Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/09/2006Planning Commission Minutes 03/09/2006 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Planning Commission Minutes March 9, 2006 Regular Meeting - 6:30 p.m. Page 1 of 8 http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca. us /P]nAgendas/2006 /mn03- 09- 06.htm 06/23/2008 INDEX ROLL CALL Commissioners Eaton, Hawkins, Cole, Toerge, Tucker, McDaniel and Henn - all present STAFF PRESENT: Sharon Z. Wood, Assistant City Manager Aaron C. Harp, Assistant City Attorney Rich Edmonston, Transportation and Development Services Manager Ginger Varin, Planning Commission Executive Secretary PUBLIC COMMENTS: PUBLIC COMMENTS None POSTING OF THE AGENDA: POSTING OF THE AGENDA The Planning Commission Agenda was posted on March 3, 2006 CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM NO. 1 SUBJECT: MINUTES of the regular meeting of February 23, 2006. Minutes Approved Motion was made by Commissioner Hawkins to approve the minutes as corrected. Ayes: Eaton, Hawkins, Cole, Toerge, Tucker, McDaniel and Henn Noes: None Absent: None Abstain: None HEARING ITEMS SUBJECT: Brookfield Homes (PA2004 -251) ITEM NO.2 1301 Quail Street PA2004 -251 General Plan Amendment, Planned Community Development Plan Amendment & Tentative Continued to Tract Map for the development of an 86 unit residential development on a 3.7 acre site. The site 03/23/2006 is currently designated for the development of a 304 room hotel and is currently used for vehicle storage for an automobile dealership. Mrs. Wood reported that the applicant continues to work on the project analysis and has requested that this item be continued to March 23, 2006. http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca. us /P]nAgendas/2006 /mn03- 09- 06.htm 06/23/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 03/09/2006 Page 2 of 8 Philip Bettencourt, on behalf of the Brookfield Homes, requested the continuance to the 23rd. A7� Commission inquiry, he added that an analysis will be provided on comparisons, response to the ROMA Design standards, exhibits, proximity to community uses, noise impacts, etc. was made by Chairperson Toerge to continue this item to March 23, 2006. Eaton, Hawkins, Cole, Toerge, Tucker, McDaniel and Henn None None None JBJECT: Housing Element Affordable Housing Requirements ITEM NO.3 'ovide direction to staff for further drafting of the General Plan Housing Element. rs. Wood gave an overview of the staff report, noting: • Comparisons on the policies that other California communities use for their inclusionary program requirements. • A study showing some results of commercial development linkage fee for affordable housing. • An attempt to carry Regional Housing Needs Assessment numbers (RHNA) out 25 years, which is the same length as the General Plan. This is a speculative attempt, which shows that to carry out with the development projected within the proposed Land Use Element, the percent needed to achieve our affordable requirement is close to the 20% in the Housing Element, unless you look at it with fewer units being required for Newport Coast. iairperson Toerge, noting page 2 of the report, asked about the potential use of 454 units in ariner's Mile. s. Wood answered that it is the traffic analysis zone that includes Mariner's Mile as well as the sidential area above it in the heights, so the number always appears high. :)mmissioner Eaton asked: • Would lowering the 20% complicate getting recertification from the HCD? • Details on the proposed Implementing Ordinance for the 20 %. s. Wood noted that achieving HCD certification the last time around was not an easy task. If e Planning Commission and the City Council wanted to reduce somewhat that 20% quirement for inclusionary, but only because the new Land Use Element includes significantly ore opportunities for housing development than we have in the existing Land Use Element we obably could gain certification. To the extent those opportunities are reduced, as we go rough the public hearing process, could make the job of getting certification more difficult. In iy event, it will still be a more time consuming process for staff to go through than if we left it at e existing 20 %. It would be speculative to change that percent now, just as the analysis in the aff report was speculative, because the City does not have the new RHNA numbers and we >n't know what our housing need is going to be projected for the next five /seven year period. It Auld be a better approach to have the change in how we require affordable housing to wait itil the next required update of the General Plan when we have the new RHNA numbers and en consider whether 20% or 14 %, or a commercial linkage fee, or some other program makes ore sense for the City. Dntinuing, Ms. Wood noted that when staff was scoping the General Plan Update with the http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca. us /PhiAgendas /2006 /mn03- 09- 06.htm 06/23/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 03/09/2006 'UC scoping committee, the Housing Element was one that the Committee did not tell us to :us on and was supposed to be a data update and changes to keep it consistent with the rest the updated General Plan. A larger effort on this element is not something that we had coned for in the schedule or the budget or the scope of services for the consultant. to the Implementing Ordinance (10), we are proposing to formalize the ability to pay a fee in of providing the units when a developer can not provide the units on site, or where it is a aller development and the City does not want to have just a few affordable units scattered und, which makes our monitoring a more difficult proposition. The program in the Housing ment says an average of 20% of the units should be affordable to low and moderate income iseholds. That wording of 'an average of specifically is so that the City would have the ibility to require a higher percentage of units if the developer was going to provide only Berate income, which does not require as much of a subsidy and to allow the City to require er percentage if someone was