Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSS3 - Initial Draft of the General Plan Housing Element Update (PA2017-141) - Correspondence,7190436A-6:25782A/,(A" .. &A)+- A#!*$A*'--A+%.+%!*# ##" w i.rn'=FE U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE SERVICE Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office Jk 2177 Salk Avenue, Suite. 250 Carlsbad, California 92008 � TNx In Reply Refer to: FWS/CDFW-OR-21 B0102-21 CPA0063 Seimone Jurjis Director, Community Development Department City of Newport Beach 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, California 92660 Received After Agenda Printed April 27, 2021 Item No. SS3 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE South Coast Region 3883 Ruffin Road San Diego, California 92123 April 26, 2021 Sent by Email Subject: City of Newport Beach General Plan Draft Housing Element Update, March 10, 2021 Dear Seimone Jurjis: This letter responds to the draft City of Newport Beach (City) 2021-2029 Housing Element that is being prepared in response to the Southern California Association of Governments Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) for the 2021-2029 planning period. As part of this update, the City is required to identify sites to meet the City's RHNA 4,845 housing unit growth need allocation. To identify candidate sites for accommodating the RHNA allocation, the City has prepared an Adequate Sites Inventory to assess the feasibility of various parcels to redevelop during the planning period. Two of the identified sites, Coyote Canyon and Banning Ranch, are specifically addressed by the Orange County Central and Coastal Subregions Natural Community Conservation Plan/Habitat Conservation Plan (NCCP/HCP). Therefore, we, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) and California Department of Fish and Wildlife (Department), offer the following comments to assist the City in completing its Housing Element update consistent with the provisions of the NCCP/HCP. On June 21, 2007, the Service issued a section 10(a)(1)(B) (TE 136064-0) permit under the Federal Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), to the City for the NCCP/HCP, and the City signed the NCCP/HCP Implementation Agreement on November 22, 1999, authorizing Take' of Identified Species in conjunction with Planned Activities pursuant to the Natural Community Conservation Planning Act and the California Endangered Species Act. The purpose of the NCCP/HCP is to protect and manage habitat supporting a broad range of plant and animal populations found within the Central and Coastal subregions while providing for economic uses that meet the social and economic needs of the people within these subregions. To achieve this purpose, the NCCP/HCP established a subregional Habitat Reserve System to minimize and mitigate impacts to Identified Species and Covered Habitats from implementation of Planned Activities by Participating Landowners and signatory Local Governments. As a signatory Local Government, some of the City's NCCP/HCP responsibilities include: formally 1 Capitalized terms in this letter are used to identify defined terms in the NCCP/HCP. ,7190436A-6:25782A/,(A" .. &A)+- A#!*$A*'--A+%.+%!*# ##" Seimone Jurjis (FWS/CDFW-OR-21B0102-21CPA0063) 2 committing identified lands owned by the City to the Habitat Reserve System and managing such land in accordance with the provisions of the NCCP/HCP; and making best efforts to acquire conservation easements over privately owned Existing Use Areas owned by Non -Participating Landowners. Among the sites identified as being feasible or potentially feasible for future development is a 22 -acre portion of the closed Coyote Canyon landfill. When the NCCP41CP was adopted in 1996, this land was owned by the Irvine Company, who as a NCCP/HCP Participating Landowner, committed to its permanent conservation by including the area in the NCCP/HCP Reserve System. The County of Orange, another NCCP/HCP Participating Landowner, accepted this commitment with fee ownership for the property. While the provisions of the NCCP/HCP allow for amendments that can include adjustments to Reserve boundaries that involve no net loss of Reserve acreage or loss of subregional habitat value, this parcel lies within an important habitat linkage between Upper Newport Back Bay and conserved lands within the San Joaquin Hills, so residential development of this parcel is likely to have a substantial impact on NCCP/HCP subregional habitat values. Therefore, we recommend the City remove the 22 -acre Coyote Canyon site from the Housing Element update. In addition, as part of any future General Plan update, we recommend the City add the NCCP/HCP Reserve boundaries to its Land Use Overview map to avoid consideration of Reserve lands for future development. The other site identified as being feasible or potentially feasible to help meet the City's RHNA allocation is Banning Ranch. The NCCP/HCP designates the Banning Ranch property2 as an "Existing Use Area." Existing Use Areas include lands owned by Non -Participating Landowners within the Central and Coastal subregions where the NCCP/HCP does not authorize Incidental Take of the federally threatened coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica) out of a recognition that these areas have the potential to contribute to the NCCP/HCP conservation strategy by contributing to connectivity between Reserve areas and/or by supporting significant populations of the gnatcatcher or other listed or Identified Species (NCCP/HCP Section 4.4.1). The Banning Ranch property was designated as an Existing Use Area "...because: it provides existing gnatcatcher habitat; it is located adjacent to Talbert Nature Preserve and has significant potential to contribute to the long-term biological function of the Reserve System; and it would be inappropriate to authorize Incidental Take of what could be a significant population of coastal California gnatcatcher without being able to review available biological data (i.e., field survey data for gnatcatchers and other target or "Identified Species")" (NCCP/HCP p. II -223). Accordingly, effects to federally listed species resulting from development of the property should be addressed in coordination with the Service pursuant to the Act, as amended. If impacts to State -listed species are anticipated, the project proponent should also coordinate with the Department pursuant to the California Endangered Species Act. Finally, pursuant to the NCCP/HCP, as a signatory to the 2 Identified as the "Santa Ana River Mouth Existing Use Area" in the NCCP/HCP. ,7190436A-6:25782A/,(A" .. &A)+- A#!*$A*'--A+%.+%!*# ##" Seimone Jurjis (FWS/CDFW-OR-21B0102-21CPA0063) 3 NCCP/HCP, the City committed to make best efforts to obtain a conservation easement over the Banning Ranch property3 (NCCP/HCP Section 4.4.2). In conclusion, we are writing to discourage the City from considering the Coyote Canyon parcel as part of its Housing Element update since this property is part of the NCCP/HCP Habitat Reserve, and recommend the City make best efforts to conserve habitat on the Banning Ranch property in support of the design and function of the NCCP/HCP Habitat Reserve System. Based on the assessment in the Housing Plan that only a portion of the candidate sites identified in the Adequate Sites Analysis are necessary to meet the City's RHNA obligation, we recommend that the City prioritize the use of other identified sites with lower conservation values to meet its fair share housing unit growth allocation. Thank you for consideration of the above comments on the proposed update to the Housing Element. Should you have questions or wish to discuss any of the above, please contact William Miller with the Service at 760-431-9440, extension 206, or Kyle Rices of the Department at 858-467-4250. JONATHAN SNYDER Digitally signed by JONATHAN SNYDER Date: 2021.04.26 17:42:59 -07'00' Jonathan D. Snyder Assistant Field Supervisor U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service cc: Jim Sulentich, NCC Nancy Gardner, City of Newport Beach Sincerely, DocuSigned by: D700E34520375406... David A. Mayer Environmental Program Manager Department of Fish and Wildlife 3 Per the NCCP/HCP, "The failure or inability to obtain conservation easements over private lands located within existing use areas shall not be deemed a breach of the NCCP/HCP or in any way serve as the basis for suspension, revocation or termination of any Section 10(a) Permit or CDFG Management Authorization." 4 william_b_miller@fws.gov s kyle.rice@wildlife.ca.gov N, 00AItXeW PR ia a COMAC COMAC America Corporation Via email: GPUpdate@newportbeachca.gov April 21, 2021 City of Newport Beach 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 April 27, 2021 Agenda Item No. SS3 4350 Von Karman Ave. 4 FI. Newport Beach, CA 92660 TEL (+1) 949 255 2929 RE: Draft Housing Element Report (3-10-2021), Airport Area; Removal of Unique ID #51 (Parcel No. 445 131 10) from the Site Analysis and Opportunity List Dear Sirs and Madams, COMAC America Corporation ("CAC"), located at 4350 Von Karman Avenue, objects to the inclusion of our property (Parcel No. 445 131 10) on the opportunity list in the Draft Housing Element Report (3-10-2021). Following receipt of the City's letter dated November 25, 2020, in which the City requested CAC to provide a response indicating whether or not it is interested in residential development on its property, CAC submitted a response to Mr. Jim Campbell on December 23, 2020, clearly stating that CAC is not interested in residential development on its property. A copy of the letter is attached herein for your reference. CAC hereby requests that CAC's property be removed from the site analysis and opportunity list. For your reference, 4350 Von Karman is identified in Appendix B: Sites Analysis, Table B-10 as Unique ID #51. Additionally, CAC would like to respectfully remind the City that Koll Center Newport ("KCN"), a business and professional business park in which CAC's property is located, is governed by the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions of Koll Center Newport, recorded July 20, 1977, and as amended ("CC&Rs"), which does not permit residential use within KCN. Legislative action by the City cannot override the use restrictions in the CC&Rs which CAC and other property owners within KCN has relied on. California courts reject such efforts. N, 0DAItXeM PR ia a COMAC COMAC America Corporation 4350 Von Karman Ave. 4 FI. Newport Beach, CA 92660 TEL (+1) 949 255 2929 CAC recognizes that California cities must increase their housing numbers, however, CAC requests that the City recognize and respect existing land use agreements between private parties during its efforts to meet its housing requirements. Thank you. Respectfully, Fidelia Chun Corporate Counsel COMAC America Corporation Enclosures cc: Jim Campbell Ocampbell@newportbeachca.gov) Benjamin Zdeba (bzdeba@newportbeachca.gov) November 25, 2020 Comac America Corporation 4359 Vori Karman Ave ##41 Newport Beach CA 92669 r-ft•v OF nrrWT20rr R F A r I f 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, California 92660 949 644-3200 newportbeachca.gov/com rnunitydeve] opment RE: NEWPORT BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE -- FUTURE HOUSING SITES Dear Newport Beach Property Owner - The City of Newport Beach is in the process of updating the General Plan Housing Element for the 2021- 2029 planning period. Under State mandate, we must plan for a significant number of future housing units, including affordable workforce housing, As part of this update, we are working to identify potential sites that may accommodate residential development in the future. Your property at 4350 Von Karman Ave #4TH, Newport Beach, CA 92660 has been initially identified as a potential opportunity site for future residential development. The City is not considering the acquisition of your property for conversion to housing. We are simply attempting to identify possible sites where residential development could occur in the future. While no commitments or decisions have been made about your property, we would like to gauge your interest. The City respectfully requests your consideration for potential future residential development on your property. We would like to discuss this opportunity in further detail. Please contact us via email or phone at: -1 ; NJAMIH M. ZLJE6A, hiL:r Deputy Community Development Director Senior Planner jcarn bo elf@n_ewportbeach ca. aav bzdeba n&w ar1beac ca gov 949-644-3210 949-644-3253 Or via fetter to: Jim Campbell, Deputy Community Development Director City of Newport Beach 900 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 We hope to hear back from you before the end of 2024. If you are interested, please do not let this opportunity pass you by. If you are not interested, we would also like to hear from you to remove your property from the list. Please contact us at your earliest convenience. You may also visit wvvw.NewportTogether.com for additional information about the }-lousing Element update efforts. Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. Respectfully, Iw' ..lames Campbell, Deputy Community Development Director N, 0DAItXew PR ia a COMAC COMAC America Corporation December 23, 2020 Jim Campbell, Deputy Community Development Director City of Newport Beach 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 j campbell(&newportbeachca. gov 4350 Von Karman Ave. Newport Beach, CA 92660 TEL (+1) 949 255 2929 RE: NEWPORT BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE — FUTURE HOUSING SITES Dear Mr. Campbell: Please find this letter in response to your letter dated November 25, 2020, in regards to the above referenced matter. COMAC America Corporation is uninterested in residential development on our property. Thank you. Respectfully, COMAC America Corporation April 27, 2021 Agenda Item No. SS3 Subject: FW: Land use for Parcel 11/4302 Ford Rd/Parcel 458 36110 From: Jerry Schmitt <jerryschmitt87@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, April 22, 20211:22 PM To: Zdeba, Benjamin <bzdeba@newportbeachca.gov>; Campbell, Jim <JCampbell@newportbeachca.gov>; Housing Element Update Advisory Committee <HEupdate@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: Land use for Parcel 11/4302 Ford Rd/Parcel 458 36110 [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Ben, Jim, and committee members, This parcel has very limited practical use for dwelling due to no access to Bonita Canyon Rd, safety issues, and city liability issues that came up in previous attempts to build on this site in the last 20 years. This 1.06 acre has virtually no practical use except to expand the Bonita Canyon Sports Park with the existing pickleball courts or soccer fields, or a multitude of other options. Due to the location and configuration of this parcel, very few, if any other option would jeopardize the safety and enjoyment of the park. Not only would it be an easy park addition to help the goals of the City's General Plan, it is also a visual gateway into the cam. Traffic may also want to use part of it to expand the merge lane as it is highly congested for cars heading inland and turning from Jamboree onto the Bonita Canyon Road. Thank you for your consideration. Best regards, Jerry Schmitt 949 285-8666 C Received After Agenda Printed April 26, 2021 Item No. SS3 April 24, 2021 Mayor and City Council Members City of Newport Beach 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Re: April 27, 2021 — City Council Study Session Housing Element— April 2021 draft Comments - Lido Partners (Fritz Duda Company (FDC)) owns the Via Lido Plaza (APN: 423-1 l 1-01), which consists of approximately five -acres and is bounded by Newport Blvd, Via Lido, Via Oporto and the Lido House Hotel. Current uses within Via Lido Plaza include West Marine, Fable & Spirit restaurant, Via Lido Drugs, and the iconic Lido Theater. Via Lido Plaza includes the following addresses: 3415 - 3475 Via Lido, Newport Beach and is shown as site #2 on the attached exhibit. Atter reviewing the Apri12021 Draft Housing Element, FDC respectfully requests that City revise the blousing Element to include a mixed-use zone for Via Lido Plaza that would allow up to 30 units per acre plus commercial uses at 0.5 FAR. Such a designation would be consistent with the following nearby sites, all of which are zoned for mixed use or residential uses: North — Lido Marina Village with MU -W2 zone which allows 26 du/acre and commercial uses. South — South of 32"" Street is the MU -CV 15'x' Street zoning which allows 26 du/acre and commercial uses. East - Along Via Oporto is MU -V zone which allows 26 dlilac and commercial uses and PC -59 which allows attached 3 -story residential project of for -sale units. In addition, the Draft Housing Element is proposing to increase the zoning from 15 du/acre to 30 du/acre for property on the south side of 32"d street (Site # 134, Parcel 047-041-25 on page B- 10 of Appendix B - March 2021 Draft Housing Element), The Draft Housing Element also includes several parcels in Lido Marina Village and several dozen properties in Cannery Village as potential development sites so Via Lido Plaza is surrounded on the north and south by sites identified for Dosing in the current April draft. Sec attached exhibits for the location of the site, 3425 Via Lido a Shite 2501 • Newport Beach. ('A 92663 o 9497237 fix) 0 Fax 949,723.1 141 Dallas, Texas I Newport Beach, California I Reno, Nevada www,FritzDuda.com Besides being surrounded by mixed use or residential zoned property, Via Lido Plaza is an ideal candidate for mixed-use development with a significant residential component. The property currently consists of functionally obsolete multi-level retail spaces and has very large surface parking fields. FDC has been preparing plans to incorporate a mixed-use development to allow us to retain and redevelop the iconic Lido Theater. The Lido Theater is the Cultural anchor of the Lido Village and has been serving residents and bringing visitors to Lido Village since 1939. We will be proposing a Village Green connected to the Lido Theater to allow events (such as the Newport Beach Film Festival and charities) to have space for fundraisers with the Lido Theater. FDC has plans to redevelop the property as a mixed-use project with retail/office uses fronting Via Lido and Newport Blvd, residential uses fronting Via Oporto and residential on the upper floors. FDC intends to submit a redevelopment application to the City this month. The centerpiece of the redevelopment would be the rejuvenated Lido Theater. We are studying various site plans for a rental apartment project which would include an affordable housing component of 15% low income housing in anticipation of a future inclusionary housing ordinance. We also believe that 20% of the project could provide moderate income housing based on the 80-120% AMI and the projected rental rates. In closing, we respectfully request that Via Lido Plaza be included in the Draft Housing Element with a mixed-use zoning that would provide for up to 30 du/acre (15% low income + 20% moderate income) plus a mixture of commercial and office uses at 0.5 FAR. Sincerely, Pau Tanguay Vice President Cc: Sean Matsler, Esq. (via c -mail: smatsler c@coxcastle.com) 3425 Via Lido ■ Suite 250 • Newport Beach. CA 92663 • 9:19.723.7100 • Fll.r 949.723-1141 Dallas, Texas { Newport Beach, California i Reno, Nevada www.FritzDuda.cvm City of Newport Beach 2021-2029 HDIJSING ELEMENT Figure 6.3: Dover W■stcG{f Area —Sites Inventory Sife Irvven to ry: Dover-Westdiff Area LEGEND _ i ifA (�cl.5in hn�H�y -- r^4 P., Appendix B. &it Maly sis (DRAFT APRIL 20213 511 SS3.224 342 Via Lido • Suite 250 • Newport Beach, CA 92663 ■ 949.723.7100 ■ Fax 949.723.1 141 Dallas, Texas I Newport Beach, California I Reno, Nevada www.FritzDuda.corn Received After Agenda Printed April 26, 2021 Item No. SS3 Mulvey, Jennifer From: Rieff, Kim Sent: Monday, April 26, 20217:23 AM To: Mulvey, Jennifer Subject: FW: Public Comments: Draft Housing Element From: Don Soughton <outlook_92E6C2799C1A784B@outlook.com> Sent: Sunday, April 25, 20214:52 PM To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: Public Comments: Draft Housing Element [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. We have been residents in Newport Beach for 57 years! We have seen our small charming town grown in to a traffic snarl with housing being built out! It is time to stop this blight of growth! If nothing is broken why can't we just start with improving what we have and enjoy the peace of mind of living in a charming seaside town. Thank you, Don and Doris Stoughto 3708 Ocean Blvd., Corona del Mar From: Don Soughton <outlook_92E6C2799C1A784B@outlook.com> Sent: Sunday, April 25, 20214:56 PM To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: Public Comments: 2510 West Coast Hwy [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. We certainly DO NOT NEED more construction/density on PCH!!! If it's not broken then why try to fix something that shall cause more congestion and noise pollution along PCHH We have lived in Corona del Mar for over 57 years and have seen the noise, traffic and pollution grow at a terrible rate!!!! What used to be a charming town has grown in to a noisy, traffic clogged city! Please please listen to the citizens of Newport Beach and vote down this proposal! Thank you, Don and Doris Stoughton 3708 Ocean Blvd, Corona del Mar Sent from Mail for Windows 10 Received After Agenda Printed April 26, 2021 Item No. SS3 Mulvey, Jennifer From: City Clerk's Office Sent: Friday, April 23, 20214:31 PM To: Mulvey, Jennifer; Rieff, Kim Subject: FW: RHNA From: nancy gardner <ngardner636@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, April 23, 20214:31:07 PM (UTC -08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov>; City Clerk's Office <CityClerk@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: RHNA [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Council Members: You have had to deal with a number of challenges, but of all the things you have done and will do, nothing will have a greater impact on our city than dealing with the RHNA. Unfortunately, there is no easy solution, but there are good plans and not -so -good plans. Not -so -good plans often emerge from trying to anticipate what an agency wants and will accept with the least amount of trouble. Good plans put the city first, even if this means pushback from the agency. A segment of the population will be unhappy no matter what is brought forward, but I believe that if the bulk of the community feels that you have been diligent in your efforts --that you have put in the hours and the research to create the best possible plan for the city --you will find good, if grudging, support. If, however, the perception develops that the effort has been lax or dilatory or simply designed to placate HCD, I fear you will find not only little support but a general disgruntlement that will be difficult to overcome. As time passes, people may not remember your response to the pandemic. They will remember how you handle RHNA which will become a very large part of your legacy. Best of luck in dealing with this challenge. Nancy Gardner By email to: GPUpdate(@newportbeachca.eov City of Newport Beach 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Received After Agenda Printed April 26, 2021 Item No. SS3 April 19, 2021 RE: Draft Housing Element Report (3-10-2021), Airport Area, Koll Center Newport Building Owners, Removal of Unique ID #48 from list of Consideration Parcels Dear Sirs, On behalf of the Von Karman Corporate Owners Association (VKCOA) and its members, located in a commercial office condo project located at 4340 Von Karman Avenue, we respectfully request to be removed from the list of Consideration Parcels and the associated Opportunity Site. For your reference, 4340 Von Karman is identified in Appendix B: Sites Analysis, Table B-10 (page B-19) as Unique ID #48. It is unfortunate that in order to submit a certified housing element update to the State HCD, the City of Newport Beach is proposing to impose a change in land use on private property owners without our respective written consent. The mailer letter in November stated that the City was "simply attempting to identify possible sites where residential development could occur in the future." (See attached sample letter) That site inventory became the roadmap for a residential zone overlay for proposed "Opportunity Sites". The RHNA Housing Update rules require the City prove feasibility on a parcel -by -parcel basis with a signed letter of interest from each property owner. For the record, the original Airport Site Analysis did not delineate which building owners responded. The site analysis only indicated if a property owner responded "yes". The lack of a response or a response of "no" is an indication of lack of interest or no interest. The majority of Koll Center Newport building owners did not respond which means that the City was unable to collect the required signed letters of interest for the Airport Environs. Additionally, I only observed maybe 1 to 2 stakeholders from the Airport Site at the HEAUC zoom meetings. In Koll Center Newport alone, there is approximately 2,000,000 square feet of commercial property encompassing more than 25 distinct properties. If you check your public comments from the HEAUC you will note that Adriana Fourcher mentioned several times that the City needed to engage with the business community. If the City Council adopts the HEAUC report without removing the parcels for which there is no signed letter of interest, they will be exposing themselves to future legal action. Likewise, 4340 Von Karman has fair and reasonable objections to being subject to an overlay zone, new zone or zone amendment program. Please refer to Figure B-1: Airport Area Environs — Sites Inventory (page B-6), which excludes our neighbor at 4320 Von Karman from the "Consideration Parcels". The small 8,000 square foot parcel is not a viable location for a 50 du/ac project. Since 4320 Von Karman is not colored purple in Figure B-1 or listed on the Sites Analysis it retains its commercial office classification without a zone overlay. Meanwhile, 4340 Von Karman consists of 47 separate tax parcels in an office condominium project, making our property just as infeasible as 4320 Von Karman to convert to a 50 du/ac residential project. Accordingly, I am requesting the same classification for 4340 Von Karman as 4320 Von Karman. Let me close with my concern that staff might ignore this request. There remains time for modifications to a draft report. The City must refrain from improper deference to new developments (aka the 2,426 low income dwelling units targeted for the Airport Area in order to satisfy RHNA) in comparison to the property owners and the going concerns of businesses in the City of Newport Beach. I strongly suggest that the City Council coordinates with other Orange County cities to challenge the authority of SCAG and/or the State HCD. This could be accomplished at the OCGOV level. If the City is not preparing to aggressively oppose SCAG and/or the State HCD, let the residents and businesses know that ASAP so we can consider other options. A written response is requested Sincerely, Adriana Fourcher, President of VKCOA Attachment: November 25, 2020 Future Housing Sites letter sent to office condo owner Cc: Mr. Duffy Duffield, D-3, (Airport), City Council (dduffield@newportbeachca.gov) Mr. Jim Campbell, Deputy Director (icampbell@newportbeachca.gov) Mr. Ben Zdeba, Senior Planner (bzdeba@newportbeachca.Rov) Mr. Larry Tucker, Chair, HEAUC (Itucker@newportbeachca.gov) VKCOA Board of Directors -'Z� IPO'' �4 n U ? T Cq<IFpryN�P November 25, 2020 Fourcher 4340 LLC 4340 Von Karman Ave #400 Newport Beach CA 92660 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, California 92660 949 64J-3200 newportbeachca.gov/communitydevelopment RE: NEWPORT BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE — FUTURE HOUSING SITES Dear Newport Beach Property Owner: The City of Newport Beach is in the process of updating the General Plan Housing Element for the 2021- 2029 planning period. Under State mandate, we must plan for a significant number of future housing units, including affordable workforce housing. As part of this update, we are working to identify potential sites that may accommodate residential development in the future. Your property at 4340 Von Karman Ave #405, Newport Beach, CA 92660 has been initially identified as a potential opportunity site for future residential development. The City is not considering the acquisition of your property for conversion to housing. We are simply attempting to identify possible sites where residential development could occur in the future. While no commitments or decisions have been made about your property, we would like to gauge your interest. The City respectfully requests your consideration for potential future residential development on your property. We would like to discuss this opportunity in further detail. Please contact us via email or phone at: a, r1. �:. Deputy Community Development Director Senior Planner icanuDbell(:neivnotlbeachca.gov b-debaia")ne:,,r)ortbeaclica ciov 949-644-3210 949-644-3253 Or via letter to: Jim Campbell. Deputy Community Development Director City of Newport Beach 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach. CA 92660 We hope to hear back from you before the end of 2020. If you are interested, please do not let this opportunity pass you by. If you are not interested, we would also like to hear from you to remove your property from the list. Please contact us at your earliest convenience. You may also visit www.NewportTogether.com for additional information about the Housing Element update efforts. Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. Respectfully, James Campbell, Deputy Community Development Director Received After Agenda Printed April 26, 2021 Item No. SS3 Mulvey, Jennifer Subject: FW: rezoning Newport beach golf course From: Kyle Robar <ktrobar@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2021 11:56 AM To: CDD <CDD@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: rezoning Newport beach golf course [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. re proposal for rezoning 14 acres front 9 Newport Beach Golf Course recreational open space to high density low/middle income residential. Rezoning Newport Beach Golf Course, a popular and irreplaceable community recreational asset, for residential will set precedent for development and elimination of other golf courses, parks, sports fields, beaches, open space, Back Bay, etc. Housing without such extremely negative impacts can be done with free market incentives by higher density rezoning of existing residential/commercial but never on open space, a red line that cannot be crossed. Kind Regards Kyle Robar 2362 Azure Ave, Newport Beach, CA 92660 Ktrobar@gmail.com Received After Agenda Printed April 26, 2021 aye£ Harbors Item No. SS3 W n 7 q,y �1Q�QJ s April 19, 2021 Submitted via email to: (;P[_ j0atc? a.ncii porrbeuchca. Uov anti c-iitcour•rciCci.,new.t?ortbcachca. Zov Mayor Brad Avery & Council City of Newport Beach 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 RE: Comments on Housing Element Update Dear Mayor Avery: Friends of Harbors, Beaches and Parks (FHBP) is a non-profit conservation -focused organization with a membership throughout the County. Our mission is "to promote, protect, and enhance the harbors, beaches, parks. trails, open spaces, natural preserves, and historic sites in Orange County." We have been engaged in providing comments to ensure sustainable development throughout the County and link our conservation work to housing and transportation when appropriate. To this end, we have reviewed the draft General Plan Housing Element Update released by the City of Newport Beach and provide the following comments: Suitable Housing Sites: Coyote Canyon Landfill We note that the table on Housing Element Requirements (page 1-1) lists "An inventory of land suitable for residential development including vacant sites and sites having redevelopment potential." Further, in Section 3 the document states on page 3-3, "There are approximately 6,000 acres of vacant and non -vacant residential land (39.3 percent), out of approximately 15,238 acres of land in Newport Beach, which are not currently subject to land use constraints (airport restrictions, flood zones. Fire high severity zone. NCCP conservation area, seismic hazard, and sea level rise)." The City's effort to identify the Coyote Canyon Landfill as an appropriate and suitable site for housing is in conflict with these statements. The landfill site does have NCCP constraints, among others. We raise this for the following reasons: 1. The majority of the Coyote Canyon Landfill is included as part of the Central -Coastal Sub -Area Natural Community Conservation Plan and Habitat Conservation Plan (NCCP/HCP) of which the City of Newport Beach is a signatory. Housing is not an approved use on lands protected in the NCCP/HCP reserve. (See Attachment 1) 2. While the County of Orange may own the land and it is designated Undeveloped Open Space. the land is also designated through local, county, state. and federal agreements as 394.03 acres of high quality NCCP/HCP reserve lands and a special linkage. P.O. Box 9256 • Newport Beach, CA 92658 , www.FHBP.org • (949) 399-3669 Further, we question the appropriateness of adding housing to a landfill. A quick review of the environmental documents for the Olinda Ranch development below the Olinda Landfill site in Brea reveal a number of issues. These issues include: methane barriers under homes (guaranteed to last 20 years, then it is the homeowner's responsibility to maintain/replace the barrier). methane flares throughout the community to burn off excess landfill produced methane. 18" thick walls with no windows when adjacent to the methane flares in case of explosion, etc. Even if the hurdles associated with the NCCP/HCP are solved. would the City really be interested in the long-term liability related to putting houses on a closed landfill site'? (We hope the answer is no.) For these reasons. we urge the City to remove the Coyote Canyon Landfill site as a location suitable for housing due to the significant reasons we've outlined. Suitable Housing Sites: Banning Ranch Within Section 4 – Housing Plan (page 4-6) the document states. "The City will work collaboratively with the County of Orange for annexation of the property and pursue entitlement of the area to provide opportunities for up to 1,357 [sic] units at an average density of 30 dwelling units per acre." We question the propriety of the City to pursue entitlements on land it does not own. After the lengthy litigation related to the Banning Ranch site and the California Coastal Commission's determination that even 895 houses were too many on the 401 -acre site, the City appears to ignore these agency determinations. Further, different housing suitability numbers (1,375 vs. 1,357) are used throughout the document for this site. At a minimum this should be corrected, but it is preferable to have the number reflect a quantity that meets the Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area limitations. This would mean a medium density, which is 117. That said, the City committed the Banning Ranch site to a preferred land use of open space. So, in reality, the housing proposed for this site should actually be zero. It should also be noted in the document that at present, the landowner is working with conservation organizations and state and federal agencies to fund the permanent protection of the land. Siting houses here is therefore even more unrealistic. The landowner's right to sell the land for conservation—instead of building housing on the siteis their right exclusively. We thank you for the opportunity to comment. Should you have any questions please reach out to us. Sincerely, Michael Wellborn President Attachment I: Map of the Coyote Canyon Landfill and the NCCP/HCP Reserve P.O. Box 9256 • Newport Beach, CA 92658 • www.FHBP.org • (949) 399-3669 RV 00 cp (D ca 2 ca a) tu 70 (L) U) m LU 70 ZI (10 0 (1) 00 0 70 C: D Q C4 > M w m t"', • a) m CL C) C) U) U) ca (D z z FRI 00 17 Z11 'e Wetc:�, V4 ­ R. ""MAIN 71UP —0—mi A• t IA� —Tx hvo wrwiro.�. - r?ap fsk wwv A 4 4 -Ve. -INV 'Iwv. n-,4— \ m - i P!, ,S.W .A �7K 1 •jry �•tX`�F:$1 J .. r �� �• Nd' w w.`. � � . i - irvo.; JJW ro. R I AN AAG M- V,Ar. I j Mkt 77.! 4 gg. N;A Wit 5, Received After Agenda Printed April 26, 2021 Item No. SS3 Mulvey, Jennifer Subject: FW: Land use for Parcel 11/4302 Ford Rd/Parcel 458 36110 From: Jerry Schmitt <jerryschmitt87@gmai1.com> Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2021 1:22 PM To: Zdeba, Benjamin <bzdeba@newportbeachca.gov>; Campbell, Jim <JCampbell@newportbeachca.gov>; Housing Element Update Advisory Committee <HEupdate@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: Land use for Parcel 11/4302 Ford Rd/Parcel 458 36110 [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Ben, Jim, and committee members, This parcel has very limited practical use for dwelling due to no access to Bonita Canyon Rd, safety issues, and city liability issues that came up in previous attempts to build on this site in the last 20 years. This 1.06 acre has virtually no practical use except to expand the Bonita Canyon Sports Park with the existing pickleball courts or soccer fields, or a multitude of other options. Due to the location and configuration of this parcel, very few, if any other option would jeopardize the safety and enjoyment of the park. Not only would it be an easy park addition to help the goals of the City's General Plan, it is also a visual gateway into the City. Traffic may also want to use part of it to expand the merge lane as it is highly congested for cars heading inland and turning from Jamboree onto the Bonita Canyon Road. Thank you for your consideration. Best regards, Jerry Schmitt 949 285-8666 C Received After Agenda Printed April 26, 2021 Item No. SS3 Mulvey, Jennifer From: Rieff, Kim Sent: Monday, April 26, 2021 1:40 PM To: Mulvey, Jennifer Subject: FW: Housing development From: Dwight Guan <dwight.guan@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, April 26, 2021 1:38 PM To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: Housing development [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. I don't know who made the decision to develop a huge apartment complex with limited parking space in already very congested area ? Dwight Guan 220 Tustin Ave Newport Beach, CA 92663 Received After Agenda Printed April 26, 2021 Item No. SS3 Mulvey, Jennifer Subject: FW: housing plan - Ford Road From: Robyn Ashton <ashtonfamily cox.net> Sent: Monday, April 26, 2021 1:06 PM To: Zdeba, Benjamin <bzde d)newportbeachc_a.gov> Subject: housing plan - Ford Road [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Please take the small parcel of land off of the proposed development list for Newport Beach. This would not be a safe location for 45 housing units. There is not sufficient parking which would spill over into the Port Street neighborhood. MacArthur Blvd is already too busy. Is an environmental impact study required and will it be made public? There is also no easy way to access this space for residents, moving trucks, and other visitors. The whole idea of having to add so many housing units to Newport Beach is so disturbing. We already have major traffic increases when people drive to the beach, which has increased since the pandemic. Thank you Robyn Ashton Port Street resident 1 Received After Agenda Printed April 26, 2021 Item No. SS3 Mulvey, Jennifer Subject: FW: Newport Beach Housing Element Advisory Committee - Parcel 127 From: steve robinson <sro1bin9506@hotmai1.com> Sent: Monday, April 26, 202110:23 AM To: Campbell, Jim <JCampbell@newportbeachca.gov>; Zdeba, Benjamin <bzdeba@newportbeachca.gov> Cc: Tucker, Larry <Itucker@newportbeachca.gov>; Bloom, Jeffrey <JBloom@newportbeachca.gov>; DeSantis, Susan <SDeSantis@newportbeachca.gov>; Fruchbom, Paul <PFruchbomccDnewportbeachca.gov>; Kiley, Elizabeth <EI<iley@newportbeachca.gov>; LePlastrier, Geoffrey<GLePlastrier@newportbeachca.gov>; Sandland, Stephen <SSandland@newportbeachca.gov>; Stevens, Debbie <DStevens@newportbeachca.gov>; Thrakulchavee, Michelle < MTh rakulchavee@new portbeachca.gov>; O'Neill, William <woneill@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: Newport Beach Housing Element Advisory Committee - Parcel 127 I have lived at 1800 Port Sheffield Place (backing to Old Ford Road) since 1983. Subject parcel 127 is situated where Old Ford ends next to Bonita Canyon Sports Park complex. Old Ford is the only ingress/egress from this site. Any additional development on Old Ford would create unacceptable problems for local residents and to the hundreds children and adults who use the parks every day. Some of the potential issues are; Traffic - Old Ford is already well traveled especially when soccer is on, which is almost every day. Morning work traffic already creates a back-up at Old Ford and Mesa View. Adding 45 additional housing units with 1-2 cars each would create an additional 100-200 trips per day. Safety - The Bonita Canyon Sports Parks are a major success story for the City. Hundreds of children from all over Orange County use these parks on a daily basis. many of these children are driven to the park by their parents many of whom park on the street because lots are full. Creating additional traffic for 45 x ? occupants would create additional safety issues. Park Capacity - These parks are already used to max capacity ( just try to get a pickle ball court, tennis court or soccer field) and more residents would make situation impossible. Crime - We are blessed to live in a beautiful area where crime is under control for the most part. Unfortunately adding low cost housing will increase the incidence of crime to our community. Is NB prepared to add additional policing? Noise - Loud cars are already a problem around here but adding more cars will not do anything to alleviate the situation. Parking - Street parking during soccer games is already at capacity from Mesa View west to end of cul de sac. How are 45 additional dwelling units going to help? Local residents have a right to be concerned about over- development to their neighborhoods, after all we are the tax payers, parents, business owners etc that make Newport Beach such a special place. Please consider our contributions to the community before making decisions that impact our lives. Regards Steve Robinson 1800 Port Sheffield Place. Received After Agenda Printed April 26, 2021 Mulvey, Jennifer Item No. SS3 Subject: FW: Parcel 11/4302 Ford Rd/APN 458 361 10. From: Marlene Dandler <Dandler@seas horeaca_demy,org> Sent: Monday, April 26, 2021 10:37 AM To: Zdeba, Benjamin <bzdeba@newportbeachca. ov>; Campbell, Jim<J_Campbell@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: Parcel 11/4302 Ford Rd/APN 458 361 10. [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Ben & Jim, I am writing to oppose Parcel 11/4302 Ford Rd/APN 458 361 10 being approved for rezoning to allow any construction. I am concerned about the safety of children playing at Bonita Canyon sports park, parking and traffic issues, as well as liability. Thank you, Marlene Dandler Marlene Dandler Founder, Seashore Academy Received After Agenda Printed April 26, 2021 Item No. SS3 Mulvey, Jennifer From: Rieff, Kim Sent: Friday, April 23, 2021 10:49 AM To: Mulvey, Jennifer Subject: FW: Public Comments: Draft Housing Element -----Original Message ----- From: nicole nishanian <nicolenish@sbcglobal.net> Sent: Friday, April 23, 202110:45 AM To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: Public Comments: Draft Housing Element [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. My name is Nicole Nishanian, I am a homeowner living in Newport Beach. I am against this proposed plan for Mariners mile. That is one of the more congested traffic areas on Coast Highway and this would only create more traffic, less parking, total chaos during the building process. Thank you, Nicole Nishanian Sent from my Whone Received After Agenda Printed April 27, 2021 Item No. SS3 Mulvey, Jennifer From: City Clerk's Office Sent: Monday, April 26, 20214:09 PM To: Mulvey, Jennifer; Rieff, Kim Subject: FW: Comments on 4/27 Study Session Item SS3 Attachments: RHNA Option 3 4-23-21.pdf; Rationale for 1000 ADU's for Council 4-23-21.pdf From: Nancy Scarbrough <nancy@nancyfornewport.com> Sent: Monday, April 26, 20214:08:33 PM (UTC -08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov>; City Clerk's Office <CityClerk@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: Comments on 4/27 Study Session Item SS3 [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Good Afternoon Mister Mayor and Members of the City Council, I am submitting the two attachments on behalf of the Good Neighbor Committee, a group of Newport Beach residents who have been meeting and discussing the Housing Element over the last year and a half. We are providing an Option #3 to the Draft Housing Element and our rationale for a very aggressive ADU allocation. The City of Fountain Valley has submitted a very similar ADU Evaluation for their RHNA allocation. We believe the residents, once the informed of the realities of California law allowing unrestricted numbers of ADU's and the ramifications of the proposed Option #2 Draft Housing Element, would much prefer to use the ADU's, instead of over 10,000 plus Above Market apartments, to meet our RHNA allocation. We strongly encourage the Council to pause the process and explore this perspective, or other perspectives from experienced, practicing, Affordable Housing professionals. Thank you for your consideration. The Good Neighbor Committee Jean Watt Nancy