Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout20210317_HEUAC_Minutes_ApprovedCITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING ZOOM MEETING, NEWPORT BEACH, CA WEDNESDAY, MARCH 17, 2021 REGULAR MEETING – 6 P.M. I. CALL MEETING TO ORDER – 6 p.m. II. WELCOME AND ROLL CALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Larry Tucker, Susan DeSantis, Paul Fruchbom, Geoffrey LePlastrier, Stephen Sandland, Debbie Stevens (joined 6:05 p.m.), (Ex Officio Member) Will O’Neill (joined 6:32 p.m.) MEMBERS ABSENT: Jeffrey Bloom, Elizabeth Kiley (both absences excused) Staff Present: Community Development Director Seimone Jurjis, Deputy Community Development Director Jim Campbell, Senior Planner Ben Zdeba, Administrative Support Specialist Clarivel Rodriguez III. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS None. IV. CONSENT CALENDAR a. Minutes of March 3, 2021 (Attachment 1) Recommended Action: Approve and file the minutes of March 3, 2021. Chair Tucker indicated Jim Mosher submitted appropriate changes to the minutes. Chair Tucker moved, seconded by Committee Member DeSantis, to approve the minutes of the March 3, 2021 meeting as amended by Mr. Mosher. AYE: Tucker, DeSantis, LePlastrier, Sandland, Fruchbom NO: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Bloom, Kiley, Stevens V. CURRENT BUSINESS a. Subcommittee Progress Reports Recommended Action: Receive verbal updates from each subcommittee, as appropriate. Chair Tucker reported that the Overlay Subcommittee was the only active subcommittee. The Overlay Subcommittee met then spoke with staff and determined they needed to place the Overlay Zoning Districts on this meeting’s agenda. Housing Element Update Advisory Committee Meeting March 17, 2021 Page 2 of 11 Page 2 of 11 b. Overlay Zoning Districts (Attachment 2) Recommended Action: Receive a brief presentation on overlay zoning districts to help understand how they may help the City in achieving the required rezoning of sites identified in the housing opportunity sites inventory. Chair Tucker stated the Overlay Subcommittee was necessary because they were not getting property owners expressing an interest in having their properties rezoned to the extent necessary to achieve the required Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA). An overlay district allows property owners to keep their existing land use, but under certain conditions, could add housing. Chair Tucker thought it was apparent the City would need to use overlay zoning and therefore the Committee and public need to hear about overlays. Deputy Community Development Director Jim Campbell explained that the basic concept of an overlay is that it provides applied zoning for a broad geographic area and it might include a variety of land uses. The purpose is to modify the base zoning to achieve some outcome. Overlays have been used for years and Newport Beach has several so a housing overlay is a tool that could be used for affordable housing, to establish development standards and due process, among many other things. Deputy Community Development Director Campbell directed Committee Members to Attachment 2, which provides examples of overlays as found by Senior Planner Ben Zdeba. He envisioned using housing overlays to some degree but stated that there may be rezones for specific properties. The Housing Element draft policies use the terms “zoning overlay” or “similar zoning strategy” so overlays are just one tool that could be used. Senior Planner Ben Zdeba reiterated a point from the memorandum that the overlays are not “cookie cutters” to be applied to Newport Beach. Overlays would have to be analyzed and discussed prior to enaction. When staff reached out to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) the only two provided as examples were Concord and Menlo Park, the rest were found by staff and presented for information. Deputy Community Development Director Campbell said the makeup of what an overlay would specifically do is premature as currently the City is engaged in a high-level General Plan policy analysis where it is looking to establish goals and is committing to a rezone program. That program may include an overlay within the next three years as contained in Section 4 of the draft Housing Element. Staff feels it is appropriate to make a commitment to do some sort of zoning tool such as a rezone or a zoning overlay to create the housing opportunities as identified in policy. If it is kept as a goal, then they can tailor the specific overlays or implementation strategies later and avoid issues related to being too specific. In response to Committee Member Fruchbom’s question regarding affordable housing overlays, Deputy Community Development Director Campbell stated staff would do some research, but that there may not be a standard that could be enforced in all circumstances. Chair Tucker appreciated staff’s overlay examples in the memorandum. As Newport Beach is unlikely to have many rezones, it could use overlays to establish for the State the necessary housing opportunities. Chair Tucker said