Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04a_Draft Minutes of April 3, 2019CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE STEERING COMMITTEE MINUTES CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS — 100 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE WEDNESDAY, APRIL 3, 2019 REGULAR MEETING -6:00 p.m. CALL MEETING TO ORDER -6:00 p.m. WELCOME AND ROLL CALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Nancy Gardner, James Carlson, Catherine O'Hara, Ed Selich, Debbie Stevens, Paul Watkins, Mayor Diane Dixon (Ex Oficio Member) MEMBERS ABSENT: Larry Tucker (excused) Staff Present: Community Development Director Seimone Jurjis, Deputy Community Development Director Jim Campbell, City Traffic Engineer Tony Brine, Senior Planner Jaime Murillo, Associate Planner Ben Zdeba, Administrative Support Specialist Tiffany Lippman III. PUBLIC COMMENTS Jim Mosher suggested staff may need to discuss responses to proposers' questions with the General Plan Update Steering Committee (Committee) as the Committee drafted the Request for Proposals (RFP). In the archived records for the January 28, 2003 City Council meeting, study session item number 2 contains the consultant's report of the 2002 visioning process. A review of the minutes and agenda packets for the visioning process could benefit the Committee. In response to Committee Member Carlson's question, Mr. Mosher explained that the City retained MIG as the consultant for the 2002 visioning process, and MIG's task was to provide a vision statement and a report at the end of the process. The agenda packets for the visioning process have more detailed information about the survey results and public comments. Community Development Director Jurjis reported 32 entities have registered with Planet Bid, but none have submitted questions regarding the RFP. IV. CURRENT BUSINESS a. Review Minutes of the March 20, 2019 Meeting Recommended Action: Approve the minutes of March 20, 2019. Committee Member Watkins corrected the vote on the minutes as 5-0 with Committee Members Carlson and O'Hara abstaining. Motion by Committee Member Selich, seconded by Committee Member O'Hara, to approve the minutes of the March 20, 2019 meeting as amended. Motion passed 6-0. b. Housing Element and Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA)—Status and Schedule No action required General Plan Update Steering Committee Minutes April 3, 2019 Senior Planner Jaime Murillo reported the Housing Element is a required component of the General Plan; however, the Housing Element is different from the other General Plan components in that it is required to be updated in eight-year cycles and to be approved by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). Land use changes in the 2006 General Plan Update resulted in the City submitting an amended Housing Element. HCD deemed the amended Housing Element out of compliance with State law because the requirements for Housing Elements had changed significantly. Rather than amend the Housing Element a second time, the City amended its 2008-2014 Housing Element. HCD deemed the 2008-2014 Housing Element compliant in 2011. HCD deemed the 2014-2021 Housing Element compliant in 2013. Under State law, the Housing Element must include robust public participation, a review of past performance, a housing needs assessment, a housing sites inventory and analysis, a constraints analysis, and policies and programs. The Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) does not require the construction of housing. The City must show an adequate number of sites are zoned to accommodate RHNA numbers. AB 1397 imposes additional requirements on the City's analysis of sites. HCD determines the housing assessment for each region of the state. The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) develops a plan to distribute the assessment among the jurisdictions within the region. HCD must approve SCAG's methodology prior to it being implemented. Ajurisdiction has an opportunity to appeal the RHNA number assigned to it. Finally, staff develops a Housing Element that complies with State requirements. The General Plan Update process began in January 2019. The regional RHNA determination will be complete in September 2019; the City's draft RHNA determination will be available in February 2020; and the final RHNA numbers will be determined in October 2020. The City's Housing Element is due in October 2021. If the City does not adopt a Housing Element within 120 days of the due date, the Housing Element cycle will be reduced to four years for at least two Housing Element updates. If HCD deems the Housing Element noncompliant, any unmet RHNA from a prior planning period carries into the next planning period. In jurisdictions where construction