Scarbrough Charles Klobe And others who have asked to not be named. April 23, 2021 Page 1 of 2 We believe that if the City of Newport Beach submits the current Draft Housing Element, HCD will not allow us to revise the draft to a version that is based on an alternate formula. We think that the following proposal represents a plan that is more acceptable to the residents of Newport Beach and should be considered by the City Council before they submit the Draft Housing Element. We believe the Council Members should receive more in-depth training on the rationale behind our plan and the plan that is currently included in the Draft Housing Element. The Council Members should be exposed to the opinions and suggestions of experienced "Mixed Income Developers" and "Affordable Housing Developers" (they do not necessarily have the same focus or expertise), not just housing developers interested in rental housing with a minimum affordable component. The impact of housing in the numbers currently being proposed can only guess at the number of above market housing units that will be required to meet the RHNA allocations being put forward in our Draft Housing Element. The number has gone from 8,000 to 12,000, and we predict it will be even higher. The implications of this promise to the State, are not clearly understood by the community and under the current conditions, it is not likely to be understood until these residential units are built, at which point the residents will be furious and it will be beyond the Council or Staff's ability to unwind the zoning in the General Plan for years to follow. The result of this decision will be this City Council's legacy. Our Option 3 plan backs into the RHNA obligations based on the Low and Very Low requirements: • Based on the 4/2021 Draft Housing Element Appendix B, Table B-1, (pasted in below) the total low and very low RHNA units required is 2,386 (1,456 very low + 930 low = 2,386) • The very low and low units already in the pipeline are 130 affordable units per Table B-1. • After subtracting the affordable projects that are in the "Pipeline," the remaining RHNA obligation for low and very low is 2,256 (2,386 —130 = 2,256). This is the balance of what we need to satisfy our RHNA low/very low obligation. • The numbers for Option #3: o Senior Affordable Housing — 5 projects @ 90 units each Total 450 o Homeless Permanent Supportive Housing — 1 Project Total 50 o ADU's - 400 Existing with Forgiveness, 600 New over 8 years Total 1,000 (this is more aggressive than the numbers in the Draft Housing Element, but seems perfectly achievable per the Rationale paper and Fountain Valley report) o Mixed Income Apartments ■ 40% affordable (1,900 x 40% = 760) Total 760 ■ 60% market rate/moderate (1,900 x 60% = 11140) Total 1,140 ■ Total Mixed Income Apartments Total 1,900 o Total affordable — 2,390 units (consists of 130 already entitled + 500 senior/homeless + 1000 ADU's + 760 low/very low units in mixed income high density apartments = 2,390 low/very low) This plan provides 1,140 moderate and above moderate apartments. We don't support the buffer approach. April 23, 2021 Page 2 of 2 • If the developers do not have to use or compete for 9% and 4% Federal tax credits, then the developers of the mixed income units, can make a project work for the 30% AMI (area median income) which addresses the housing we have been supporting for our "seniors, kids, grandkids, and workforce housing." • It also doesn't force the developers to mix 30% AMI tenants with homeless who need other services. • Newport Beach should provide a project for homeless in conjunction with one of the homeless service providers for 40-60 units. From the Newoort Beach Draft Housing Element: Table B-1: Summary of RHNA Status and Sites Inventory April 2021 Draft Housing Element Table B-1: Surnmaryof RHNA Status and Sites Inventory Extremely Law/ Very Low Income Low Income Moderate Income Above Moderate Income Total 2021-2029 RHNA 1,456 930 1,050 1,409 4,845 RHNACreclit (Units Built) TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD Total RHNA 0b ligations 1,456 930 1,050 1,409 4,845 Sites Available Projects in the Pipeline 130 0 2,164 2,294 Accessory Dwelling Units 228 100 6 334 5,1, Cycle Sites 0 348 40 388 Remaining RHNA 2,028 602 -- 2,630 AirportArea Environs Rezone 904 301 755 1,960 West Newport Mesa Rezone 381 117 80 578 Dover -Westcliff Rezone 49 8 100 158 Newport Center Rezone 587 196 1,140 1,923 Coyote Canyon Rezone 308 0 572 880 Banning Ranch Rezone 275 207 893 1,375 Total Potential Capacity of Rezones TOTAL POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT CAPACITY 2,504 2,852 829 1,248 3,540 5,750 6,873 9,889 Sites SurplusjShortfall(+/-) +476 +227 +4,341 +5,044 Percentage Buffer 20% 22%0 308% 104% Rational for 1000 ADU's Existing gray market ADU's and JADU's 400 (estimate) • Newport Heights 55 • Corona Del Mar 85 • Peninsula 95 • Balboa Island 60 • Newport Shores 5 • Dover Shores 15 • Irvine Terrace 15 • Newport Coast (Older Part) 15 • Lido Island 5 • Dover Shores. 20 • East Bluff/Bluffs 10 • Harbor View Hills 5 • West Newport 15 New ADU's/JADU's Community Development (Seimone) told us that when individuals and developers ask them about demolishing a duplex or combining two lots (especially in a Coastal Zone), to avoid a reduction in density, staff is recommending they build their "Dream House" and include a JADU. The Zoning Administrator approved 2 recently and the Planning Commission approved 2, two weeks ago and 1 last week. New JADU's (Some Coastal Zone) • Peninsula 1 x month = 12 x 8 = 96 • Lido Isle 1 x year = 8 • CDM 10 x year = 80 • Balboa Island 8 x year = 64 • Dover Shores 4 x year = 32 New ADU's • Newport Heights 8 x year = 64 (Coronado Apartments has 10 permitted) • CDM (not in Coastal Zone) 10 x year = 80 • Peninsula 5 x year = 40 • Dover Shores 4 x year = 32 • West Newport 2 x year = 16 • East Bluff, Bluffs, Big Canyon, misc. 10 x year = 80 • Newport Coast (Older part) 2 year = 8 (Total 600) Foundation for our argument that ADU's should account for 1000 units of our RHNA allocation: 1. HCD's guidance statement that suggests ADU's be based on a multiple of our past performance of "Permits Issued" for ADU's over the past 3 years does not fairly consider the fact that until November 2020, Newport Beach did not allow ADU's at all. In fact, it was illegal to build a "Granny Unit" in the City of NB in many areas. 2. Many nearly legal ADU's have been permitted and built above garages and attached to new construction. These could be allowed/encouraged to make the minor modifications necessary to become fully compliant ADU's or JADU's. An amnesty program promoted by the City would help make residents aware of their ability to help in this situation. 3. Many other older Granny Units exist that would require slightly more modification to become compliant. Those should also be encouraged to be brought into compliance through an amnesty program. 4. Construction of homes in the Coastal Zone cannot reduce the existing density, so recently NB staff has been encouraging homeowners and developers to add an ADU or a JADU to a larger home when lots are combined, or duplexes are demolished for the purpose of building a larger home on a single lot. 1. The following addresses have been approved for such in the past few months 1. 361 Via Lido Soud 2. 365 Via Lido Soud 3. 413 & 413 % Edgewater Place 4. 120 Topaz Avenue 5. 112 Coral Avenue 6. 313 Fullerton Avenue 2. At this rate 4 per month or even two per month 2 x 12 x 8= 192, which is more than in the estimate above, seems reasonable. 5. New laws have been passed over the last few years that encourage construction of ADU's while also limiting Cities' ability to restrict zoning, setbacks, parking requirements and other previous obstacles to such housing. 6. The public has only recently become aware of these laws. ADU's will become increasingly common, "by right" construction. 7. There are new companies popping up throughout Southern California who: 1. Sell prefabricated ADU's and provide services to assist the homeowner. 2. Offer assistance to specific markets (for instances, seniors) in planning and construction of such units. Former Laguna Beach Mayor Elizabeth Pearson's company www.lagunaadu.com is an example of such a company AARP offers information and links to examples of plans and premanufactured ADU's 8. The City should increase the allowable square footage for ADU's under Newport's ADU ordinance, to align with the State restrictions for ADU's which would allow us to capture even more of the existing guest housing in the city. There are many existing guest houses already exiting in some of the more expensive neighborhoods that might qualify under a 1200 -foot restriction vs the city's current restriction of 1000 square feet for a two bedroom. 9. Currently there are many affordable housing advocacy organizations who are monitoring the progress of cities to comply with their RHNA allocations. These organizations allege that Newport Beach is trying to concentrate low and very low housing in certain areas. They have made veiled insinuations that they are willing to file lawsuits against cities who do not distribute low-income housing equally throughout their cities. ADU's offer the opportunity to distribute our affordable housing throughout the city. 10. Spreading our RHNA required housing throughout the city has the added benefit of more equally distributing requirements for infrastructure (water, sewers, and other utilities) as well as on street parking (which will be allowed by these new laws), schools, other services (retail, medical offices, restaurants) and city provided services such as police and fire, recreation, and senior services. Many of us have pointed out these supporting arguments in our allowed three-minute response time slots, but we have never had the opportunity to deliver a cohesive message to an audience of decision makers. None of this takes into consideration pending legislation (SB 9), which, if passed would allow any homeowner to split and R-1 lot into two (2) equal lots and build a duplex on each lot, as well as an ADU or JADU. If SB 9 passes, it changes EVERYTHING. Received After Agenda Printed April 27, 2021 Item No. SS3 Mulvey, Jennifer Subject: FW: Low income housing From: Troy Grover <troygrover@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, April 26, 20213:06 PM To: CDD <CDD@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: Low income housing [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hi there! As a business owner and resident of Newport Beach. I would like to voice my concern of the proposed 2700 income units by 2029 and specifically thew Newport Beach golf area. My family and neighbors oppose the rezoning of that land. Thank you, Troy Grover • PUBLIC Ap PROVIDING ACCESS Received After Agenda Printed April 27, 2021 LAW C E N TSR Wo. " TO JUSTICE FOR ORANGE COUNTY'S LOW INCOME RESIDENTS April 26, 2021 City of Newport Beach City Council 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 RE: City of Newport Beach Draft 6th Cycle Housing Element Dear City Staff, Public Law Center ("PLC") is a 501(c)(3) legal services organization that provides free civil legal services to low-income individuals and families across Orange County. Our services are provided across a range of substantive areas of law, including consumer, family, immigration, housing, and health law. Additionally, PLC provides legal assistance to community organizations. Further, the mission of our Housing and Homelessness Prevention Unit includes preserving and expanding affordable housing. Thus, I write on behalf of individuals in need of affordable housing in Orange County to comment on the City of Newport Beach's ("the City") Draft 6th Cycle Housing Element. Government Code Section 65583 requires that a housing element consist of an identification and analysis of existing and projected housing needs and a statement of goals, policies, quantified objectives, financial resources, and scheduled programs for the preservation, improvement, and development of housing.' Additionally, the housing element shall identify adequate sites for housing, including rental housing, factory -built housing, mobilehomes, and emergency shelters, and shall make adequate provision for the existing and projected needs of all economic segments of the community.2 Here, the City's Draft 6th Cycle Housing Element raises multiple concerns which we previously addressed in our letter to the Planning Commission on [DATE] and attached hereto as Appendix A. Additionally, we reiterate some of these issues below as well as raise additional concerns. It is our hope that we can work cooperatively with the City to address these concerns and ensure that the City's Draft 6"' Cycle Housing Element complies with all relevant state laws. Assessment of Housing Needs and Inventory of Resources and Constraints An assessment of housing needs and an inventory of resources and constraints relevant to the meeting of these needs.3 The assessment and inventory shall include all of the following: • An analysis of housing needs; • A calculation of extremely low-income housing needs; ' Cal. Gov. Code Section 65583. 2 Cal. Gov. Code Section 65583. ' Cal. Gov. Code Section 65583(a). 601 Civic Center Drive West • Santa Ana, CA 92701-4002 • (714) 541-1010 • Fax (714) 541- 5157 RE: City of Newport Beach Draft 6th Cycle Housing Element April 26, 2021 p. 2 • An analysis of housing characteristics; • An inventory of land suitable for residential development; • An identification of zones for emergency shelters; • An analysis of governmental and nongovernmental constraints; • An analysis of special housing needs; • An analysis of opportunities for energy conservation; and • An analysis of assisted housing developments. Emergency Shelters In addition to the concerns about emergency shelters raised in our letter submitted to the Planning Commission on April 7, 2021 (see Appendix A), the City mentions a Memorandum of Understanding with the City of Costa Mesa "for the funding, development and Shared Use of a Temporary Homeless Shelter Facility."4 According to the City, the "shared shelter would enable both agencies to provide services to their respective homeless populations without duplicating efforts and thus better leveraging their respective resources."5 This Memorandum of Understanding appears to be a multijurisdictional agreement between the City and the City of Costa Mesa to provide emergency shelter space for its unhoused populations. A local government may satisfy all or part of its requirement to identify a zone or zones suitable for the development of emergency shelters by adopting and implementing a multijurisdictional agreement, with a maximum of two other adjacent communities, that requires the participating jurisdictions to develop at least one year-round emergency shelter within two years of the beginning of the planning period .6 The agreement shall allocate a portion of the new shelter capacity to each jurisdiction as credit toward its emergency shelter need, and each jurisdiction shall describe how the capacity was allocated as part of its housing element .7 Each member jurisdiction of a multijurisdictional agreement shall describe in its housing element all of the following: • How the joint facility will meet the jurisdiction's emergency shelter need.' • The jurisdiction's contribution to the facility for both the development and ongoing operation and management of the facility.9 • The amount and source of the funding that the jurisdiction contributes to the facility. 