that in the existing Housing Element, he’s seen a vague reference to overlays, and in the Housing Plan, there is mention of overlays or similar strategies being applied. He confirmed that was all that would be sent to the State in the draft Housing Element. Housing Element Update Advisory Committee Meeting March 17, 2021 Page 3 of 11 Page 3 of 11 Deputy Community Development Director Campbell agreed that was precisely how staff envisioned the process. If Newport Beach gets too specific now, it could be held to that specific language which could be a problem. The production of affordable housing is the goal and overlays will keep that in mind. Chair Tucker stated the Committee could express preference as to the types of things that should be included in the overlay, but that would ultimately be decided by the Planning Commission and the City Council. The Committee will not finalize overlays but can offer input. Deputy Community Development Director Campbell stated the Housing Element policies would be similar to what the Committee has seen, and that staff wanted input on the implementation. Chair Tucker confirmed that the City had three years to enact the overlays. Deputy Community Development Director Campbell said that the City would commit to a rezone strategy, an overlay strategy, or some strategy that creates the opportunity outlined in the Housing Element within three years. For example, in the Airport Area there is a goal for low and very low income housing and those are the target numbers. Chair Tucker explained that property owners who expressed interest in rezoning would be included in the Land Use Element as housing locations. With overlays the City might indicate that more sites are available for housing than it really expects or wants. In the 2006 General Plan Update, each area was limited. Deputy Community Development Director Campbell explained staff had that conversation with HCD because they have language that talks about not creating a yearly cap. Staff has asked if a geographic area cap that affords the RHNA would be acceptable and HCD indicated it might be so a geographic cap or an overlay standard are available to the City although the provisions and regulations are complex. In response to Chair Tucker’s question, Deputy Community Development Director Campbell stated he would find out if it was possible to have an overlay in a given geographic area but have the terms of the overlay for different properties within the geographical area be different. He thought it would require additional conversation as there must be equal application of the law. Committee Member DeSantis mentioned the transfer of development rights as well as payment of in-lieu fees and wanted to know how that might work in the context of an overlay zone. She thought there would need to be at least a minimum requirement in a geographic overlay zone. The Governor’s last budget had $500 million included for affordable housing and Microsoft had committed resources to the housing trust fund. She explained that the State is working to consolidate funds into one application to be able to more smoothly subsidize affordable housing projects so there may be more money than they think for affordable housing developments. Chair Tucker assumed the other funds were already there and that there would be a limit. The number of subsidies needed for almost 2,400 units is astronomical. Newport Beach should do the best it can, but the State needs to spend a large sum on affordable housing that they are telling the municipalities to plan. Housing Element Update Advisory Committee Meeting March 17, 2021 Page 4 of 11 Page 4 of 11 In response to Committee Member DeSantis’ question, Deputy Community Development Director Campbell said the transfer of development rights is where units could be transferred from one parcel to another to promote the feasibility of a site. The City can use transfer of development rights and has a policy in the General Plan Land Use Element that limits how far you can move the units in General Plan statistical areas, but that would likely be a tool the City could use within an overlay environment. The concept of in-lieu fees are such that maybe there is a minimum inclusionary requirement and on a particular site it is not feasible, so the City could relieve the responsibility to build units on that site in exchange for a preestablished fee to the City Housing Fund. That is a common practice and Newport Beach has some housing funds yet to be spent, but they are earmarked for use and the City needs to reenergize the fund to provide another tool for affordability. He believed both tools would be available to most projects pending policy choices to be made by City Council. Jim Mosher said that in reading the staff report he got the impression that affordable housing overlays are a rare zoning tool in California, but when he Googled it, he found that they were quite common. He noted that Berkeley is considering adopting one and they pointed to a webpage from the Association of Bay Area Governments that said that within their 