2 million in Ford in lieu fees to satisfy the Housing Element. He agreed that the Newport Village site is the ideal location to erect a senior affordable housing project but noted that Council is not unanimous on the issue. Mayor O'Neil hoped that TIC and staff can get together and then provide Council with several options. Mayor Pro Tern Thomson stated that Ford gave the City $32,000 per unit, not $5,000 per unit. If TIC were to do the same, the City can use that money to possibly upgrade places throughout the City or build a low- income apartment complex. Council Member Ridgeway emphasized that he would just like to see a newer, nice senior affordable housing complex I somewhere. Council Member Noyes reiterated that it should be located in a good area in which the seniors can walk or take transportation to services. http: / /www.city.newport- beach .ca.us /CouncilAgendas/Mn04- 26.htin 11/16/1999 1 � CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Page 5 of 18 Newly -hired City Manager Bludau stated that he looks forward to meeting with staff to explore the solutions. He agreed that cities have the responsibility to provide low -cost • housing but not necessarily to build it. He suggested leveraging the $2 million and possibly waiving some of the building permit fees to further contribute to the project. Mayor O'Neil noted that the $2 million has also gained about $350,000 in interest over the past three years. 3. WEST COAST HIGHWAY WIDENING - (TUSTIN AVENUE TO RIVERSIDE AVENUE) PLAN REVIEW. Public Works Director Webb noted that the staff report mentions some of the current Traffic Phasing Ordinance numbers. He reported that a third westbound lane and a turn lane on Coast Highway, and an additional right turn lane out of Riverside Avenue would be required in order to meet the ICU standards at build out. To accomplish this, Mr. Webb stated that widening would be required on West Coast Highway between Tustin Avenue and the westerly edge of the Sterling BMW dealership. He reported that some right -of -way dedications and some building setbacks have been made and that the City has not yet cleared the lane widths with CalTrans. He estimated right -of -way acquisitions to be about $1.2 million and construction to cost about $1 million. Mr. Webb reported that the City only owns six feet of sidewalk between Riverside and Tustin Avenues, and the right -of -way in front of Sterling BMW, but does not own the right -of -way in front of the China Palace. He indicated that the City has not actively pursued this project and believed that the project could qualify for Measure M funds in three to four years because it deals with traffic service and improvement. However, if the City did not wish to pursue Measure M funding, he believed that there are sufficient funds in the Circulation and Transportation Fund. Council Member Debay questioned why the City would be paying for Pacific Coast • Highway's widening and improvements since it belongs to the State. Mr. Webb pointed out that CalTrans only helped fund the storm drain portion of the Arches interchange project and that the Pacific Coast Highway widening from Bayside Drive to MacArthur Boulevard was also paid entirely by the City (40% City funds /60% Federal funds). He added that CalTrans does not have funding for the widening of conventional highways. In response to Council Member Ridgeway's questions regarding funding and the Arches bridge, Mr. Webb indicated that the program that issued FAU funds does not exist anymore but that there are several different funds that may be available for the City to apply for. He stated that the Arches bridge should open in the next two weeks and that it is set up to handle build out (60,000 to 65,000 cars a day). Discussion ensued relative to the number of lanes there are on Coast Highway. Council Member Ridgeway expressed the opinion that this is not a very wise use of funds since there is an immediate bottleneck area between Tustin Avenue and the pelican wall. Mr. Webb stated that the General Plan indicates that six lanes are needed at build out on West Coast Highway. He also noted that the Public Works Department was directed not to bring the project up until directed by Council. Council Member Ridgeway asked if the City needed an updated EIR and EIS. Mr. Webb believed that one of them needed to be updated and one was only approved in 1981 for restriping within the existing right -of -way. Council Member Glover believed that this project would cost more than the estimated $2.2 million, recommending that the City purchase everything from Villa Nova Restaurant to the Josh Slocums Restaurant, make a water walkway, and install a median. She believed that http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca .us /CouncilAgendas/Mn04- 26.htm 11/16/1999 19