HomeMy WebLinkAbout5b_Additional Materials Received_MosherNovember 4, 2020, HEUAC Agenda Comments
These comments on an item on the Newport Beach Housing Element Update Advisory Committee
agenda are submitted by: Jim Mosher ( jimmosher@yahoo.com ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach
92660 (949-548-6229)
Item V.b. SITES RUNDOWN: REMAINDER OF TOWN
General comments
This process is becoming increasingly difficult for me to follow.
This is in part because I am becoming increasingly uncertain what the committee and its
subcommittees mean by “feasible,” “potentially feasible” and “infeasible.” The concepts do not
seem to be defined in any of the memos and the criteria that are being applied cannot easily be
discerned from the many seemingly cursory, if not completely arbitrary, decisions being
reported.
In the present case, my confusion is compounded by not understanding how the “remainder of
town” subcommittee defines “remainder of town.” It certainly doesn’t seem to be a
comprehensive look at the areas not covered by the “Airport Area” and ““West Newport Mesa”
subcommittees.
Beyond that, the mode of reporting makes it very difficult to determine if all the potential housing
sites have been identified, even within the mapped areas. First, because there is no explanation
of why some parcels have been numbered for evaluation, and others not. Second, because the
out of numerical sequence reporting makes it extremely tedious to determine if even all the
numbered parcels have been described.
Specific comments
“1. All sites shown on the current Sites Inventory for the 5th Cycle Housing Element update that
have not been developed are deemed Feasible.”
While they may remain “feasible,” it should be kept in mind that we learned from the HCD
Site Inventory Guidebook presented at the HEUAC’s inaugural meeting on July 1 that special
handling or privileges attach to sites that were identified as “available” in the prior cycle but
were not developed during it. More importantly, it would have been helpful to show on the
maps the sites that fall in this category. Otherwise, the highlighting of some parcels, and not
others, seems completely arbitrary.
All that said, the inclusion as “feasible” of everything in the existing Housing Element Sites
Inventory (which claims to have identified a potential capacity for 7,662 new units, with 4,612
“realistic”) seems not only a very sweeping statement but also one that contradicts some of
the two previous subcommittees, and perhaps this one, where they have deemed some of
those sites “infeasible.” Are those now “feasible” again?
Also, the existing Housing Element Sites Inventory includes many potential sites in the
Coastal Zone, and at the HEUAC’s first meeting on July 15, the public was told sites in the
Coastal Zone were not going to be considered.
Housing Element Update Advisory Committee - November 4, 2020
Item V(b) - Additional Materials Received
Sites Rundown: Remainder of Town
November 4, 2020, HEUAC Item V.b comments - Jim Mosher Page 2 of 3
“2. Parcel 1 is the Newport-Mesa School District site contiguous to Banning Ranch and if found
suitable it would be feasible.”
First, this parcel is already identified as a Housing Opportunity Site on page 5-177 of the
current Housing Element, and as such should have been covered by the previous comment.
Second, this site (a part of which is not within the current City limits) was the subject of Item
Th15c on the California Coastal Commission’s December 12, 2019, agenda. In view of its
biological significance, development beyond the “existing fence” described there seems
extremely unlikely.
Finally, since this site is in “West Newport Mesa,” why wasn’t it included in the presentation
for West Newport Mesa?
“3. Parcel 2, Sterling BMW. This Site is a viable commercial site and would not likely become a
standalone housing site. Infeasible.”
The two parcels illustrated, plus the smaller on to the left of the “2”, are a surface level
parking lot serving a car dealership. It is not clear why this parking lot is deemed “infeasible”
while office parking lots in the Airport Area are “feasible.”
“4. Parcels 3, 4, 6-9, 10 and 12 are either too small and/or have viable commercial uses.
Infeasible.”
What standard for size is being applied? The existing Housing Element Sites Inventory
includes isolated parcels of 0.1 acre and less, which were deemed “feasible” in finding 1. Are
those all now “infeasible”?
The HCD may require extra justification for finding small lots feasible for low income housing,
but that does not preclude higher income housing types.
And how do we judge what is “viable” or what plans or desires a landowner might have?
“6. Parcel 13 is a large apartment complex with a large two-level parking structure. The addition
of more units might be possible.”
The committee may be interested to know 880 Irvine Avenue recently applied and was
approved for 10 ADU’s (PA2020-190).
But the bigger question is: why is this included in the report? The report’s unstated subject
seems to be finding non-residential uses that could be converted to residential ones. Why is
intensification of existing residential uses being considered here but not elsewhere?
“7. Parcels 14-17 is a series of office buildings, some appearing more updated than others.
Some of the parcels could accommodate housing alone, or in combination with others. The
owners of Parcels 14, 15 and 16 have contacted the City in the past about the potential for
housing uses.”
The City Council, at its last meeting, directed staff to bring back an agenda item to consider
adding restaurants and fitness centers to the allowed uses in this area.
Housing Element Update Advisory Committee - November 4, 2020
Item V(b) - Additional Materials Received
Sites Rundown: Remainder of Town
November 4, 2020, HEUAC Item V.b comments - Jim Mosher Page 3 of 3
“11. Parcel 22 has approvals at both the City and Coastal Commission levels for a mixed used
project that includes residential units. Feasible”
This, and much that follows, contradicts the earlier statements that the Coastal Zone was not
being considered.
“12. The Dunes West of the Lagoon (no Parcel Number on Map). Although zoned for a “Family
Inn” (a hotel), there is enough land for potential additional uses.”
Isn’t this area governed by a settlement agreement? W hat does it say?
…
“44. Parcel 128 is the Coyote Canyon landfill which is owned by the County of Orange. It has
been the understanding of the City Staff that the site is not developable for housing since it is
not practicable to put housing on top of a landfill due to regulatory and cost hurdles.”
I believe housing has been built on former landfills elsewhere. Why is it categorically
infeasible here?
Miscellaneous comments
Parcel 21 (on Map 1) does not seem to be discussed. It contains the recently-opened ENC
Preschool.
Parcel 26 (shown as an inset to Map 2), the 7.6 acre Newport Beach Tennis Club, also does not
appear to be discussed in the rundown, even though it has been the subject of speculation that
it had been purchased for residential development.
In Map 2, all the parcels west of Santa Barbara Drive and Newport Center Drive are in the
Coastal Zone, should that be a concern.
How about all the City that isn’t shown?
That includes such things as the Beach and Bay Mobile Home Park at 7204 W. Coast Highway
(the last property on the north approaching the Santa Ana River)? Why were the mobile home
parks in West Newport Mesa deemed “feasible” and this one, apparently, not even considered?
And how about South Bristol in Santa Ana Heights?
Housing Element Update Advisory Committee - November 4, 2020
Item V(b) - Additional Materials Received
Sites Rundown: Remainder of Town