9-county area there are 28 jurisdictions with housing overlays. Locally in addition to Huntington Beach, San Clemente has an affordable housing overlay zone adopted in 2011 and modified in 2017 which requires 50 percent of the units to be affordable to 50 percent or less of the county median income. David Tanner asked if the three-year extension was something requested by the City or if it was something approved by HCD. He cautioned the City about how it words the Housing Element so as to not trigger the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). He suggested a priority system for housing sites in his submitted comments. If there were grant or in-lieu fee money available, it might be applied to the project with the highest number of affordable units versus some other project. He suggested the Committee look at San Diego’s model. With respect to in-lieu fees he suggested that they be applied Citywide to all building permits and uses. Mr. Tanner stated it was important to get the Housing Element through without CEQA or triggering a vote of the electorate. He suggested breaking the Housing Element into pieces and postpone the CEQA and a vote of the electorate to three years if allowed. In response to David Tanner’s question, Deputy Community Development Director Campbell said the three-year provision to implement the zoning strategies is embodied in State law. Administrative Support Specialist Clarivel Rodriguez stated that Ex Officio Member Will O’Neill joined the meeting at 6:32 p.m. Debra Allen stated she read a good deal of the draft Housing Element, the overlay zoning districts, and particularly the references staff gave of other cities with overlay zoning districts. Most if not all had development standards that included things like height limits and setbacks. She understood that Chair Tucker believed the Committee should make some recommendations to the City Council and the Planning Commission on things it thought should be included in the development standards. She stressed her concern about the sight plane and hoped the Committee would make a recommendation to the Planning Commission and City Council to preserve the 60-year-old statute protecting the view plane for 500 to 600 residents that live on the hill. She referenced Table B-10 and said that in Newport Center, 964 new dwelling units would be underneath the sight plane and that would annihilate the sight plane. She strongly urged the Committee to make a recommendation to the Planning Commission and City Council that within those areas they maintain the integrity of the sight plane ordinance. Housing Element Update Advisory Committee Meeting March 17, 2021 Page 5 of 11 Page 5 of 11 Chair Tucker said the Committee would not decide to revoke the sight plane as that is not the purview of an appointed committee. As there were no further Committee Member or public comments he closed the discussion. c. Initial Draft Housing Element Overview (Attachment 3) Recommended Action: Receive an overview of the contents of the initial draft Housing Element update, which was published online on March 10, 2021, and made available here: www.newportbeachca.gov/DraftHEUpdate. Discuss and provide comments to staff. Deputy Community Development Director Campbell presented the initial draft of the Housing Element and explained that staff wanted feedback from the Committee and the public. He introduced Dave Barquist of Kimley-Horn to lead the presentation. Mr. Barquist utilized a presentation and explained the initial draft Housing Element was a representation of the Committee, staff, and stakeholder work. He thanked the community for its input and work. He stressed that this is an initial draft that needed further review and input. Amendments and changes to the draft are anticipated. The draft must comply with statutes and State law. The draft was posted on the City website the week of March 8, 2021 and is available for public comment though April 30, 2021. Mr. Barquist explained the Housing Element is an expression of Newport Beach’s goals and aspirations for housing in the community. There are policies and programs relating to the implementation of those aspirations and that is what the plan supports. The Housing Element is a chapter of the General Plan and relates to the other elements. The Introduction of the Housing Element gives the statutory authority, the relationship to the General Plan, the data sources used to compile the plan, and a summary of the Housing Element’s organization. The Community Profile is a snapshot of population trends, household characteristics, economic characteristics, housing problems, special needs groups, and housing stock profile. Constraints and resources are evaluated including non-governmental constraints, governmental constraints, fair housing analysis including Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH), and housing resources. Mr. Barquist explained that the next section was the Housing Plan. The foundation to any policy document is the policies contained within, so the Housing Plan can be viewed as the foundation