Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApproved Minutes_07-19-2023Page 1 of 7 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE MINUTES COMMUNITY ROOM – 100 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE JULY 19, 2023 REGULAR MEETING – 5 P.M. I. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER – 5:00 p.m. II. WELCOME AND ROLL CALL Present: Co-Chair Arlene Greer, Dennis Baker, Curtis Black, Matthew Brady, James Carlson, Jeff Cefalia, Susan DeSantis, Laird Hayes, Charles Klobe, Ruth Kobayashi, Scott Laidlaw, Kate Love, Anthony Maniscalchi, Jim Mosher, Maxwell Pearson, Robert Rader, Harrison Rolfes, Nancy Scarbrough, Amber Snider, Debbie Stevens, Paul Watkins, and Lori Williams Staff: Deputy Community Development Director Jim Campbell and Principal Planner Ben Zdeba Absent: Annie Clougherty, Co-Chair Jeremy Evans, David Guder, Lynn Hackman, Ritch LeGrand, Thomas Meng, Graham Wahlberg, and Christy Walker III. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS Nancy Gardner shared that potential future speakers or topics for GPAC will be included in the General Plan Update Steering Committee (GPUSC) agenda. Principal Planner Zdeba announced that Ritch LeGrand passed away and suggested the meeting be adjourned in his memory. IV. CURRENT BUSINESS a. Meeting Minutes of June 12, 2023 Motion made by Committee Member Watkins and seconded by Committee Member Stevens to approve the minutes of June 12, 2023, as modified. The motion carried unanimously. b. Land Use Element Policy Revisions for Housing Element Implementation Deputy Community Development Director Campbell shared that at the June 19, 2023 GPAC Land Use Element Subcommittee meeting the Subcommittee conducted a final review of the proposed changes to the Land Use Element’s policies necessary to implement the adopted 6th Cycle Housing Element for the 2021-2029 planning period. Together with Sean Gorden of Kimley-Horn, he outlined a revised version of the policy General Plan Advisory Committee Minutes July 19, 2023 Page 2 of 7 matrix for implementing additional housing units and the Land Use Element review process. In response to Committee Member Baker’s question, Mr. Gorden explained there are items required to meet State guidelines and the “nice to have but not necessary” items work to improve the existing policies but are not necessary to implement the Housing Element. Deputy Community Development Director Campbell noted necessary polices to implement housing units and other policies are adjusted to remove subjectivity as it relates to housing development. He relayed that the matrix is a classification system put together with consultants to help guide the City. In response to Committee Member Love, Mr. Gorden clarified the difference between necessary and “nice to have/not necessary” policies. In response to Committee Member Klobe’s question, Mr. Gorden confirmed that the revised policy matrix reflects the items discussed at the Land Use Subcommittee meeting. Deputy Community Development Director Campbell noted that the revised policy matrix does not include the Mountains Recreation & Conservation Authority’s request to remove Banning Ranch as a housing opportunity site. He suggested recommending the removal of Banning Ranch to the City Council. In response to Committee Member Scarbrough’s question, Deputy Community Development Director Campbell indicated that the “nice to have/not necessary” items can be pushed off to the comprehensive update of the General Plan and can be recommended by this body. Committee Member Stevens thought the policies categorized a “nice to have/not necessary” are minor and suggested pulling Banning Ranch out. Deputy Community Development Director Campbell suggested changing goal LU-4 to “necessary” on page 19 of the policy matrix in the Land Use diagram. He thought that policy revisions should be done now even though future opportunities exist for revisions and Mr. Gorden concurred that this was the original intent for policies related to housing. Committee Member DeSantis supported moving forward with the “nice to have/not necessary” policies and thought they provided guidance for the vision and other elements. In response to a committee member’s question, Deputy Community Development Director Campbell indicated that the Land Use Element will not be submitted to the State, outlined possible review process options, thought that the policies are good drafts, noted that the Subcommittee spent a fair amount of time helping with word smithing, and relayed that removing Banning Ranch from consideration as a housing site will not bring the Housing Element out of compliance. In response to Committee Member Mosher’s question, Deputy Community Development Director Campbell indicated that Dudek will be overseeing the future comprehensive update of the Land Use Element. Mr. Mosher noted problems with LU 1.5 and LU 2.4 and similar instances regarding individual policies and how they fit into the Land Use Element and struggled to support the revisions as they are written. He expressed concern that General Plan Advisory Committee Minutes July 19, 2023 Page 3 of 7 inserted overlays are not mapped out clearly and no sunset provision or goal is included. Deputy Community Development Director Campbell clarified that there is no intention for the overlays to sunset, however, there is a limit to the number of housing units that can go into the overlay, LU 4.2 focus areas come from the Housing Element, the sites are mapped in the Housing Element, overlays follow the maps and include the maximum number of units before development ceases overlays are retained, zoning supports the existing land use, and removal of the overlay would be inconsistent with law. Additionally, he noted that stakeholders have communicated that 50 dwelling units per acre is too limiting to economically make some of the projects work, so he suggested a higher density may be in order, relayed that the same cap would be maintained, and asked for GPAC feedback. Committee Member