going to provide units at the lower end of the affordable ictrum. The Implementing Ordinance is quantifying and giving the exact percents for the :rent income categories, still keeping to the average of 20 %. Commission inquiry, Ms. Wood added that the 20% requirement applies with any increase in selling units. The requirement to provide the units on site versus the ability to pay a fee in lieu, existing Housing Element has three tiers: less than 10, require in lieu fees; between 10 and it was the developer's choice, and 50 + we require the developer to provide the units. What proposed in the 10 and the updated Housing Element is to reduce that to two tiers. It would an be 50- it would be the developer's choice, and 50+ we would require the units to be sioner Eaton asked for examples of ranges or bonuses given to developers who were ,ig to get to low or very low. Are there provisions in the 10 for how long the affordable would have to be committed? 1s. Wood addressed lowering the percent of units required if a developer was targeting very loe icome: if a developer is providing very low income units the percentage required would be 12 - 3 %; if it was low income it would be 20 %; and for moderate income it would be 37 -38 %. The mgth of time is already in the Element and is 30 years missioner Hawkins asked if there was any concern by the Council on the 20% calculation. there been any public comment regarding this? Wood answered no to both questions. ,nmissioner Tucker asked about the requirement in State Law regarding affordable housing to included within the Citys Housing Element. Why is it in there? . Wood answered having an inclusionary requirement is not required by State Law; however, at is required in the Government Code with regard to housing elements and in the State" defines for housing elements is that you have a Housing Element that establishes goals for ising at all income levels and you have no practical choice other than to use the RHNA nbers provided by SCAG and OCOG. You must identify sites within the community that can ommodate your housing goals and programs that will facilitate the development of that ising. The program we have chosen as the most significant vehicle is the inclusionary uirement. missioner Tucker questioned if the State mandates what the City's program looks like. Ms. d answered, they do not. iron Harp added that the City has to have an action plan to achieve the goals and objectives. is not required to have inclusionary zoning as one of those, but that is the primary tool we are Page 3 of 8 http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca. us /PinAgendas /2006 /mn03- 09- 06.htm 06/23/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 03/09/2006 g to get there. The question is whether or not you can get the Housing Element certified by osing other programs having inclusionary zoning that basically get you the RHNA numbers you need. aferring to the study in the staff report, Commissioner Tucker noted the most frequent clusionary percentage is 10 %; 44% of jurisdictions have that and half of all programs require a' ast 15 percent. It appears that half require less than 15 and some number greater than half quire less than 20 %. Looking at these programs for all these cities as noted in the staff report, lot of them are not 20 %, there are many more that are not than are. Are these cities failing to at their Housing Elements certified? Wood noted she did not research whether these cities were certified or not. However, HCD cs at the entire action plan that a City has to meet these goals. Most cities have a tool that do not have and that is a Redevelopment Agency where there is a requirement to set aside I of the tax increment every year to provide for low and moderate income housing. That is i a lot of communities are able to subsidize projects and get their affordable housing. hout that, we need to have something else that makes up the difference or fills the gap. mmissioner Tucker noted the table does not provide the actual number of what is produced there are credits that are given for producing low income as opposed to moderate, etc. It years that our percentage is on the high side. Each agency has its own program, but they ,te nuances that are not shown in the tables because it is the implementation plan that provide details of the burdens on the property owners. Wood noted that HCD is not always consistent in their review of Housing Elements. imissioner Tucker noted that with the General Plan update our expectation is to add a stantial amount of housing, as it is needed, and it is important how much it costs. With an msonable affordable requirement, or at least not comparable to surrounding cities, we are ing a cost factor that is out of scale. That is a large amount of units to ask someone to sidize and I am concerned. He would like to see the development and achieve what our Is are especially in the airport area. Why do these other entities have less than 20 %? That is much and not fair. 15% spread amongst the low, very low and moderate income would be a er number. Further credits are needed to generate the very low income housing as that is )ably the part that is needed the most. ommissioner Henn noted the report shows that it is very clear that there is no right answer. It also clear that the 20% requirement that we have today was based on a set of relationships at Dme point in the past between the amount of housing we expected to develop and the amount tat was needed in accordance with the requirements that were placed upon us. Those :lationships are likely to change dynamically as has been pointed out. We should not be stuck n retaining that percentage when the relationships are changing substantially. I agree 20% is of appropriate and should not be going forward obligating ourselves to that until such time as -e do an update based upon new requirements. I see no reason to obligate ourselves to an rbitrarily higher number. iii-person Toerge asked staff to elaborate on the timing of research for this item as the 20% ms to be as speculative as any other number that we might use. He noted that there