of the Housing Element. It represents the City’s official policy for the 2021 to 2029 planning period. He explained that everything would not happen as soon as the plan was adopted. There is a timeline to allow City staff to do the requisite research, integrate with the community, and have discussions with the Planning Commission and City Council to have a viable policy that has gone through a rigorous process. There are two components to the Housing Plan, the growth need and the existing need, which are addressed by policies and programs. Many policies and programs are continuing from the 5th to the 6th cycle. Mr. Barquist stated that they used several appendices to review past performance. This helps create an assessment of the progress made by the current plan and gives a basis for the 6th cycle program. Appendix B is based on the work done by the community and is a detailed analysis of the sites to accommodate the RHNA allocation. The Housing Element provides sites that could accommodate potential need but is not an entitlement or a regulatory method to provide clearance for a project. Housing Element Update Advisory Committee Meeting March 17, 2021 Page 6 of 11 Page 6 of 11 The Summary of Outreach explains the outreach efforts made during the process. The City made diligent efforts to accommodate and engage the public and stakeholders in the development of the plan and the section can be viewed as a demonstration of those efforts. This section will continue to be updated as work continues on the Housing Element. Mr. Barquist stated the next step was a review by the Committee. The public comment is open until April 30, 2021. There will be additional edits and amendments to the draft Housing Element before it is submitted to HCD in late spring. Chair Tucker reminded the Committee that this is their first pass though the initial draft and that there would be a second opportunity at the March 31 meeting. He also announced a public workshop on March 22, 2021. Chair Tucker requested Committee Members be prepared to provide their specific comments on March 31. He personally focused on the Sites Analysis, Appendix B and the Housing Plan. Additionally, he has many typographical and grammatical changes noted on the documents. In response to Committee Member Fruchbom’s question, Chair Tucker said they could make any comments they have now and that there would be an additional time for input at the March 31 meeting. Committee Member Fruchbom asked staff to review some of the sites, particularly Banning Ranch and the landfill. He understood why they were reticent on Banning Ranch given the Coastal Commission but thought that if they put more affordable units there it would put pressure on the Coastal Commission. With Coyote Canyon there is an opportunity to put a lot more housing, particularly affordable housing there. Committee Member Stevens agreed with Committee Member Fruchbom on Coyote Canyon. She was still concerned about the overall numbers proposed and had comments on the typographical errors. Based on that she planned to provide staff with written comments next week. Chair Tucker encouraged other Committee Members to provide staff with written comments. Committee Member LePlastrier commended the document overall but noted he also had wording and grammar changes. He stated he needed additional time to read the materials and provide constructive comments. Committee Member Sandland also focused on the Site Analysis, Appendix B. He raised a question related to the AB1397 site requirements. In response to Committee Member Sandland’s question, Mr. Barquist explained that it was not limited or excluded, and that the City would need to provide sufficient evidence that would support the use of the sites as viable development opportunities. Committee Member Sandland stated that in Appendix B some of the page numbering was incorrect. Some of the sites in Safety Zone 4 were not feasible. For the third time, he requested that the golf course to the north of Mesa Drive be included. He stated he would pass the request to staff in written form. Chair Tucker explained that they were awaiting further information and clarification on the Housing Element Update Advisory Committee Meeting March 17, 2021 Page 7 of 11 Page 7 of 11 conflicting language in Safety Zone 4. Committee Member Sandland pointed out that there was no reference to the properties that were in the 65 dB Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) area. In response to Committee Member Sandland’s question, Mr. Barquist explained that “net units final” is an assumption of the potential for the site. Committee Member Sandland suggested that the last column be called “owner interest letter received” or something to that effect. He stated he would provide additional comments to staff before the March 31 meeting. Committee Member DeSantis said she planned to provide detailed comments in writing. With respect to Coyote Canyon, she wanted a better understanding as to why the projection is a total of 2 acres at 22 units an acre for a total of 44 units. Mr. Barquist