does not comply with RHNA, developers may seek streamlined development approvals. Other potential consequences of noncompliance include legal actions, referrals to the Attorney General, ineligibility for SB 2 planning grants, and withholding of transportation funds. In answer to Committee Members' questions, Senior Planner Murillo advised that affordable housing does not have to be designated as rental or for -sale. The 2014-2021 Housing Element states the minimum term for affordable housing is 30 years. Existing for -sale condominiums designated as affordable can be resold at an affordable rate only during the 30 -year term. Staff tracks affordable units on an annual basis. Accessory dwelling units (ADU), with proper documentation, may count towards affordable housing requirements. Staff is following SCAG's development of a methodology to distribute the assessment within the region and will take action as needed. Staff will have an idea of the RHNA number for the City of Newport Beach once HCD releases the assessment for each region. Ajurisdiction can seek a revised RHNA number through the appeal process and a subsequent public hearing. Existing ADUs cannot be used to comply with the City's RHNA numbers. Staff believes the affordable housing units provided in the Newport Crossings project can be used to comply with the upcoming RHNA numbers. The affordable housing units in Phase I of the Uptown Newport project will be constructed and occupied in 2019; therefore, they cannot count towards upcoming housing needs. Phase 11 of the Uptown Newport project will provide housing but not affordable housing, and the units can be credited toward the upcoming housing needs. The presentation will be available on the General Plan Update webpage. The affordability of housing units is based on the area median income (AMI) for the County of Orange, not the AMI for the City of Newport Beach. Page 2 of 5 General Plan Update Steering Committee Minutes April 3, 2019 Committee Member Carlson attended a conference with architects from across the state the previous week, where he learned 180,000 new units are needed annually to keep pace with population increases; people are emigrating from California; 80 percent of renters are paying 30- 50 percent of their income for rent; 22 percent of the nation's homeless population lives in California but only 12 percent of the nation's population lives in California; the lost revenue from housing not constructed totals $140 billion; and the 2017 housing assessment found a shortage of housing for every income level. In reply to Hoiyen Ip's query, Senior Planner Murillo explained that, according to State standards, spending 30 percent of income for either rent or a mortgage is too much. A high percentage of the population paying more than 30 percent of their income for housing is an indicator of a housing shortage. Charles Klobe suggested education about the requirements for the City to increase housing density be part of the visioning process because the community will oppose greater density. The community will likely support additional senior housing. He proposed a few ways the City could assist with providing affordable housing. Senior Planner Murillo agreed with Chair Gardner's statement that the City has to provide adequate housing sites for all economic segments and ages of the community. Jim Mosher inquired whether the public process in 2019 will count toward the requirement for robust public participation in the Housing Element and whether there are new requirements for the Housing Element to address homelessness. Senior Planner Murillo clarified that the Listen and Learn phase counts toward public participation. Deputy Community Development Director Campbell added that staff is analyzing the existing sites inventory to determine whether any of the sites will be eligible in the future. Preparation of the Housing Element has begun. Mayor Dixon advised that the State will require 3.5 million housing units across the state. C. Circulation Element and City's Traffic Model No action required City Traffic Engineer Tony Brine reported the Newport Beach Traffic Analysis Model (NBTAM) is computer software used to model transportation systems for planning, designing, and operating the circulation system. Staff uses NBTAM to analyze traffic for development projects. With the General Plan Update, NBTAM can be updated with new traffic counts, current land use data, and current demographic data. Alternatively, a new NBTAM model can be developed. The NBTAM has to be consistent with the Orange County Traffic Analysis Model (OCTAM). OCTAM is updated probably every five or six years. Updating the NBTAM is an acceptable solution because it will work well for the General Plan Update. The question is whether to build a new