HomeMy WebLinkAbout5a_Attachment 1_20210203_HEUAC draft minutesCITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE ADVISORY COMMITTEE MINUTES ZOOM MEETING, NEWPORT BEACH, CA
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 3, 2021 REGULAR MEETING – 6 P.M.
I.CALL MEETING TO ORDER – 6 p.m.
II.WELCOME AND ROLL CALL
MEMBERS PRESENT:Chair Larry Tucker, Jeffrey Bloom, Susan DeSantis, Paul Fruchbom, Elizabeth Kiley, Geoffrey LePlastrier, Stephen Sandland, Debbie Stevens (joined at 6:06 p.m.), Will O'Neill (Ex Officio) (joined at 6:03 p.m.)
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
Staff Present: Community Development Director Seimone Jurjis, Deputy
Community Development Director Jim Campbell, Principal Planner Jaime Murillo, Senior Planner Ben Zdeba, Administrative Support Specialist Clarivel Rodriguez
III.PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
Jim Mosher expressed surprise to learn of an unscheduled vacancy on the Housing Element Update Advisory Committee (Committee) and the qualifications for the position. The enabling resolution does not contain a position with the qualifications listed for the vacant position. Also, the enabling resolution designates the current Mayor as the Council's representative to the Committee, and Council Member O'Neill is no longer Mayor.
IV.CONSENT CALENDAR
a.Minutes of January 20, 2021 Meeting
Recommended Action: Approve and file the minutes of January 20, 2021.
Chair Tucker moved, seconded by Committee Member Bloom to approve the minutes of the January 20, 2021 meeting with revisions proposed by Jim Mosher, Hoiyin Ip, and Chair Tucker.
AYE: Tucker, Bloom, DeSantis, Fruchbom, Kiley, LePlastrier, Sandland NO: None ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Stevens
V.CURRENT BUSINESS
a.Subcommittee Progress ReportsRecommended Action: Receive verbal updates from each subcommittee, as appropriate.
Housing Element Update Advisory Committee - February 17, 2021 Item No. IV(a) - Attachment 1 Minutes of February 3, 2021
Housing Element Update Advisory Committee Meeting February 3, 2021
Page 2 of 6
Chair Tucker reported he provides the affordable housing memorandum to parties who contact him
about affordable housing. Based on comments submitted to him, he will revise the memorandum and circulate it to the Affordable Housing Subcommittee for approval. In addition, he received requested information for the memorandum pertaining to sites in the remainder of town after the agenda deadline for the current meeting. Updated memoranda will be placed on the agenda for the next Committee meeting. b. Feasibility of Housing in the 65 dB CNEL and Subcommittee Action Report
Recommended Action: Receive an update from Committee Members Sandland and DeSantis on their exploration of properties as being "potentially feasible," "feasible," or
"infeasible" within the 65 dB CNEL areas near the John Wayne Airport. Discuss the analysis prepared and receive and file.
Committee Member Sandland advised that the subcommittee only considered parcels that were physically able to accommodate housing in place of or in addition to the current use of the parcels.
Parcels were designated as feasible, potentially feasible, and infeasible. He provided the subcommittee's criteria for designating sites as feasible, potentially feasible, and infeasible. Parcels that are overlaid with a CNEL contour greater than 70 dB were deemed infeasible. The
Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) has established Site Safety Compatibility policies. Zones 1 and 2, Runway Protection Zones, prohibit residential uses within the zones. Zone 3 is the Inner Turning Zone. Zone 4 is the Outer Approach/Departure Zone, and the basic compatibility indicates residential uses should be limited to low density. Zone 5 contains properties immediately adjacent to the runway and prohibits residential uses. Zone 6 is called the Traffic Pattern Zone. The compatibility policies state that residential land uses shall be allowed in this area. The subcommittee considered these basic compatibility qualities and determined that Zones 1-5 would be infeasible, and Zone 6 could be considered feasible or potentially feasible. John Wayne Airport (JWA) and the City both utilize CNEL contours of 65 and 70 dB, and the subcommittee did not explore alternatives. The subcommittee does not have all the facts regarding the various parcels; therefore, the designations are subjective. Some of the parcels could be reclassified as feasible,
potentially feasible, or infeasible. Staff will contact the owners of properties identified as feasible or potentially feasible. Before the Committee approves any parcel for the site inventory list and after public input, the Committee would have to find that housing is a suitable use. Additional
deliberations regarding suitability will involve density and could involve development standards. The subcommittee does not endorse housing on any particular site but has narrowed the list of sites that staff will review and that the Committee will consider adding to the site inventory after
receiving public input. Jim Mosher remarked that the 65 dB contour is very old. The actual contour changes with the flight patterns of aircraft departing JWA. The 65 dB contour has contracted such that almost all of Campus Drive is located outside the contour. Chair Tucker noted the Committee did not consider the 65 dB area initially but may have to if sites are needed. Deputy Community Development Director Jim Campbell agreed with Mr. Mosher in that noise contours change with traffic at JWA. For planning purposes, the adopted Airport Environs Land
Use Plan is the determining factor. Staff anticipates a change over time but not a remarkable change. Some of these sites may be needed to fill a gap between required and identified sites. Sites within the 65 dB noise contour may be the last sites included on the list because of noise.