said he saw 22 acres as the potential feasibility. The density is an assumed average density for the parcel. Committee Member DeSantis said that the document only showed 44 affordable units. Chair Tucker asked if Committee Member DeSantis was looking at Appendix B, Page B-13, Table B-7. Mr. Barquist said that Table B-7 provides a summary of the opportunity or assumed development potential and it exceeds the numbers Committee Member DeSantis stated. Chair Tucker said that 10 percent of the units are shown as lower income and 10 percent are shown as moderate. He was unsure in that location what the difference between moderate and market rate would be, but it seemed to him that a developer might be able to do better than 10 percent on the lower income units. Committee Member Fruchbom said that his comment was driven by the idea of putting the parking on the landfill as that land was not worth much and the cost would be lower to develop. Chair Tucker said that the land approaching the 22 acres is habitat land so the parking might not be able to go there, but it is a good example of how costs could drive the affordability of a project. All properties are unique. Committee Member DeSantis said the Committee should consider part of the 22 acres going to an all senior housing project that could be as many as 400 affordable units. In response to Chair Tucker’s question, Deputy Community Development Director Campbell said that the policies the Committee approves could ultimately prioritize certain uses, but he did not think that the Housing Element should be that specific at this point in the process. The Committee can make suggestions to the Planning Commission and City Council regarding senior living and other housing priorities. Committee Member DeSantis thought the Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) are significantly Housing Element Update Advisory Committee Meeting March 17, 2021 Page 8 of 11 Page 8 of 11 underrepresented and that an aggressive program in years one though three could yield a more accurate reading on the number of units already built that are just not permitted or up to code. There could be a program that would potentially facilitate bringing them up to code and getting them counted. She also wanted to see a lower count for the above moderate number in the draft. In response to Chair Tucker’s question about increasing ADU numbers, Deputy Community Development Director Campbell thought that if they placed an aggressive number in the early years of the plan and then did not achieve it, they might be held accountable earlier. He suggested a more general policy that would increase the number overall but not specify when it might occur. Mr. Barquist said that in his experience with HCD in the 6th cycle that HCD understands the implications of the new housing law. You can be more aggressive with ADU policy but will get some pushback from HCD to prove that the City supports ADUs. So, the City will need to provide additional policy support surrounding ADUs. In response to Chair Tucker’s question, Mr. Barquist explained that HCD’s view of aggressive ADU policy is very subjective. If the City is claiming substantially more than what its history has shown HCD would consider it aggressive. Committee Member DeSantis cited Encinitas’ amnesty program and said units not up to code would be counted in the overall stock which would give the City a foundation for being able to document that it had a higher percentage of units already built and could then project a higher number in the future. If the City is interested, it seems as though there is a way to do it. Chair Tucker said the amnesty program means units get permitted. The waivers and things that the City has flexibility on are in the Zoning Code, not the Building Code. He expressed concern about people avoiding the permit process in order to save money. Secondly, Policy Action 1H talks about implementing a permit ready standard program. As Newport Beach is hilly a standard plan might not be effective, but it is included in the Housing Element. Ex Officio Member Will O’Neill worried about the overconcentration of affordable housing in one area of the City; specifically, right now about 80 percent of the housing would be concentrated in one Council District. With respect to affordability due to expensive property values and rent, mixed-income properties would work quite well. With the budget surplus, California’s concentration on affordable housing will continue and they will see increased subsidies. He suggested they focus on mixed-income units more spread throughout the City including District 7. He found the comments on Coyote Canyon appropriate and indicated they needed further discussions with the developer. He also believed they need to move affordable housing into the Newport Center area. With the increase of 4,800 units in the City the Council needs to look at infrastructure improvements, which are significant policy changes. The affordable housing memo should be updated to reflect these concerns because it does change the way