10 The aggregate capacity claimed by the participating jurisdictions in their housing elements shall not exceed the actual capacity of the shelter." 4 City of Newport Beach, Draft 2021-2029 Housing Element, A-34 (March 2021). 5 City of Newport Beach, Draft 2021-2029 Housing Element, A-34 (March 2021). 6 Cal. Gov. Code Section 65583(d)(1). ' Cal. Gov. Code Section 65583(d)(2). ' Cal. Gov. Code Section 65583(d)(3)(A). 9 Cal. Gov. Code Section 65583(d)(3)(B). 10 Cal. Gov. Code Section 65583(d)(3)(C). " Cal. Gov. Code Section 65583(d)(4). 601 Civic Center Drive West • Santa Ana, CA 92701-4002 • (714) 541-1010 • Fax (714) 541- 5157 RE: City of Newport Beach Draft 6th Cycle Housing Element April 26, 2021 p. 3 However, the City has not provided any detail about the agreement with the City of Costa Mesa. Without any further information, the City cannot use this Memorandum of Understanding to satisfy its emergency shelter need. Governmental Constraints The housing element must contain an analysis of potential and actual governmental constraints upon the maintenance, improvement, or development of housing for all income levels, including the types of housing identified in Section 65583(c)(1),12 and for persons with disabilities, 13 including land use controls, building codes and their enforcement, site improvements, fees and other exactions required of developers, local processing and permit procedures, and any locally adopted ordinances that directly impact the cost and supply of residential development. 14 The analysis shall also demonstrate local efforts to remove governmental constraints that hinder the locality from meeting its share of the RHNA and from meeting the need for housing for persons with disabilities, supportive housing, transitional housing, and emergency shelters. 15 The City describes Measure S, which amended the Newport Beach City Charter by adding Section 423.16 Section 423 requires voter approval of certain amendments of the Newport Beach General Plan, including the following: • An Amendment that modifies the allowed use(s) of the property or area that is the subject of the Amendment such that the proposed use(s) generate(s) more than 100 morning or evening peak hour trips than are generated by the allowed use(s) before the Amendment; • An Amendment that authorizes an increase in floor area for the property or area that is the subject of the Amendment that exceeds 40,000 square feet when compared to the General Plan before approval of the Amendment; • An Amendment that authorizes an increase in the number of dwelling units for the property or area that is the subject of the Amendment that exceeds 100 dwelling units when compared to the General Plan before approval of the Amendment; or • The increase in morning or evening peak hour trips, floor area or dwelling units resulting from the Amendment when added to 80% of the increases in morning or evening peak hour trips, floor area or dwelling units resulting from Prior Amendments exceeds one or 12 "Housing for all income levels, including multifamily rental housing, factory -built housing, mobilehomes, housing for agricultural employees, supportive housing, single -room occupancy units, emergency shelters, and transitional housing." Cal. Gov. Code Section 65583(c)(1). " "`Developmental disability' means a disability that originates before an individual attains 18 years of age, continues, or can be expected to continue, indefinitely, and constitutes a substantial disability for that individual. As defined by the Director of Developmental Services, in consultation with the Superintendent of Public Instruction, this term shall include intellectual disability, cerebral palsy, epilepsy, and autism. This term shall also include disabling conditions found to be closely related to intellectual disability or to require treatment similar to that required for individuals with an intellectual disability, but shall not include other handicapping conditions that are solely physical in nature." Cal. Welfare and Institutions Code Section 4512, Cal. Gov. Code Section 65583(a)(7). 14 Cal. Gov. Code Section 65583(a)(5). " Cal. Gov. Code Section 65583(a)(5). 16 City of Newport Beach, Draft 2021-2029 Housing Element, 3-26 (March 2021). 601 Civic Center Drive West • Santa Ana, CA 92701-4002 • (714) 541-1010 • Fax (714) 541- 5157 RE: City of Newport Beach Draft 6th Cycle Housing Element April 26, 2021 p. 4 more of the voter approval thresholds in Section 423 as specified in Subsection 1, 2 or 3.17 The City acknowledges that "Section 423 restricts growth throughout the community as it may discourage housing development projects, and particularly affordable housing projects."18 However, the City does not demonstrate how it will address these restrictions. "Policy Action 3N: Housing Impact Studies" states that "the City will continue to study housing impacts of proposed larger -scale, significant commercial/industrial projects during the development review process."19 While doing so, "prior to project approval, a housing impact assessment shall be developed by the City with the active involvement of the developer. Such assessment shall indicate the magnitude of jobs to be created by the project, where housing opportunities are expected to be available, and what measures (public and private) are requisite, if any, to ensure an adequate supply of housing for the projected labor force of the project and for any restrictions on development due to the `Charter Section 423' initiative."20 This program does not address on how a "housing impact assessment" will help the City overcome issues arising from Section 423 and, similar to its other programs, lacks specific action steps to implement the program, proposed measurable outcomes, and a firm commitment to implement the program. 21 Without such detail, it is unlikely that this program will help the City overcome this governmental constraint and Section 423 will continue to restrict housing development. Nongovernmental Constraints The housing element must also analyze potential and actual nongovernmental constraints upon the maintenance, improvement, or development of housing for all income levels, including the availability of financing, the price of land, the cost of construction, the requests to develop housing at densities below those anticipated in the analysis required by Section 65583.2(c), and the length of time between receiving approval for a housing development and submittal of an application for building permits for that housing development that hinder the construction of a locality's share of the RHNA.22 The analysis shall also demonstrate local efforts to remove nongovernmental constraints that create a gap between the locality's planning for the development of housing for all income levels and the construction of that housing. 23 Here, the City identifies land costs, construction costs, available financing, and economic constraints such as the high price of homes and cost of living as possible nongovernmental constraints that affect the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing for all income levels. 24 However, the City merely describes these constraints and determines that available 17 City of Newport Beach, Draft 2021-2029 Housing Element, 3-26 — 3-27 (March 2021). le City of Newport Beach, Draft 2021-2029 Housing Element, 3-27 (March 2021). 9 City of Newport Beach, Draft 2021-2029 Housing Element, 4-14 (March 2021). 21 City of Newport Beach, Draft 2021-2029 Housing Element, 4-14 (March 2021). 21 California Department of Housing and Community Development, Building Blocks, Program Overview and Quantified Objectives, https://hed.ca.gov/community-development/building-blocks/program-requirements/program- overview.shtml (last visited Apr. 4, 2021). 22 Cal. Gov. Code Section 65583(a)(6). 21 Cal. Gov. Code Section 65583(a)(6). 24 City of Newport Beach, Draft 2021-2029 Housing Element, 3-2 — 3-5 (March 2021). 601 Civic Center Drive West • Santa Ana, CA 92701-4002 • (714) 541-1010 • Fax (714) 541- 5157 RE: City of Newport Beach Draft 6th Cycle Housing Element April 26, 2021 p. 5 financing is not a constraint .25 The City fails to demonstrate any local effort to remove these nongovernmental constraints to better provide housing for all income levels and should include this analysis in its neat draft. Programs The housing element must include programs that allow the jurisdiction to achieve its stated housing goals and objectives. Programs must set forth a schedule of actions during the planning period, each with a timeline for implementation. 26 The jurisdiction may recognize that certain programs are ongoing, such that there will be beneficial impacts of the programs within the planning period, that the local government is undertaking or intends to undertake to implement the policies and achieve the goals and objectives of the housing element .27 The jurisdiction may do so through the administration of land use and development controls, the provision of regulatory concessions and incentives, the utilization of appropriate federal and state financing and subsidy programs when available, and the utilization of moneys in a low- and moderate -income housing fund of an agency if the locality has established a redevelopment project area pursuant to the Community Redevelopment Law. 28 To make adequate provision for the housing needs of all economic segments of the community, the program shall address housing issues such as inadequate site inventories, meeting lower income housing needs, removing constraints, maintaining affordable housing, promoting affirmatively furthering fair housing, preserving assisted housing developments, encouraging accessory dwelling units, and facilitating public participation. To make these programs most effective, the Department of Housing and Community Development ("HCD") recommends jurisdictions include the following: definite time frames for implementation; an identification of agencies and officials responsible for implementation; a description of the local government's specific role in program implementation; a description of the specific action steps to implement the program; proposed measurable outcomes; demonstration of a firm commitment to implement the program; and an identification of specific funding sources, where appropriate. 29 Addressing Constraints The housing element shall include a program to address and, where appropriate and legally possible, remove governmental and nongovernmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing, including housing for all income levels and housing for persons with disabilities. 30 The program shall remove constraints to, and provide reasonable accommodations for housing designed for, intended for occupancy by, or with supportive services for, persons with disabilities. 31 25 City of Newport Beach, Draft 2021-2029 Housing Element, 3-3 (March 2021). 26 Cal. Gov. Code Section 65583(c). 27 Cal. Gov. Code Section 65583(c). 28 Cal. Gov. Code Section 65583(c). 29 California Department of Housing and Community Development, Building Blocks, Program Overview and Quantified Objectives, https://hed.ca.gov/community-development/building-blocks/program-requirements/program- overview.shtml (last visited Apr. 4, 2021). 30 Cal. Gov. Code Section 65583(c)(3). 3i Cal. Gov. Code Section 65583(c)(3). 601 Civic Center Drive West • Santa Ana, CA 92701-4002 • (714) 541-1010 • Fax (714) 541- 5157 RE: City of Newport Beach Draft 6th Cycle Housing Element April 26, 2021 p. 6 As discussed above, Measure S, land costs, construction costs, available financing, and economic constraints such as the high price of homes and cost of living were identified as governmental and nongovernmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing. However, the City's attempt to address Measure S is inadequate and the City has not identified how its programs specifically address the nongovernmental constraints. The City should follow HCD guidance to create effective programs that address these constraints. Fair Housing Assessment and Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing The housing element shall include a program to affirmatively further fair housing. 32 The program shall include an assessment of fair housing in the jurisdiction that shall include all of the following components: • A summary of fair housing issues in the jurisdiction and an assessment of the jurisdiction's fair housing enforcement and fair housing outreach capacity. 33 • An analysis of available federal, state, and local data and knowledge to identify integration and segregation patterns and trends, racially or ethnically concentrated areas of poverty, disparities in access to opportunity, and disproportionate housing needs within the jurisdiction, including displacement risk .34 • An assessment of the contributing factors for the fair housing issues. 35 • An identification of the jurisdiction's fair housing priorities and goals, giving highest priority to those factors that limit or deny fair housing choice or access to opportunity, or negatively impact fair housing or civil rights compliance, and identifying the metrics and milestones for determining what fair housing results will be achieved .36 • Strategies and actions to implement those priorities and goals, which may include, but are not limited to, enhancing mobility strategies and encouraging development of new affordable housing in areas of opportunity, as well as place -based strategies to encourage community revitalization, including preservation of existing affordable housing, and protecting existing residents from displacement .37 A jurisdiction that completes or revises an assessment of fair housing 38, or an analysis of impediments to fair housing choice 39, may incorporate relevant portions of that assessment or revised assessment of fair housing or analysis or revised analysis of impediments to fair housing into its housing element .40 32 Cal. Gov. Code Section 65583(c)(10)(A). " Cal. Gov. Code Section 65583(c)(10)(A)(i). 34 Cal. Gov. Code Section 65583(c)(10)(A)(ii). 35 Cal. Gov. Code Section 65583(c)(10)(A)(iii). 36 Cal. Gov. Code Section 65583(c)(10)(A)(iv). 17 Cal. Gov. Code Section 65583(c)(10)(A)(v). " Pursuant to Subpart A (commencing with Section 5.150) of Part 5 of Subtitle A of Title 24 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as published in Volume 80 of the Federal Register, Number 136, page 42272, dated July 16, 2015. Cal. Gov. Code Section 65583(c)(10)(B). 39 In accordance with the requirements of Section 91.225 of Title 24 of the Code of Federal Regulations in effect before August 17, 2015. Cal. Gov. Code Section 65583(c)(10)(B). 41 Cal. Gov. Code Section 65583(c)(10)(B). 