Housing Element Update Advisory Committee - February 17, 2021 Item No. IV(a) - Attachment 1 Minutes of February 3, 2021
Housing Element Update Advisory Committee Meeting February 3, 2021
Page 3 of 6
Chair Tucker added that there may be more opportunities for more affordable units at these sites.
Brett Feuerstein, owner of a portion of the Newport Beach Golf Course, indicated the property is located within the 65 dB CNEL and split between Zones 6 and 4. If the City needs to utilize sites within the 65 dB contour, the property would be perfect for some type of residential use. Based on his interpretation of the Airport Safety Zones, a residential use located in Zone 4 should have a density equal to the average density of all surrounding uses. If needed, the property could provide up to 100 units Chair Tucker requested staff review the details of Zone 4 because the summary language for Zone 4 is confusing.
In response to Committee Member Kiley's inquiry, Mr. Feuerstein felt a density that provided more than 100 units might be aggressive for Zone 4. The portion of his property located in Zone 6 could provide up to 50 units per acre.
Committee Member Sandland reviewed the subcommittee's designations for Parcels 1, 1.5, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 11, 48 50, and 9. At the Committee's request, Committee Member Sandland only went
over Parcels 17, 19, 21, 22, 29, 24, 41, 41.1, 114, 115, 119, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 128, 129, 142, 141, 146, 147-155, 158, 163, 165-169, 156, 157, 159, 160, 161, 189, 190, and 191, which the subcommittee designated as feasible or potentially feasible. Committee Member Bloom noted that constructing a parking structure on the portion of the Newport Beach Golf Course property located in Zone 4 and constructing residential uses on the portion in Zone 6 may be feasible. Committee Member Stevens concurred with Mr. Mosher's concern about relying on old data, equipment, and aircraft and with Deputy Community Development Director Campbell's comment that this is the data. The subcommittee handled the analyses well and found some potentially
decent-sized parcels. Chair Tucker related that the Council will have to deal with the safety issue if units within the 65 dB
CNEL contour are needed to meet the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) number. Committee Member Sandland added that the subcommittee attempted to follow policies from the
Basic Compatibility Qualities. Charles Klobe remarked that Mr. Feuerstein proposed low-income housing in the form of condominiums and questioned whether Mr. Feuerstein understands that the Committee is looking for low- to very-low-income units. Chair Tucker clarified that some of the property may be condominiums, but they would not be affordable housing. Nothing will be built if the burdens of affordability render projects infeasible. The State will have to confront the low-income issues when it reviews Housing Elements submitted by 197 jurisdictions.
Deborah Allen felt a residential project at the Newport Beach Golf Course would be wildly popular with the Newport Beach community regardless of density and affordability because development would constrain John Wayne Airport's (JWA) expansion.
Housing Element Update Advisory Committee - February 17, 2021 Item No. IV(a) - Attachment 1 Minutes of February 3, 2021
Housing Element Update Advisory Committee Meeting February 3, 2021
Page 4 of 6
c. Approach for Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU)
Recommended Action: Receive an overview of the possible approaches for using ADUs to
count towards the RHNA requirement. Chair Tucker commented that ADUs as potential units are different from other housing types. Assumptions have to be made in estimating the number of units that will be built. The City will receive credit for ADUs at certain affordability levels that are quite attractive. The disadvantage to ADUs is they may be built next to neighbors who are not expecting them. The Council will have to set the policies. David Barquist, Kimley Horn and Associates, reported the memorandum describes the process and considerations for ADUs. Attached to the memo are the Southern California Association of
Governments' (SCAG) methodology and excerpts from the Site Inventory Guidebook developed by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). ADUs are one strategy to accommodate growth needs, and single-family residences and multifamily
developments will be needed to accommodate growth. HCD's approach to counting ADUs is called the Safe Harbor Approach and utilizes historical trends to project a yearly average of production over the course of the planning period. This approach eliminates the need to calculate affordability
levels. Supplemental policies and programs may be needed to encourage development of ADUs. In response to Committee Member Fruchbom's query, Mr. Barquist indicated ADU production has been approximately 25 units per year, and projecting that over the planning period provides the City's Safe Harbor. Mr. Barquist continued the presentation, stating the ADU unit yield is 200 for the planning period. The City may take a more aggressive approach and adopt policies and programs that support a more aggressive approach. HCD will review these aggressive approaches on a case-by-case basis. The City is obligated to perform to the aggressive approach through the planning period and should balance its vision with a realistic projection to avoid no net loss implications.