NBTAM now or in the next five years. Updating the existing NBTAM will cost in the range of $50,000-$100,000. Developing a new NBTAM will cost in the range of $150,000-$200,000. SB 743 changes the metric for traffic impacts from level of service (LOS) to vehicle miles traveled (VMT); grants lead agencies the discretion to develop and adopt a methodology, thresholds of significance, and feasible mitigation measures; and provides the basic methodology. SB 743 becomes effective on July 1, 2020. The City may use LOS in addition to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) VMT. Page 3 of 5 General Plan Update Steering Committee Minutes April 3, 2019 Staff anticipates using the Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) analysis for LOS in addition to the VMT analysis. In response to inquiries, Deputy Community Development Director Campbell indicated a budget has not been prepared for each component of the General Plan Update. Staff can return with an analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of updating the NBTAM in the short term and the long term. Staff does not see a need to build a new NBTAM at the current time. City Traffic Engineer Brine explained that most jurisdictions are calculating VMT by hand at the current time. The VMT analysis requires some assumptions and many calculations. The Committee discussed updating the current NBTAM versus building a new NBTAM and the costs for each. Judy Schweitzer Martin asked about the possible benefit of preparing a multimodal transportation plan calibrated with the RHNA goals. City Traffic Engineer Brine indicated complete streets have to be included in the Circulation Element, and complete streets will include multimodal use. Charles Klobe remarked that upgrading the NBTAM may benefit the City and asked if the Circulation Element will be part of the visioning process. City Traffic Engineer Brine reported the Circulation Element will be part of the visioning process. Jim Mosher felt there would be an economic advantage to upgrading the NBTAM now and building a new NBTAM in the future. The current NBTAM must make some assumption about vehicles' origins and destinations in order to determine the impact to intersections. City Traffic Engineer Brine clarified that the analysis includes origin, destination, and trip distribution, but the analysis does not calculate VMT. Jonathan Stark noted the City's second largest source of revenue is car sales, and the State will likely mandate reductions in the number of cars on the road. The City should delay building a new NBTAM in order to comply with new mandates and to have better projections for transportation. Hoiyen Ip suggested representatives of non-governmental organizations may attend discussions of sustainability and climate action. d. General Plan and State Mandates No action required Deputy Community Development Director Campbell reported the General Plan needs to contain comprehensive, integrated, internally consistent and compatible policies and development policies with a diagram. Mandated elements of the General Plan are land use, circulation, housing, conservation, open space, noise, safety, and environmental justice. The City's natural resources element is a combination of the conservation and open space elements. The City's General Plan contains additional elements for the harbor and bay, historical resources, recreation, and arts and culture. An update of the circulation element will incorporate complete street policies. The State mandates the City to update the Housing Element only. Revisions to one element may require revisions to other elements so that the General Plan is internally consistent. The safety element needs to reflect new information such as the updated flood insurance rate maps and the 2016 Local Hazards Mitigation Plan (LHMP). Because a small census tract near Costa Mesa has been identified as a disadvantaged community, the General Plan may contain an environmental justice element. With the adoption or revision of two or more elements concurrently, the General Plan Page 4 of 5 General Plan Update Steering Committee Minutes April 3, 2019 must include an environmental justice element or policies to address environmental justice topics. The Legislature amended the Coastal Act to provide environmental justice considerations in the review of coastal development permits. The California Coastal Commission will begin monitoring housing production and demolition in the coastal zone and will factor them into the future review of projects. The Committee discussed the area identified as a disadvantaged community and the requirements for an environmental justice element. Deputy Community Development Director Campbell clarified that the disadvantaged community does not lie fully within