601 Civic Center Drive West • Santa Ana, CA 92701-4002 • (714) 541-1010 • Fax (714) 541- 5157 RE: City of Newport Beach Draft 6th Cycle Housing Element April 26, 2021 p. 7 The housing element shall include a program to promote and affirmatively further fair housing opportunities and promote housing throughout the community or communities for all persons regardless of race, religion, sex, marital status, ancestry, national origin, color, familial status, or disability, and other characteristics protected by the California Fair Employment and Housing Act and any other state and federal fair housing and planning law. 41 Affirmatively furthering fair housing includes taking meaningful action to "overcome patterns of segregation and foster inclusive communities" and to "address significant disparities in housing needs and in access to opportunity."42 In order to fully address issues of segregation and integration and to affirmatively further fair housing, the City should do an analysis of racially concentrated areas of affluence ("RCAAs"). RCAAs may "represent a public policy issue to the extent that they have been created and maintained through exclusionary and discriminatory land use and development practices."43 In order to truly foster an inclusive community "free from barriers that restrict access to opportunity based on protected classes, 44,, the City must analyze the fair housing issues on a more regional level as addressed in our previous letter. Preserving Assisted Housing Developments The housing element shall include a program to preserve for lower income households the assisted housing developments identified pursuant to Section 65583(a)(9).45 The program for preservation of the assisted housing developments shall utilize, to the extent necessary, all available federal, state, and local financing and subsidy programs identified in Section 65583(a)(9), except where a community has other urgent needs for which alternative funding sources are not available. 46 The program may include strategies that involve local regulation and technical assistance. 47 The City indicates that over 40% of its existing stock of assisted and affordable housing is already at risk of expiration of affordability covenants .48 However, the City's Policy Action 2C is reactionary, simply waiting for notification from HCD that a property owner has decided to end the affordability of the existing units. 49 While an important program, with 40% of existing stock of assisted and affordable housing already at risk of conversion, the City should expand its program to include more proactive steps to reach out to property owners to determine the status of these units and the future plans of property owners to begin the process now of preventing a future loss of these important units and ensuring their continued affordability. 41 Cal. Gov. Code Section 65583(c)(5). 42 Cal. Gov. Code Section 8899.50(a)(1). 45 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research, Racially Concentrated Areas ofAfjluence: A Preliminary Investigation, Available at https://www.huduser.gov/portal/periodicals/citysepe/vol2l num 1/ch4.pdf. 44 Cal. Gov. Code Section 65584(e). 41 Cal. Gov. Code Section 65583(c)(6). 46 Cal. Gov. Code Section 65583(c)(6). 41 Cal. Gov. Code Section 65583(c)(6). 48 City of Newport Beach, Draft 2021-2029 Housing Element, 3-66 (March 2021). 49 City of Newport Beach, Draft 2021-2029 Housing Element, 4-9 (March 2021). 601 Civic Center Drive West • Santa Ana, CA 92701-4002 • (714) 541-1010 • Fax (714) 541- 5157 RE: City of Newport Beach Draft 6th Cycle Housing Element April 26, 2021 P. 8 Accessory Dwelling Units The housing element shall include a program to develop a plan that incentivizes and promotes the creation of accessory dwelling units that can be offered at affordable rent, as defined in Health and Safety Code Section 50053, for very low, low-, or moderate -income households. 50 The City claims that Policy Action 1H: Accessory Dwelling Unit Construction will aggressively support ADU construction and result in increased opportunities for housing, including affordable units. 51 While the program's vague support and incentives are aimed at increasing the number of ADUs built, there is no indication that the program will actually make these ADUs affordable. Without specific actions to provide affordable units, this program does not satisfy state law. Site Inventory At the City of Newport Beach Planning Commission meeting on April 8, 2021, Staff presented the Commission with a "Revised Housing Element Update Table with Redistribution of Units" to address segregation and affirmatively furthering fair housing concerns. 52 However, Staff provided alternate scenarios without specific reference of which sites would be included in a new site inventory. Without this information, it is impossible to determine whether the new sites would meet statutory requirements for adequate sites. We ask that the City provide this information to the public as soon as possible so that we can work with the City to ensure that these concerns are properly addressed prior to submitting a draft to HCD. Conclusion The housing element process is an opportunity for jurisdictions to meet the needs of California's residents, including needs for housing that is accessible to seniors, families, and workers and the needs of extremely low-, very low-, and low-income families for affordable housing. We appreciate the City's efforts to accomplish this important and essential task and look forward to continuing to work with the City in those efforts Sincerely, THE PUBLIC LAW CENTER, BY: /s/ Richard Walker, Housing and Homelessness Prevention Unit, Senior Staff Attorney Alexis Mondares, Housing and Homelessness Prevention Unit, Legal Fellow 50 Cal. Gov. Code Section 65583(c)(7). 51 City of Newport Beach, Draft 2021-2029 Housing Element, 4-7 (March 2021). 52 City of Newport Beach, Planning Commission Meeting, 3.0 Initial Draft of the General Plan Housing Element Update PA2017-141, 15, https:Heems.newportbeachea.gov/Web/0%doe/2674679/3.0_Initial%20Draft%20oP'/o20the%20General%20Plan%20 Housing%20Element%20Update_PA2017-141.pdf (April 8, 2021). 601 Civic Center Drive West • Santa Ana, CA 92701-4002 • (714) 541-1010 • Fax (714) 541- 5157 RE: City of Newport Beach Draft 6th Cycle Housing Element April 26, 2021 P. 9 Appendix A: Public Law Center Letter to the City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Regarding the Citv's Draft 6th Cycle Housing Element 601 Civic Center Drive West • Santa Ana, CA 92701-4002 • (714) 541-1010 • Fax (714) 541- 5157 PUBLIC LAWCENTER PROVIDING ACCESS TO JUSTICE FOR ORANGE COUNTY'S LOW INCOME RESIDENTS April 7, 2021 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, CA 92660 Dear Commission Members: The Public Law Center CPLC') is a 501(c)(3) legal services organization that provides Ree civil legal services to low-income individuals and families across Orange County. Our services are provided across a range of substani ve areas of law, including consumer, family, migration, housing, and health law. Additionally, PLC provides legal assistance to community organizations. Further, the mission of our Housing and Homelessness Prevention Unit includes preserving and expanding affordable housing. Thus, we write on behalf of individuals in need of affordable housing in Orange County to comment on He Qty of Newport Beach's Cthe Qty') Draft 6th Cycle Housing Element (the Draft"). Through the housing element process, local governments must assess their existing and projected housing needs and constraints and create a detailed plan to meet those needs and address any constraints. Some of the requirements include addressing the need for emergency shelter, identifying adequate sites to meet the jurisdictions housing need and implementing programs and policies to achieve these goals. While we are still in the process of reviewing all of He Draft, we wish to provide some preliminary comments for the Planning Commission and City Staff to consideras they continue to revise the Draft Additionally, we understand from the Staff Report for the Planning Commission Agenda that the City has already made some changes to the previously released Draft in an attempt to reduce concentrations of affordable housing in He vicinity of the airyort and distribute affordable housing throughout other areas of focus in the City. However, we have not been able to locate a copy of my revised Daft as a revised Draft or re details on these specific changes were not attached to the Staff Report only data describing He proposed revisions. Having not had a chance to review these revisions to the Draft, all of our comments are based on the previously issued Daft without the proposed revisions referenced in He Staff Report We have however, kept in mind that the City is attempting to address previous comments about the distribution of affordable housing in He site selection. Emergency Shelters Under Government Code Section 65583(a)(4)(A), a housing element shall contain an identification of a zone or zones where emergency shelters are allowed as a permitted use without a conditional use or other discretionary permit The identified zone or zones shall 601 Cwr CMm'Orie We,a ANa Au CA 9290.1-4002 (914)541-1010 Fa, (7ld)5415151 include sufficient capacity to accommodate the need for emergency shelter.' Each local government must identify a zone or zones that can accommodate at least one year-round emergency shelter.2 The City identifies that the Office Airport zoning district ("OA") and the Private Institutions Coastal zoning district ("PI') permit emergency shelters. By allowing emergency shelters to be placed on any of the 98 parcels in these districts, the City claims there are adequate sites available "for the potential development of emergency shelters in the City."3 However, these claims do not specifically explain whether these zoning districts allow emergency shelters without a conditional use or other discretionary permit, whether these zones will be able to accommodate the City's need for emergency shelter, or whether the zone could accommodate a year-round emergency shelter. To better demonstrate that the City has met this requirement, it should include more detail about OA and PI zoning and how these zones allow for the required emergency shelters and what parcels within those zones are realistically available for development of or conversion to a shelter. Additionally, the local government must demonstrate that existing or proposed permit processing, development, and management standards are objective and encourage and facilitate the development of, or conversion to, emergency shelters.' Here, the City does not provide the requisite information about its existing permit processing, development, or management standards for emergency shelters. The City should include this information to better demonstrate its ability to encourage and facilitate emergency shelters. Although State law allows local governments to include a program to amend its zoning ordinance to meet these requirements, the City's program is vague, making it difficult to assess whether the City can comply with housing element law in the futures Specifically, "Policy Action 6F: Emergency Shelters, Transitional and Supportive Housing" is intended to amend the City's Municipal Code to "permit supportive housing as a use permitted by right in all zones where multiple family and mixed-use development is permitted," "address permit requirements, objective standards, analysis of annual and season needs, and parking and other applicable standards and provisions," and "ensure Emergency Shelters, Transitional and Supportive Housing are permitted in appropriate zones, consistent with State law."6 This proposed policy action simply states that the City will comply with State law within 12 months of the Housing Element adoption. It does not provide details about what the standards will contain or how the standards will encourage and facilitate the development of, or conversion to, emergency shelters. t Cal. Gov. Code Section 65583(a)(4)(A). 2 Cal. Gov. Code Section 65583(a)(4)(A). 3 City of Newport Beach, Draft 2021-2029 Housing Element, 3-25 (March 2021). ' Cal. Gov. Code Section 65583(a)(4)(A). 5 Cal. Gov. Code Section 65583(a)(4)(A). 6 City of Newport Beach, Draft 2021-2029 Housing Element, 4-23 (March 2021). 601 Civic Center Drive West • Santa Ana, CA 92701-4002 • (714) 541-1010 • Fax (714) 541-5157 Assessing Emergency Shelter Need The need for emergency shelter shall be assessed based on (1) the most recent point -in - time count conducted before the start of the planning period, (2) the need for emergency shelter based on number of beds available on a year-round and seasonal basis, (3) the number of shelter beds that go unused on an average monthly basis within a one-year period, and (4) the percentage of those in emergency shelters that move to permanent housing solutions.7 Here, the City has used a point -in -time count to identify 64 unsheltered people experiencing homelessness within the jurisdiction.$ However, the City fails to analyze the need for emergency shelter, the number of shelter beds that are unused, or how many people in emergency shelters move to permanent housing solutions. Such an analysis would help the City better determine which of the 98 available parcels are needed to accommodate its need. Site Inventory A housing element must include an inventory of land suitable and available for residential development, including vacant sites and sites having realistic and demonstrated potential for redevelopment during the planning period to meet the locality's housing need for all income levels.9 A jurisdiction may identify sites by a variety of methods, such as redesignating property to a more intense land use category, increasing the density allowed within one or more categories, and identifying sites for accessory dwelling units ("ADUs").10 The site inventory must provide for a variety of types of housing, including multifamily rental housing, factory - built housing, mobilehomes, housing for agricultural employees, supportive housing, single - room occupancy units, emergency shelters, and transitional housing. 11 Lower Income Sites If a jurisdiction designates sites that have been previously identified, sites smaller than half an acre, or sites larger than ten acres to accommodate its lower income housing needs, the sites must satisfy extra criteria. 12 Previously Identified Sites If a jurisdiction identifies nonvacant sites to satisfy its lower income housing need, it must note whether the site has been identified in a prior housing element or has been included in two or more consecutive planning periods that was not approved to develop a portion of the locality's housing need. The City has marked the following lower income sites as identified in its 5th Cycle Housing Element: Site 132, 133, and 134.13 However, from our review of the Draft and the 5th Cycle Housing Element, the City failed to acknowledge that the following sites were also previously identified: 7 Cal. Gov. Code Section 65583(a)(7). 8 City of Newport Beach, Draft 2021-2029 Housing Element, 2-28 (March 2021). 9 Cal. Gov. Code Section 65583(a)(3). 10 Cal. Gov. Code Section 65583.l(a). 11 Cal. Gov. Code Section 65583.2(c). 12 Cal. Gov. Code Section 65583.2(c). 13 City of Newport Beach, Draft 2021-2029 Housing Element, B-25 (March 2021). 