Maniscalchi thought the density has been low since their introduction, noted the building densities of the projects in Los Angeles County, and suggested modifying the densities. Deputy Community Development Director Campbell shared a point of reference that the existing General Plan from 2006 includes 30-50 dwelling units in the Airport Area, noted the land values are higher in current day, and suggested the airport area and Newport Center warrant a higher density. In response to Committee Member Klobe’s question, Deputy Community Development Director Campbell indicated that developers are not proposing a higher percentage of workforce housing with an increased density. Mr. Klobe expressed concern for this approach, thought the Committee should not support it without something in return, and recalled a sunset provision upon meeting the criteria. Deputy Community Development Director Campbell explained the overlay cap system, noted that there will be another Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) requirement in eight years, RHNA numbers can be modified in the future with future RHNA if the City does not reach the housing unit goals, and indicated that the policies are set up to account for this and future RHNAs. Committee Member Rader thought if the density was increased to 100 or 120 units per acre the City would see a flood of developers coming in to buy small office buildings in the same way Irvine experienced. Deputy Community Development Director Campbell agreed that the more density will lead to more valuable properties and easier penciled projects but expressed concern for affordable housing production. He envisioned one or two 100-percent affordable projects that are 100-150 units, and the lion share of mixed-income projects will include mixed-income housing with five to ten percent reserved for affordable. Additionally, he noted that the City does not have an inclusionary requirement, going above 100 could result in the production of zero affordable, the City does not want to be too dense that it incentivizes developers to not use density bonus, and a balance is needed. In response to Committee Member DeSantis’ question, Deputy Community Development Director Campbell relayed that each focus area has a different density range, was unsure if polices that provide for a comparable increase in the affordable requirement and additional incentives would create an impediment or incentive for more affordable unit development, and anticipated developers using density bonus and a minimum number to achieve a particular density to make the project pencil out. General Plan Advisory Committee Minutes July 19, 2023 Page 4 of 7 Committee Member Maniscalchi noted that projects usually set aside 20 percent affordable and, although developers have an opportunity to pay a in lieu fee, very few do. Deputy Community Development Director Campbell indicated that the City Council is not interested in enacting an inclusionary housing ordinance at this time and that the City may need to revisit the option in the future if affordable housing production does not happen. He noted that Newport Place has an inclusionary requirement of 30 percent, which is too high based on an analysis presented to the Council so the Council would like to reduce it to 15 percent. In response to Committee Member Scarbrough’s concerns, Deputy Community Development Director Campbell confirmed the housing unit cap, acknowledged the cost of construction, speculated if the construction type would change with higher density, and noted that with extra housing units comes extra revenue, and smaller units tend to be less costly. He relayed the challenges related to the 30 percent affordable housing in all areas included in the Housing Element, expressed concern for falling out of compliance with the City’s housing goals if nothing is built if 30 percent does not pencil out, and noted that if every project assumed 10 percent affordable the total number of units to the General Plan would be 25,000 – 30,000 which is politically not palatable. Committee Member Stevens struggled with quality of life versus making developers happy and thought that continued density increases are not palatable unless an amount of space is determined so the units are small and not higher. In response to Nancy Gardner’s question, Deputy Development Director Campbell relayed that there is no statute for the overlay cap, the polices and the respective ordinances establish housing opportunity sites, any objective standard written by the City can be overridden if the developer can demonstrate that the project physically cannot fit, and developers who want to build only market rate housing must adhere to City standards with no latitude to deviate. In response to Co-Chair Greer’s inquiry, Deputy Community Development Director Campbell explained how the housing units were identified in Coyote Canyon and primary areas for development and noted that zoning documents and a larger specific plan or planned community by Tate and Associates are forthcoming. Committee Member Scarbrough suggested that the policy include a mandatory review of the Land Use Element or zoning. Co-chair Greer stated that an Outreach Subcommittee has been established, this is a proposal, and more will be learned when Committee members are out in the community. Deputy Community Development Director Campbell stated that the policy revisions are scheduled to go to the Planning Commission for feedback on September 7, an EIR is being prepared based on unit assumptions, locations, and caps, a traffic analysis is being conducted for the eventual adoption of these policies or something similar, outreach is envisioned through the GPAC, no additional outreach is planned related to the Housing Element’s implementation, the Housing Element policy decisions are set, policies and regulations need to be delivered for implementation, and zone deliverables are due by February 2025 after the electorate vote in November 2024. General Plan Advisory Committee