is not ugh detailed analysis to make a decision and is concerned if there is enough staff time and f priority for creating further study to provide additional information so that the decision would be arbitrary. What is involved in the timing, pending projects, completion of the General Plar Wood answered Brookfield Homes, and the World Premiere Investments, another 80 unit acct in the airport area, are the two pending projects. She noted that staff could not do a h better analysis than what is contained in the report until the next RHNA numbers come :h will be in two more years. As to the process of certification with HCD, we first have to http: / /www.city.newport- beach .ca.us /PlnAgendas/2006 /nm03- 09- 06.htm Page 4 of 8 06/23/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 03/09/2006 I a draft element to them before it is acted on by the City and they will send their comments to us. We then work with HCD staff and make a decision whether to make changes, and the Planning Commission and the City Council adopt what we have. There is a more al review period and depending on how far apart we are, that determines how long it takes. last time around it took us several months and they finally came to the community and they :d the area. It took a while, but the element was eventually certified with changes from both son Toerge asked if it would be done in conjunction with the updated process of the Plan? Wood answered that the updated Housing Element would have to be re- certified. The fewe iges made, the easier it will be to re- certify. The analysis done this time shows we are reen 13 and 19% as our need for affordable and that is if you assume all of the 15,000 units rvn in the updated General Plan are built. The percent goes up if we base it on the total Eaton asked what part of the General Plan Element will go to the voters? Wood answered that it is the decision of the City Council. ntinuing, Commissioner Eaton noted it is possible that only the Land Use Element would go the ballot or whatever is necessary for Section 423 of the Charter. The other elements might go on the ballot so they would be adopted and if whatever is put on the ballot is rejected by voters then we have a partial update in affect. Wood agreed, noting we might have internal inconsistencies that we would need to go back correct. nuing, Commissioner Eaton noted his concern if a change was made to lower the 20 % 1 upon the assumption that all these new units are going to be added and then for some n that part of the General Plan fails at the election, that is an inconsistency to the rationale to lower the percentage. Wood noted that then our identification of sites available for housing would no longer be nmissioner Tucker noted he would do the opposite for the density bonus. He would rather e a smaller requirement and smaller density bonus so there would be less burden on our istructure. A big density bonus is a way to provide housing but it also provides more people, ;h creates its own set of problems. He reiterated his concern about the 20% requirement ad upon our RHNA numbers, yet some other agencies went through a comparable process came up with a different percentage-for their RHNA requirements. Maybe they have a lot of down housing that accounts for their lower end need but a lot of these entities don't have kind of housing. How is it ours ended up at 20% based on what our need was but all these srs didn't but a handful of those. He noted that the General Plan Policy document is plemented by the Implementing Ordinance. The policy item is going to be before the Council we might as well start now. Understanding staffs burden, there is a way to address it with ction from the Commission and the Council. comment was opened. Bettencourt, local citizen, noted: . Without a redevelopment agency you do not have the state mandated set asides that an agency can use, and in fact must use, to help a participating developer provide affordable Page 5 of 8 http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca. us /PhiAgendas /2006 /mn03- 09- 06.htm 06/23/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 03/09/2006 housing. • Some of the standard incentives such as density bonuses are not achievable because there are other'trip wires' in Municipal law that as a practical matter prevent you from achieving them because of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance mandates, Section 423 mandates and the general unwillingness to compromise on environmental and open spa' standards. • He suggested including the number of redevelopment agencies for the listed cities in the table be included in the staff report. comment was closed. Wood noted in our existing General Plan Land Use Element, there is no Section 423 lem with implementing the density bonus, and in fact the City approved a density bonus of for the senior affordable housing at Lower Bayview, because we have in the Land Use :s a 200 unit pool to be used anywhere, which was intended to be used for density bonuses. reason that was not approved was the Coastal Commission would not approve it. Person Toerge, noting his concern with the lack of stakeholders in the audience, asked the noticing for this item. Ms. Wood answered that it was noted on the bulletin board s City Hall, and on the City's website. Additionally, for prior study sessions regarding the al Plan update ads were displayed in the Daily Pilot. nmissioner Hawkins agreed that the City should not necessarily and unreasonably burden perty owners and developers with regulatory requirements that don't seem to make a lot of ise. However, coming up with some city average as similarly other situated cities without lerstanding their 10, nuances, etc. I don't think you can just make that comparison and say are on the high side and everybody else is on the low side. He noted the Commission uld look at this when we have some new City housing numbers because the percentage is a ction of those numbers. Since we don't have the basis for those projections today we are rently not in a position to change the numbers now. Neither the Council nor any stakeholder )eared in earlier hearings and requested a modification. 