601 Civic Center Drive West • Santa Ana, CA 92701-4002 • (714) 541-1010 • Fax (714) 541-5157 • Site 66: formerly Area 9 John Wayne Airport Area Site 2b; • Site 69: formerly Area 9 John Wayne Airport Area Site 2c; • Site 71: formerly Area 9 John Wayne Airport Area Site lh; • Site 72: formerly Area 9 John Wayne Airport Area Site lf; • Site 75: formerly Area 9 John Wayne Airport Area Site 2i; • Site 76: formerly Area 9 John Wayne Airport Area Site 2f; • Site 79: formerly Area 9 John Wayne Airport Area Site le; • Site 81: formerly Area 9 John Wayne Airport Area Site 2h; • Site 84: formerly Area 9 John Wayne Airport Area Site 2j; • Site 88: formerly Area 9 John Wayne Airport Area Site 2e; • Site 89: formerly Area 9 John Wayne Airport Area Site 2a, • Site 137: formerly Area 2 Dover Drive/Westcliff Drive Site 2; • Site 138: formerly Area 2 Dover Drive/Westcliff Drive Site 3; • Site 139: formerly Area 2 Dover Drive/Westcliff Drive Site 1; and • Site 214: formerly Area 8 Newport Center Site 8.14 Further, a nonvacant site identified in a prior housing element cannot be deemed adequate to accommodate a portion of the housing need for lower income households unless the site is zoned at an appropriate density and the site is subject to a program in the housing element requiring rezoning within three years of the beginning of the planning period to allow residential use by right for housing developments in which at least 20 percent of the units are affordable to lower income units. 15 Although these sites are subject to "Policy Action 1G: 5th Cycle Housing Element Sites", which requires rezoning within three years of the beginning of the planning period to allow residential use by right for housing developments in which at least 20 percent of the units are affordable to lower income units, the units are not appropriately zoned. 16 The appropriate residential density is based on whether the jurisdiction is an unincorporated area within a metropolitan county, an incorporated city within a nonmetropolitan county, a nonmetropolitan county with a micropolitan area, a suburban jurisdiction, or a jurisdiction within a metropolitan county. 17 According to the U.S. Census Bureau, Orange County is a metropolitan county within the Los Angeles -Long Beach -Anaheim Metropolitan Statistical Area 18 As a jurisdiction within a metropolitan county, the appropriate residential density is at least 30 units per acre. 19 As seen below, none of the City's previously identified nonvacant sites for lower income households are currently zoned at the appropriate density: • Site 66: existing density - 0, rezoned density - 50; 14 City of Newport Beach, Draft 2021-2029 Housing Element, B -20-B-31 (March 2021). 15 Cal. Gov. Code Section 65583.2(c). 16 City of Newport Beach, Draft 2021-2029 Housing Element, 4-6 (March 2021). 17 Cal. Gov. Code Section 65583.2(c)(3)(B). 18 U.S. Census Bureau, https://www2.census.gov/geo/maps/metroarea/us_wall/Mar2020/CBSA_WallMap_Mar2020.pdf (last visited Mar. 16, 2021), Employment Development Department of State of California, https://www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/definitions/metropolitan-statistical-areas.html (last visited Mar. 16, 2021). 19 Cal. Gov. Code Section 65583.2(c)(3)(B). 601 Civic Center Drive West • Santa Ana, CA 92701-4002 • (714) 541-1010 • Fax (714) 541-5157 • Site 69: existing density - 0, rezoned density - 50; • Site 71: existing density - 0, rezoned density - 50; • Site 72: existing density - 0, rezoned density - 50; • Site 75: existing density - 0, rezoned density - 50; • Site 76: existing density - 0, rezoned density - 50; • Site 79: existing density - 0, rezoned density - 50; • Site 81: existing density - 0, rezoned density - 50; • Site 84: existing density - 0, rezoned density - 50; • Site 88: existing density - 0, rezoned density - 50; • Site 89: existing density - 0, rezoned density - 50; • Site 132: existing density - 21, rezoned density - 30; • Site 133: existing density - 18, rezoned density - 30; • Site 134: existing density - 15, rezoned density - 30; • Site 137: existing density - 26, rezoned density - 30; • Site 138: existing density - 26, rezoned density - 30; • Site 139: existing density - 26, rezoned density - 30; and • Site 214: existing density - 0, rezoned density - 45.20 Without meeting the appropriate density, these sites cannot be deemed adequate to accommodate a portion of the housing need for lower income households. We assume that the "rezoned density" is the proposed density at which the sites will be rezoned through the "Policy Action 1G," this program should be clearer and include more specifics about how and what sites will be rezoned to meet state requirements. Site Size If a site is smaller than half an acre or larger than ten acres, it cannot be deemed adequate to accommodate lower income housing unless the locality can demonstrate that sites of an equivalent size were successfully developed during the prior planning period for an equivalent number of lower income housing units as projected for the site. 21 Alternatively, the locality may provide other evidence to the California Department for Housing and Community Development ("HCD") that the site is adequate to accommodate lower income housing. 22 The following identified sites are either smaller than half an acre or larger than ten acres: • Site 56: gross acreage - .26, net acreage - .26; • Site 103: gross acreage - .29, net acreage - .29; • Site 105: gross acreage - .29, net acreage - .29; • Site 110: gross acreage - 130.87, net acreage - 0; • Site 111: gross acreage - 74.64, net acreage - 0; • Site 112: gross acreage - 65.05, net acreage - 0; • Site 113: gross acreage - 51, net acreage - 0; • Site 114: gross acreage - 44.78, net acreage - 0; • Site 115: gross acreage - 41.2, net acreage - 0; 20 City of Newport Beach, Draft 2021-2029 Housing Element, B -20-B-31 (March 2021). 21 Cal. Gov. Code Section 65583.2(c)(2). 22 Cal. Gov. Code Section 65583.2(c)(2). 601 Civic Center Drive West • Santa Ana, CA 92701-4002 • (714) 541-1010 • Fax (714) 541-5157 • Site 116: gross acreage - 19.35, net acreage - 0; • Site 117: gross acreage - 15.76, net acreage - 0; • Site 118: gross acreage - 14.32, net acreage - 0; • Site 119: gross acreage - 12.51, net acreage - 0; • Site 120: gross acreage - 11. 48, net acreage - 0; • Site 121: gross acreage - 10.81, net acreage - 0; • Site 122: gross acreage - 6.52, net acreage - 46; • Site 126: gross acreage - .37, net acreage - .37; • Site 128: gross acreage - .2 1, net acreage - .21; • Site 131: gross acreage - 243.23, net acreage - 22; • Site 132: gross acreage - .14, net acreage - .14; • Site 133: gross acreage - .11, net acreage - .11; • Site 134: gross acreage - .06, net acreage - .06; • Site 216: gross acreage - .23, net acreage - .23; and • Site 133: gross acreage - .23, net acreage - .23 .23 While the Draft is not clear on what is the difference between gross acreage and net acreage of identified sites or on which acreage is being used to calculate capacity, regardless the Draft does not meet the requirements for identifying sites less than 0.5 acres or greater than 10 acres. The City has not demonstrated that similarly sized sites were successfully developed during the 5th Cycle for an equivalent number of lower income housing units and has not stated that it is able to provide HCD with other evidence that the sites are adequate to accommodate lower income housing. Without this information, these sites cannot be considered adequate for lower income housing. Nonvacant Sites If a jurisdiction designates a site that is nonvacant, it must describe the existing use of the property. 24 Most of the sites included in the City's site inventory are nonvacant. Further, if a jurisdiction designates a site that is nonvacant and owned by the jurisdiction, the jurisdiction must describe the existing use of the property, whether there are any plans to dispose of the property during the planning period, and how the jurisdiction will comply with the Surplus Lands Act .25 The City owns the following sites and included them in its site inventory: • Site 102; • Site 119; • Site 124; • Site 125; • Site 127; • Site 222; • Site 223; and • Site 224.26 23 City of Newport Beach, Draft 2021-2029 Housing Element, B -20-B-25 (March 2021). 24 Cal. Gov. Code Section 65583.2(b)(3). 25 Cal. Gov. Code Section 65583.2(b)(3). 26 City of Newport Beach, Draft 2021-2029 Housing Element, B -23-B-32 (March 2021). 601 Civic Center Drive West • Santa Ana, CA 92701-4002 • (714) 541-1010 • Fax (714) 541-5157 However, the City has not described the existing use for any of the nonvacant sites, has not described any plans to dispose of the City owned properties, and has not described any plans to comply with the Surplus Lands Act. Without this information, these sites should not be deemed adequate to accommodate the City's housing need. Moreover, for nonvacant sites, the jurisdiction shall specify the additional development potential for each site within the planning period and explain the methodology used to determine the development potential .27 The methodology shall consider multiple factors, including: (1) the extent to which existing uses may constitute an impediment to additional residential development; (2) the jurisdiction's past experience with converting existing uses to higher density residential development; (3) the current market demand for the existing use; (4) an analysis of any existing leases or other contracts that would perpetuate the existing use or prevent redevelopment of the site for additional residential development; (5) development trends; (6) market conditions; and (7) regulatory or other incentives or standards to encourage additional residential development on these sites. $ The City general states that it took into account development standards, net acreage and assumed density, and previous development trends when calculating the unit capacity for each site. 29 However, the City does not include any of the other requisite factors in its methodology. Without further consideration, it is difficult to assess whether the unit capacity reflects realistic development potential. To better predict how much of its RHNA can be accommodated on its identified sites, the City should incorporate more information into its analysis. Accessory Dwelling Units The number of ADUs identified is based on the number of ADUs developed in the prior housing element planning period, whether or not the units are permitted by right; the need for these units in the community; the resources or incentives available for their department; and any other relevant factors determined by HCD.30 To predict its ADU production, the City calculated the average of production over the last planning cycle and assumed the rate doubled each year during the 6th Cycle. As a result, the City predicts that 334 ADUs will be constructed from 2021 to 2029. However, the City only took into account prior production and did not consider any of the other factors. Without considering this information, the City's 334 ADU prediction is unreliable and should be recalculated. Nonvacant Sites for 50% or More of Housing Need If the jurisdiction is relying on nonvacant sites to accommodate 50 percent or more of its housing need for lower income households, the methodology used to determine additional 27 Cal. Gov. Code Section 65583.2(8)(1). 28 Cal. Gov. Code Section 65583.2(8)(1). 29 City of Newport Beach, Draft 2021-2029 Housing Element, B-17, B-36 (March 2021). 30 Cal. Gov. Code Section 65583.1(a). 601 Civic Center Drive West • Santa Ana, CA 92701-4002 • (714) 541-1010 • Fax (714) 541-5157 development potential shall demonstrate that the existing use identified does not constitute an impediment to additional residential development during the planning period .31 The City has accommodated almost all of its lower income housing need on nonvacant sites. However, the City has not addressed any of the existing uses on these sites and has not explained its methodology to determine whether existing uses are impediments to development. The City must include this information to continue utilizing a high percentage of nonvacant sites to accommodate its lower housing need. Programs The housing element must include programs that allow the jurisdiction to achieve its stated housing goals and objectives. 32 Programs must set forth a schedule of actions for the planning period, each with a timeline for implementation. 33 The programs may recognize that certain programs are ongoing, such that there will be beneficial impacts of the programs within the planning period .34 The programs may also recognize that the local government is undertaking or intends to undertake to implement the policies and achieve the goals and objectives of the housing element through: (1) the administration of land use and development controls; (2) the provision of regulatory concessions and incentives; (3) the utilization of appropriate federal and state financing and subsidy programs, when available; and (4) the utilization of moneys in a low - and moderate -income housing fund of an agency if the locality has established a redevelopment project area pursuant to Community Redevelopment Law. 35 To make adequate provision for the housing needs of all economic segments of the community, the program shall address housing issues such as inadequate site inventories, meeting lower income housing needs, removing constraints, maintaining affordable housing, promoting affirmatively furthering fair housing, preserving assisted housing developments, encouraging accessory dwelling units, and facilitating public participation. 36 While the City identified numerous policies to meet its housing need, many of these programs are only vaguely described. The City's programs tend to state that the City will meet the statutory requirements, but does not specifically explain how the City will do so. For example, "Policy Action 1H: Accessory Dwelling Unit Construction" describes how the City will "aggressively support and accommodate the construction of at least 336 ADUs by a variety of methods. "31 While the City explains they will engage in a public awareness campaign, provide a user-friendly website, and provide pre -approved plans, one of these methods is described as "evaluating and assessing the appropriateness of additional incentives to encourage ADU development. "38 Here, the City does not explain what other incentives it is considering or how it 31 Cal. Gov. Code Section 65583.2(8)(2). 32 California Department of Housing and Community Development, Building Blocks, Program Overview and Quantified Objectives,https://hed.ca.2ov/community-development/buildin2-blocks/pro ra�quirements/pro r overview.shtml (last visited Apr. 4, 2021). 33 Cal. Gov. Code Section 65583(c). 34 Cal. Gov. Code Section 65583(c). 35 Cal. Gov. Code Section 65583(c). 36 Cal. Gov. Code Section 65583(c). 37 City of Newport Beach, Draft 2021-2029 Housing Element, 4-7 (March 2021). 38 City of Newport Beach, Draft 2021-2029 Housing Element, 4-7 (March 2021). 601 Civic Center Drive West • Santa Ana, CA 92701-4002 • (714) 541-1010 • Fax (714) 541-5157 will determine the appropriateness of additional incentives. Without such specificity, the City avoids committing to pro -housing policies by merely making a plan to make a plan. By doing so, it is not clear whether the City is prepared to adequately provide for the housing needs of all economic segments of the community. To create effective programs, HCD recommends jurisdictions include the following: • Definite time frames for implementation; • Identification of agencies and officials responsible for implementation; • Description of the local government's specific role in program implementation; • Description of the specific action steps to implement the program; • Proposed measurable outcomes; • Demonstration of afirm commitment to implement the program; and • Identification of specific funding sources, where appropriate. 