the City of Newport Beach. It extends into the City on an industrial property located at the northern boundary of the City. While the City may not have a typical disadvantaged community, Coastal Commission considerations will have to be addressed. Hoiyen Ip remarked that water quality will be a part of environmental justice e. Future Meeting Schedule Recommended Action: Cancel or reschedule the April 17 meeting and confirm the next three tentative meeting dates of May 1 at 6:00 p.m., May 15 at 6:00 p.m., and June 5 at 6:00 p.m. Community Development Director Jurjis reported the deadline to receive proposals is April 26 at 11:00 a.m. Staff will publish the proposals and send copies to the Committee for the May 1 meeting. Staff will not have an opportunity to score the proposals prior to the May 1 meeting. Chair Gardner announced the April 17 meeting is canceled. Chair Gardner and Committee Member Stevens volunteered to review questions from proposers. Community Development Director Jurjis advised that staff will forward questions and answers to both Committee Members. In reply to Committee Member Selich's query, Community Development Director Jurjis suggested the Committee begin discussing interview schedules and reviewing proposals. 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 — 7:46 p.m. Next Meeting: TBD Page 5 of 5 General Plan Update Steering Committee - May 1, 2019 Item Nos. III, IV(a), and IV(b) Additional Materials Received From: Zdeba. Beniamin To: Lee, Amanda Subject: RN: Comments on May 1, 2019, GPU Steering Committee agenda items Date: Tuesday, April 30, 2019 5:24:51 PM Attachments: 2019May0l GPU Steer no _..._._._... _._. _. ima4e0.OSPnQ Hi Amanda, Please see additional materials attached for tomorrow's GPUSC meeting. Thanks! MOW BENJAMIN M. ZDEBA, AICP Community Development Department Associate Planner bzdebananewoortbeachca.00v 949-644-3253 From: Jim Mosher <jimmosher@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2019 5:21 PM To: Campbell, Jim <JCampbell@newportbeachca.gov>; Zdeba, Benjamin <bzdeba @ newportbeachca.gov> Subject: Comments on May 1, 2019, GPU Steering Committee agenda items Jim & Ben, Please find attached some quick comments on the items listed on the May 1, 2019, GPU Steering Committee agenda. I have BCC'd this to the committee members as listed on the City website. Yours sincerely, Jim Mosher General Plan Update Steering Committee - May 1, 2019 Item Nos. III, IV(a), and IV(b) Additional Materials Received May 1, 2019, GPU SC agenda comments from Jim Mosher Page 2 of 4 Item IV.a. Review Minutes of the April 3, 2019 Meeting The following corrections to the draft minutes are suggested: Page 1, Item II (WELCOME AND ROLL CALL, MEMBERS PRESENT), last name: "..., Mayor Diane Dixon (Ex Of r -ie Officio Member)" Page 2, paragraph 2, sentence 3: "Existing for -sale condominiums designated as affordable can be resold only at an affordable rate only during the 30 -year term." Page 3, paragraph 2: "In reply to Heiyen Hoivin Ip's query, ..." Page 4, last sentence before "e": "HGyen Hoivin Ip suggested..." Page 5, last sentence before "f': "Heiyen Hoivin Ip remarked ..." IV.& Responses to the Request for Proposals (RFP) and an %dew of the Review Process It is disappo Ing that out of the 44 firms that downloaded the RFP, only 5 submitted proposals, and of those, on 2 (Kearns & West and MBI Strategic Communications) claim any experience doing public outrea for general plans. It is also disappointing tha one of the proposers provided an example of a final outreach summary document similar to t expected to be prepared by them at the end of the Listen & Learn process. I thought that had en requested by Committee member Tucker at the March 20 meeting, but in the RFP it seems to h been re<"Demonstrate vague statement under the "Experience" requirement at the bottom o age 1strate experience with at least three (3) projects of a similar scope and nature by vopsis of each project, as well as relevant exemplary work produced for each projeapparently left to the proposers to guess that a written Listen& Learn summary woumost "relevant exemplary work."It seems none of them made that connection, and aneither provided nor told us where we could find an example of their final written work p The respondents similarly seem to have noticed (on page 11 of the P) the requirement to submit resumes, but missed the instruction to identify "a primary repres tative and an alternate" — at least, none of them did. The small number of qualified submittals simplifies the Committee's task of choos who to interview, but it has to make one wonder if the RFP was effectively written and effecti promoted. One would have guessed the field of qualified firms was much wider. Does st have a theory of why the response was so poor?