3tion was made by Commissioner Hawkins to continue the affordable housing requirement at % with the thought to the next time the City looks at the Housing Element to find why we are the 20 %. 41tute Motion was made by Commissioner Tucker to drop the number down to 15 %. He i that the 20% is a great burden and we are probably going to add 7,000 housing units and of that is a big number and a big expense. The implementing program can be devised for 5 %. nmissioner Eaton asked if the substitute motion could be linked to the ultimate approval of several thousand units in the General Plan update. If those are not ultimately approved than :15% is not effective. The rationale for the lower percentage is based upon the number of s being approved, which may not make it through the ballot. )mmissioner Tucker answered no, as 20% is too much of a burden. He noted he would wait see how the Commission feels. Os. Wood added that if the Land Use Element with all of the units in the draft now is not ipproved by the Council or the voters, then the Housing Element as it is currently drafted, which ndicates that all those sites are sites for housing, is going to need to be amended to make it ;onsistent with whatever the Land Use Element turns out to be. At that point, we could look at he percentage and see if 15% now doesn't make sense due to the lack of opportunity sites. Toerge asked what the in lieu fee is. Ms. Wood answered that is what is going to Page 6 of 8 http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca. us /PlnAgendas /2006/mn03- 09- 06.htm 06/23/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 03/09/2006 Page 7 of 8 adopted in the Implementing Ordinance. Right now it is a negotiated number; however, the oposal will be tied to the cost of an affordable unit, approximately $25,000 per market rate unit lilt. scussion continued on the amount of monies for units and comparisons to property values, id costs, construction costs, rent costs spread over the income ranges, burden to the immunity plus 15% versus 20 %, certification process. )mmissioner Henn noted his agreement with the substitute motion. )mmissioner Cole agreed that the 20% does seem burdensome. He then asked if voluntary ;lusionary housing had been considered. >. Wood noted that the previous Housing Element had called it a negotiated amount and had nfusing polices relative to a sliding scale. It worked for a while in conjunction with the use of >mmunity Development Block Grant Funds to assist with affordable housing development. )mmissioner Cole noted there would be no flexibility once that percentage is in the Housing ament. Is there any way to get the flexibility to change that requirement if we thought it was a nefit to the community in order to encourage affordable housing? >. Wood answered the Implementing Ordinance would have a provision that on a case by case sis exceptions could be made. The only way to make an across the board change would be amend the Housing Element. )mmissioner Cole noted he was in favor of the substitute motion. )mmissioner McDaniel noted that looking at the 7,000 units, they are not going to be built thin the next two years. Looking at the disruption in the process to try and change it from the % to the 15% and then re- visiting this in two years, I don't think there is any justification for the ange. A change would cause problems and we don't need to make those changes. >cussion continued. ommissioner Tucker stated his substitute motion, as amended, to change the affordable using number from 20% to 15% unless the public rejects the General Plan Update that will be the ballot in November. les: Eaton, Cole, Tucker and Henn res: Hawkins, Toerge, McDaniel sent: None istain: None BUSINESS City Council Follow -up - Ms. Wood reported that the ordinance for the Bayside Residenti Planned Community was approved on a first reading; the General Plan, LCP Amendme and Code Amendment for the CalTrans West property was approved; and the Coun initiated the pre- annexation General Plan Amendment and Zoning Amendment for a piece property on Industrial Way that is part of our soon to be filed annexation and is used for portion of the General Services Yard. Report from Planning Commission's representative to the Economic Development - none. http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca. us /PlnAgendas/2006 /mn03- 09- 06.htm 06/23/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 03/09/2006 Report from Planning Commission's representatives to the General Plan Update Committee Commissioner Eaton reported that the last meeting discussion was on how to structure th proposed Land Use map and ways of translating tables, etc. in a more generalized way. committee has been assigned to work on this matter with staff. Report from Planning Commission's representative to the Local Coastal Plan Certifical Committee - Chairperson Toerge reported that the implementation plan is being reviewed the committee and they will continue meeting every two weeks to finish this review. Report from Planning Commission's representative to the Zoning Committee - none. Report from Planning Commission's representative to the City Hall Site Committee Commissioner Tucker reported that the committee has narrowed the number of sites eight, the owners are being contacted, and City staff have been asked to answer zonin planning, traffic, etc. questions. A lot of research is being done and it is the intent to have report to present to the Council as quickly as possible. He will bring a list of sites to the ne meeting. Matters which a Planning Commissioner would like staff to report on at a su meeting - none. Matters which a Planning Commissioner may wish to place on a future agenda for and staff report - none. Project status - none. Requests for excused absences - Commissioner Eaton asked to be excused for the of March 23rd as he is attendinq a Planninq Seminar. Page 8 of 8 IADJOURNMENT: 8:00 P.M. IADJOURNMENTI CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION http: / /www. city .newport- beach.ca.us/PlnAgendas /2006 /mn03- 09- 06.htm 06/23/2008