the City plans. He appreciated that this is a draft document and hoped there would be support for spreading out some of the affordable housing. The City Council just passed a policy dealing with housing and the primary focus was on making sure they were stimulating the ADU production. HCD needs to know that Newport Beach is making a good effort to be more aggressive on ADUs. In response to Chair Tucker’s question, Mr. Barquist explained that the 80 percent of lower income affordability in the Airport Area was predicated on the availability of sites and the opportunities within the different areas and the densities. Because of the propensity to have a denser project in Housing Element Update Advisory Committee Meeting March 17, 2021 Page 9 of 11 Page 9 of 11 the Airport Area it would support a higher level of affordability. That does not mean that is a perfect solution, it was just an assessment that could be changed. Chair Tucker stated that the land would be less expensive in the airport area so there could be an inclusionary housing ordinance that contained an in-lieu fee in certain overlay districts that would yield a larger in lieu fee to subsidize projects in the Airport Area. He said that from a political standpoint he understood where Ex Officio Member O’Neill stood, but from an economic standpoint the Airport Area was good for affordable housing. Ultimately the City needs to submit a plan with an explanation that works. He stated that Scenarios 1 and 2 were closer to the total RHNA number and the overlays put the City over its target, which is concerning. He preferred a unit count as close to the RHNA number as possible and saw Banning Ranch as a perfect buffer. In response to Chair Tucker’s question Deputy Community Development Director Campbell said they have not identified a specific scenario yet. Scenario 1 was to develop sites to match RHNA with no buffer, Scenario 2 included a small unidentified buffer. The current iteration is a variation of Scenario 2 and contains more units than the minimum RHNA. The most important part of the buffer is for low and very low income units. Chair Tucker said that the subsidy must come from somewhere and there is a limit to tax dollars and density bonuses. The rest of the subsidy would be up to the City and an inclusionary housing ordinance. The potential subsidies are to compensate an owner for creating housing that will lose money. Anyone suggesting the City should just zone for affordable housing has to realize the money must come from somewhere. Table B-1 has 4,200 units beyond RHNA and if the City submits that he was concerned the City would obligate itself to come up with that type of production. He thought the number should be closer to the minimum RHNA plus some buffer. He mentioned the idea of caps on overlay districts so that the overlays expire when the numbers are reached. Committee Member Sandland agreed with Chair Tucker about taking high numbers to the State. He was also in favor of placing a cap on certain areas in order to meet RHNA requirements but also limit the total number of units developed. Chair Tucker said he had some issues with the sites analysis that he would submit to staff prior to the next meeting. He asked staff to double-check the numbers on Table B-10 and stressed the need to clean up typographical, spelling, and grammar errors. He further suggested Committee Members carefully review the Housing Plan and its provisions. There are a series of decisions the Committee must make and he wanted to see them all listed together. Newport Beach is a desirable place to live, and the policies must support that. Jim Mosher stated concerns about making the document easy for the public to review and comment. The version posted contains a draft watermark on every page and free versions of Adobe Acrobat do not allow for comments over the watermark. Other City documents do not have that issue so he hoped it could be fixed. Secondly, with respect to the timeline, staff’s plan is to submit the draft document to HCD on May 15, 2021. He was concerned that upon submittal the document would be viewed by HCD as a commitment more than a draft. Chair Tucker asked staff to investigate a technical solution to Mr. Mosher’s accessibility concern. Nancy Scarbrough agreed with Committee Member DeSantis and Chair Tucker that the City should use an aggressive ADU count. She mentioned Santa Ana’s many high-density low-income housing Housing Element Update Advisory Committee Meeting March 17, 2021 Page 10 of 11 Page 10 of 11 projects that have poor aesthetics and was concerned about similar projects in Newport Beach. She said that this process was mandated by a governor who might be subject to recall and could be changed by a future governor, and if Newport Beach does not submit a draft it could be subject to different rules in October. She explained she could not find a requirement to submit a draft and agreed with Mr. Mosher and other residents who have suggested waiting to submit. Chair Tucker said that if a recall election happened it would be established by the