Minutes July 19, 2023 Page 5 of 7 Co-chair Greer acknowledged the voting and input by the GPAC, staff, and others. Committee Member Mosher thought that the policy revisions do not seem ready and did not support moving forward. Phillip Bettencourt shared that the wells abandoned and remediated on Banning Ranch would not include the City’s oil wells. Deputy Community Development Director Campbell asked the GPAC to endorse the polices and staff recommendation to move the polices forward to the next level and suggested the letter from Banning Ranch be included and further discussion about changing the density in airport area and Newport Center to 75 dwelling units per acre. There was no motion on the table. Deputy Community Development Director Campbell recommended that the item be tabled, directed back to the Land Use Element Subcommittee for further dialogue, and brought back to the full Committee at a future date. Committee Member Watkins supported a Land Use Subcommittee meeting to flush out raised issues. Motion made by Committee Member Klobe and seconded by Committee Member Love to send the item back to the Land Use Subcommittee for further review and discussion as soon as possible. The motion carried unanimously. c. Introducing Dudek as the Consultant for the Comprehensive General Plan Update Deputy Community Development Director Campbell noted that the City’s agreement with Dudek has been executed for consulting services related to the comprehensive General Plan update. Elizabeth Dickson introduced the Dudek team, provided a brief introduction, and shared the steps taken to date and preliminary findings of best practices in sustainability and resiliency. She defined sustainability, reviewed the key elements of a sustainability plan provided by Curtis Black, sustainability topics required in the General Plan, what other jurisdictions are doing, next steps, and guiding questions. Committee Member Black questioned how the General Plan can be structured to reflect environmental/coastal resilience. Nancy Gardner asked Dudek to keep in mind that the word resiliency is more comfortable for the community than sustainability. Committee Member Black inquired how other cities with a similar environmental resilience profile are addressing identity problems, branding, and City team structures. General Plan Advisory Committee Minutes July 19, 2023 Page 6 of 7 Committee Member Baker suggested replacing word(s) for greater clarity. Committee Member Klobe suggested that the Council may be swayed to support a sustainability element if Dudek can produce findings where grant funding is impacted by not having a separate sustainability element. Committee Member Baker noted that John Kappeler, City employee, has been successful at obtaining grants and could be a helpful resource. In response to Committee Member Stevens’ inquiry, Deputy Community Development Director Campbell noted that Dudek is handling all the elements except the Housing Element. Nancy Gardner thought that the Council was taken by surprise when presented with a sustainability element and a comprehensive overview that provides for better efficiencies in some areas will be more palatable. Deputy Community Development Director Campbell concurred and thought it would be good to have Dudek help formulate what the GPAC is asking Council to endorse and provide direction on and noted that this scope of work was approved by the Council. Committee Member Scarbrough thought the Council would find a sustainability element more palatable if it were presented as a way for the City to recover from disasters and be in a position to bounce back economically. Co-Chair Greer noted that the sustainability element was introduced to the Council as an additional element and lacked definition, thought the presentation by Dudek further defines the element, and noted the importance of how it provides an opportunity to address all the elements, define it more, and access the impact within each separate subcommittee. Committee Member Love requested Dudek include in their best practices research criteria for implementation and action. Committee Member Cefalia thought Dudek is on the right path and the wording needs to be adapted to Newport Beach so that it is understandable to the public. Committee Member Baker suggested using specific examples of how the element relates to huge expenditures so that it resonates with the Council and public and illustrates its importance. Committee Member Black suggested using comps from the East Coast to find solution ideas for maintaining a coastal City. Committee Member Cefalia suggested incorporating sustainability and resiliency into all the elements of the General Plan. d. Brief Overview of City’s Budget and Demographics In the interest of time, the GPAC agreed to table the overview by City staff of the City’s budget for fiscal year 2023-2024, as well as information on Newport Beach’s demographics until the next GPAC meeting. General Plan Advisory Committee Minutes July 19, 2023 Page 7 of 7 e. Subcommittee Updates In the interest of time, the GPAC agreed to leave updates from subcommittees until the next GPAC meeting. In response to Committee Member Stevens’ question, Deputy Community Development Director Campbell indicated that the visioning statement will be turned over to Dudek for their assistance. Principal Planner Zdeba announced that the subcommittee roster list is accurate as of last week, does not reflect Committee Member DeSantis’ changes, and the Outreach Subcommittee is listed. He asked for changes to be emailed to him. V. COMMITTEE ANNOUNCEMENTS OR MATTERS WHICH MEMBERS WOULD LIKE PLACED ON A FUTURE AGENDA FOR DISCUSSION, ACTION OR REPORT (NON-DISCUSSION ITEM) Committee Member Scarbrough suggested an update on Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) future considerations. VI. ADJOURNMENT – With no further business, Co-Chair Greer adjourned the meeting in memory of Ritch LeGrand. The next meeting is to be determined after the Land Use Subcommittee meets.