In answer to Chair Tucker's inquiries, Mr. Barquist explained that theoretically the City could accommodate 4,834 ADUs. The question is the realistic number of ADUs that can be built during
the planning period because the City is obligated to produce that number of ADUs. The Council will have to balance the tensions among the policies it creates for each type of housing. In his experience, jurisdictions are utilizing the Safe Harbor Approach.
Principal Planner Jaime Murillo advised that housing laws require the City to plan and zone for a variety of housing types and different densities. ADUs are viewed as an alternative to the sites inventory. HCD staff has stated clearly that the Safe Harbor Approach is acceptable, but they are open to an aggressive approach. Because the majority of ADU applications are pending in plan check, staff has to ensure the ADU projections for the Safe Harbor Approach are appropriate. A projection of 1,000 ADUs may be aggressive. While ADUs are allowed in any residential zone, there has to be a demand for ADUs. HCD will likely request a monitoring program for an aggressive approach. If the City does not meet its production targets, HCD will require the City to find alternative sites.
In reply to Committee Member Stevens' queries, Principal Planner Murillo stated HCD will probably not require monitoring for a Safe Harbor Approach. However, recent conversations with HCD staff seem to indicate monitoring may be required for a Safe Harbor Approach. Mr. Barquist indicated
Housing Element Update Advisory Committee - February 17, 2021 Item No. IV(a) - Attachment 1 Minutes of February 3, 2021
Housing Element Update Advisory Committee Meeting February 3, 2021
Page 5 of 6
the City may adjust its zoning for other housing types if ADU production exceeds projections.
Basically, the City has to show it can accommodate its unaccommodated need.
In answer to Committee Member Sandland's question, Chair Tucker reiterated that the City would have to justify its ADU projections regardless of the method for calculating the projections.
Committee Member LePlastrier indicated he is working with family members to plan an ADU. The cost for a freestanding ADU is approximately $300 per square foot.
Committee Member Kiley believed a projection of 400 ADUs is realistic with the recent changes in housing laws. An amnesty program for existing illegal ADUs could capture additional units. Projecting the number of ADUs based on a percentage of single-family lots is reasonable.
Committee Member DeSantis concurred with the feasibility of a projection for more than 200 ADUs. San Diego is exploring ways to provide financing and preapproved architectural drawings and site
plans for ADUs. Using best practices from other Southern California cities, the City should be able to craft a program that will support an increase in the projections. Developing a program that makes sense for Newport Beach, is supported by the community, and facilitates this is reasonable.
In response to Committee Member Kiley's inquiry, Committee Member DeSantis advised that staff has access to the Turner report and the website for best practices.
Nancy Scarbrough supported an aggressive approach because there is no history for ADUs. With education, Newport Beach residents would probably strongly prefer 2,000 ADUs over tens of thousands of high-density units concentrated in the City. Once the City zones for high-density projects, it will be impossible to reduce that zoning.
Charles Klobe supported an aggressive approach. The report indicates Newport Beach's historical rent for an ADU is approximately half that reported in other jurisdictions. That history of low rent
should support an aggressive approach for low- and very-low-income ADUs. Achieving 2,000 ADUs over the next nine years is highly likely.
Chair Tucker commented that affordable units have to happen on private property, and private developers are not going to lose money to build affordable housing. The construction of affordable units just is not going to happen as designed.
VI.ADJOURNMENT – 7:42 p.m.
Chair Tucker noted on March 17, 2021 the Committee is scheduled to make a recommendation for the Planning Commission and City Council to consider in April. The Committee will likely continue working on the sites inventory after it makes a recommendation.
Deputy Community Development Director Campbell reported a first housing opportunities list will be presented at the next meeting. A public workshop regarding the policy framework and the first sites analysis is scheduled for February 24th. The process will repeat in March. The Council study session on February 9, 2021 will include the RHNA appeal, the Committee's progress, and ADUs.
In answer to Committee Member DeSantis's question, Deputy Community Development Director Campbell related that a workshop for the Circulation Element will be held on February 10.
Next Meeting: February 17, 2021, 6 p.m. via Zoom.
Housing Element Update Advisory Committee - February 17, 2021 Item No. IV(a) - Attachment 1 Minutes of February 3, 2021