legislature and it would probably occur later in 2021. He explained the Governor did not decide the number so he was not sure that a recall would change the requirements. At some point in time the flaws of the program as set by the State will show. There is a three-year implementation period so the City will have time to see how things play out. He did not believe that the State legislature cares about complaints from city councils, but they will be concerned about the opinions of voters and that is where people should focus their political energy. In response to Chair Tucker’s question, Deputy Community Development Director Campbell asked Mr. Barquist to explain HCD’s review process and whether a new governor could change the requirements of State law. Chair Tucker said he also wanted to know if not submitting a draft was a good idea or not and why. Mr. Barquist said that in his opinion the penalties to not submitting a draft outweigh the benefits. There is a statutory deadline articulated in State law. There is a 120-day buffer but that only applies to jurisdictions that want an eight-year cycle. If you go beyond 120 days, you must do a mid-cycle update every four years. In order to return to an eight-year cycle, a city would have to first be on time for a mid-cycle update, a 7th cycle, and another mid-cycle update. That, in addition to the compliance and accountability provisions in AB 72 and the development of the Housing Accountability Office, there is a lot of pressure to comply and going beyond the deadline invites a host of remedies the State can take to compel cities to comply. Deputy Community Development Director Campbell interjected that the question was about providing the initial draft in May. Mr. Barquist said that cities must submit a document for review. Providing the document to HCD in the spring is to afford time for review, comment, and revisions before ultimate adoption. The City could adopt the Housing Element locally prior to review, but the idea is to get the letter of substantial compliance from the State prior to any City Council action. David Tanner thought that there is enough information to validate the strategy. He suggested the City Attorney or Office of Planning and Research (OPR) review the draft to see if it triggers CEQA. If it does then the City Attorney should suggest appropriate modifications. By the March 31, 2021 meeting he also wanted to hear from staff or the Committee that the Housing Element will satisfy the requirements from HCD as there is no sense in proceeding with an unacceptable document. Additionally, the City needs to disclose to the public the total potential number of dwelling units that may be constructed with the Housing Element. He further wanted to see greenhouse gas reductions included in the Housing Element. Housing sites should be located near employment centers to accommodate walking and mass transit. He also suggested seeking legal advice about whether a cap could be removed if it is satisfied based on existing legislation. Housing Element Update Advisory Committee Meeting March 17, 2021 Page 11 of 11 Page 11 of 11 d. Upcoming Schedule and Community Engagement Opportunities Recommended Action. No action. Staff to provide a brief overview of upcoming schedule for meetings and workshops. Deputy Community Development Director Campbell announced a Housing Element workshop on Monday, March 22, 2021. The workshop is open to the public over Zoom. The Planning Commission will hold a study session on April 8, 2021. The next HEUAC meeting is scheduled for March 31, 2021. The City Council will hold a study session on April 27, 2021. Fred Fourcher asked if any cities had challenged the constitutionality of the legislation and its requirements. Chair Tucker said that was beyond the purview of the appointed committee. The Committee is working on a plan to comply. Ex Officio Member O’Neill said Huntington Beach was meeting in closed session to discuss a possible lawsuit, but he did not know the outcome of the discussion. He was unaware if any other cities intended to challenge the law. Mr. Fourcher asked if Newport Beach would consider joining a lawsuit. Ex Officio Member O’Neill said he did not know and could not speak for the full Council. The matter would have to be discussed in a closed session. Huntington Beach has been aggressive with litigation against the State and has not succeeded. Therefore, he hesitated to follow Huntington Beach’s lead. Chair Tucker repeated that he believed the issue would be resolved politically and over time. He thought many municipalities were going to have issues in October. If a developer with all the subsidies cannot average more than 20 percent affordable units in a mixed-income project and the RHNA number is 2,400 units that requires 12,500 units in order to get 2,400 affordable units. What is different about this Housing Element is that when a developer fails to provide units, another area must be zoned for those units and that is difficult to deal with. VI. ADJOURNMENT – 8:14 p.m. Next Meeting: March 31, 2021, 6 p.m. via Zoom