39 By following HCD Guidance and committing to more detailed plans, the City will be able to enter the planning period with a list of specific policies and actions in mind to provide more mindful housing opportunities with more realistic chances for development. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing As mentioned above, we are still in review of the Draft and intend to provide comments that are more detailed at a later date. As the changes to the distribution of affordable housing referenced in the Staff Report directly impact the City's obligation to affirmatively further fair housing, we look forward to discuss this aspect of the Draft when we have had an opportunity to review those proposed revisions. However, we do want to take the moment to mention that by limiting the Draft's analysis of fair housing issues to City -specific data and not analyzing these issues on a regional level, the City fails to truly recognize and address fair housing issues. While the City did not identify any areas within its borders with concentrations of racial or ethnic minorities, it failed to recognize that the City as a whole has failed to integrate other populations, which is evident from a regional perspective. The City must revise its fair housing analysis to more carefully analyze the issue on a regional level and the role that it has historically played in promoting segregation throughout Orange County. 39 California Department of Housing and Community Development, Building Blocks, Program Overview and Quantified Objectives, httns://hed.ca.2ov/community-development/buildin2-blocks/pro rag m-requirements/pro rg am- overview.shtml (last visited Apr. 4, 2021) (emphasis added). 601 Civic Center Drive West • Santa Ana, CA 92701-4002 • (714) 541-1010 • Fax (714) 541-5157 Conclusion We are optimistic about the City's intentions to revise the Draft and the receptiveness to feedback thus far. We look forward to continuing to work with the City to ensure that the final 6th Cycle Housing Element complies with state law, meets the needs of all community members, and creates realistic opportunities for the development of affordable housing. Sincerely, THE PUBLIC LAW CENTER, BY: /s/ Richard Walker, Housing and Homelessness Prevention Unit, Senior Staff Attorney Alexis Mondares, Housing and Homelessness Prevention Unit, Legal Fellow 601 Civic Center Drive West • Santa Ana, CA 92701-4002 • (714) 541-1010 • Fax (714) 541-5157 Received After Agenda Printed April 27, 2021 Item No. SS3 Inside Address FROM: Susan A De Santis Member, Newport Beach Housing Element Update Advisory Committee SENT: April 26, 2021 TO: City Council Members CC: Simone juris James Campbell Benjamin Zdeba HEUAC Chair Larry Tucker and Advisory Committee SUBJECT: Item SS3 CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION 4/27/2021 Initial Draft of the General Plan Housing Element Update (PA2017-141) April 27, 2021 Good Morning. As a 35 -year resident of Newport Beach, and a Member of the City of Newport Beach Housing Element Update Advisory Committee (HEUAC), I am here today to have my voice heard on the Draft Housing Element Update. As you are aware, the Advisory Committee was given a charge to prepare the Inventory of Available Sites to submit as part of the Draft Housing Element. The Committee worked diligently under the leadership of Chair Larry Tucker to complete this assignment. The Committee was not given the latitude to discuss and debate a range of policy options that believe are critical to meeting the intent of the State's Housing Element law and the City's Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). That's why I am here today. I am submitting my comments to you for the official record, focusing on key policies and actions referenced in the Staff Report that the City Council has been provided in its agenda package for consideration prior to adopting the Draft Housing Element plan. As you know, California law requires each city and county to have a plan for how they will meet the housing needs of everyone in the community. When population forecasts are updated, all cities including Newport Beach need to update their plans based on specific numbers and types of housing to accommodate a range of housing to meet our future needs. Even if we don't want to build more housing in our City, there are a lot of reasons why we need to meet our community's housing needs. We know, for example, from the Orange County Business Council (OCBC) and large employers in the City and County that It is challenging for Newport Beach and other coastal communities to attract teachers, policemen and other middle-income professionals and essential workers because of the high cost of housing. Last year, at the end of July, The California Department of Housing and Community Development issued its latest set of calculations about how cities and counties in California are doing at meeting their "RHNA numbers' ... • In 2019 — a year in which overall housing development declined in California —the state nevertheless produced almost 80% of the target for above -moderate residents — close to 100,000 units. The results for everyone else was dismal. That total was 27,000 units. • To put it another way, statewide, the RHNA targets call for 25% of all housing to be available to above -moderate income households — in essence, market -rate housing. Last year, 78% of all the housing built in the state was aimed at these higher -income households. • HCD also released numbers for all jurisdictions for the entire current RHNA cycle that began in 2014 or 2015 for most cities and counties — and the results were pretty much the same: More than three times as much housing for affluent households was built than for households with modest incomes. All of which points to a set of underlying trends in California that any housing policy must grapple with: We know how to build high-end housing — single-family, condos, apartments — and we know how to spend what affordable housing money we can access to produce some units. But there will never be enough affordable housing money to fulfill all the need, and the market isn't producing much of anything for the middle of the market. In light of this information, what solutions should the City consider as key principles in its Housing Production Scenario to meet its RHNA? The Draft Housing Production Scenario currently before the City Council points to a solution that would result in 9,889 potential housing units being built. The housing unit count would include 4,341 more units than are required in the RHNA for the above -moderate income category. This represents a 308% increase. Good Neighbors, Newport Beach, a group of concerned residents with whom I confer on general plan land use, housing and circulation issues, see major challenges for our City in the years ahead. We realize that to meet this future head on, new approaches are needed -- creative planning methods that are both imaginative and practical. This is particularly true when it comes to addressing the current RHNA allocation that would add a large amount of additional housing in the City and which could severely impact those qualities that make our City such a special place. We believe that if we embrace new ways of approaching this challenge and incorporate new technologies, we can minimize these impacts and enrich our community by providing needed housing for: • Those who work in the City, particularly first responders whose residence here will improve emergency responses. • Our seniors who, looking to downsize, won't have to look elsewhere but can remain in the City where they have long resided, with the additional benefit of freeing up their former homes to add to the existing stock of homes. • Our children and grandchildren who will have access to first -step housing, allowing them to live and work in the hometown that they grew up in. By utilizing fresh approaches when it comes to design and siting of new housing, applying new technology in areas like traffic and circulation, working with for-profit and non-profit affordable housing developers who have expertise in building affordable housing, new solutions can be found for existing and future problems. The challenge is to create an environment that supports this kind of creative thinking and providing a place for genuine dialogue on these important issues. The Good Neighbors, Newport Beach's fundamental goal is to promote policies and actions that • maintain our Vision and General Plan for the City of Newport Beach, • protect our quality of life and coastal heritage, and • promote community input - to ensure that the state's housing laws do not usurp our City's livability, sustainability, and neighborhood quality of life. The City's responsibility under State Housing Law is to plan for adequate affordable housing units to meet the RHNA. It is not the City's responsibility to build them. If there are insufficient federal and state resources to achieve the affordable income requirements despite the City's best concerted efforts, the units just won't get built. Instead of the proposed Housing Production Scenario described above, Good Neighbors, Newport Beach believe that Option C described below is the answer. My remarks below focus on the Revised Housing Production Scenario and key policy actions identified in the Staff Report for tonight's meeting: Policy Actions 1A —1 G (Pages 4-4 to 4-6) FOCUS AREAS The City's initial draft plan provides several key focus areas for housing production and indicates those areas will be subject to rezoning for, by -right housing development, using housing opportunity overlays or similar rezoning strategies.... We believe that the City's housing plan needs to be realistic and narrowly focused on meeting the remaining low and very -low income housing units in an approach that minimizes the overall number of housing units, particularly in the above -moderate income category in the Draft Housing Production Scenario. To accomplish this, we believe that material change is needed to several policy actions in the Draft Housing Plan. These suggestions are reflected in more detailed comments below covering Housing Opportunity Overlays or similar rezoning strategies, Inclusionary Housing, and Accessory Dwelling units, and the Revised Housing Production Scenario. HOUSING OVERLAYZONES - To encourage the creation of affordable housing, the City's Draft Housing Element plan suggests that "housing overlay zones (HOZ) would provide a flexible tool that would sit on top of Newport Beach's existing General Plan zoning designations. On sites where land is not zoned for residential use but Newport Beach would like to see affordable housing built, a housing overlay district would eliminate the time-consuming process of amending a general plan to construct such housing." As Newport Beach considers potential policies to implement housing overlay zones, the city will need to determine how a housing overlay zone would apply to each of the focus areas identified in the Draft plan to incentivize affordable housing inclusion. Among the potential incentives, the City could include: • Enhanced density bonuses - possibly to encourage parcel assembly as well • Reduced parking ratios • Expedited permit processing • Increased allowable heights • By -right zoning or administrative approval of projects • In -lieu fees • Impact fee waivers If housing overlay zones are to be implemented in Newport Beach, we respectfully suggest that in approving a development project which utilizes the housing overlay zone, that the City Council should make the following findings to ensure that the application is appropriate to the purpose and the location: A. The concessions granted for density and deviation from design standards, are commensurate with the level of affordability. Specifically, the greater the extent of concessions and incentives, the greater the level of affordability. B. The design of the proposed project, even with the concessions for density and deviation from design standards, is appropriate for the scale and style of the site (where additional units are being added to an existing development) and surrounding neighborhood. Specifically, the development will provide an attractive visual transition and will not significantly impact the integrity of the surrounding neighborhoods. C. The developer has agreed to enter into an agreement to maintain the affordability of the project specific to the requirements of the city and any funding sources with greater or longer affordability requirements. 4 D. If located within the coastal zone, the project is found to be inconformity with the Local Coastal Program, including, but not limited to, sensitive habitat, public viewshed, public recreational access and open space protections. We respectfully suggest that in specific focus areas in lieu of housing overlay zones, Newport Beach consider collaborating with the community to prepare Specific Plans for these areas. This will engage the community in customizing policies that would apply to each of these focus areas to ensure that the community's values, vision, and input on how to incentivize affordable housing is reflected in the Specific Plan. "Staff Report Policy Action 1K (Page 4-8) — INCLUSIONARY ZONING— "An inclusionary housing program is proposed in the Draft Housing Element to require the production of affordable housing for new residential development projects. This policy is seen as imperative to meeting the higher affordability required in the 6th Cycle RHNA allocation." We recommend that the City consider the following policies and actions for an inclusionary housing program: A. City should consider adopting an inclusionary housing ordinance with no less than 20% of affordable units in all new construction. B. On an interim basis, a minimum Inclusionary housing requirement should immediately be required for all residential projects moving forward. C. Tiered income policies should also be considered with a smaller percentage of affordable units required for deeper affordability, or a range of affordability levels that equate to 20%. D. Affordability should be maintained for a minimum of 55 years with an ideal of permanent affordability. E. Consider inclusion of an in -lieu fee sufficient to exceed the number of units that would have been built on-site. F. Consider affordable units specially set aside for seniors. G. Consider a development impact fee that includes an option to build units in -lieu of paying the fee. H. Consider possibility of City leverage of Land Value Recapture concepts as part of a larger Community Benefits Program within priority focus areas like Newport Center. Policy Actions 1H —1J (Page 4-7) ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS (ADUs) - The initial Draft Housing Element provides policies to encourage the production of accessory dwelling units (ADUs) or junior accessory dwelling units (JADUs). We believe that a significant increase (+ 664) is needed beyond the 336 in the number of ADUs to be planned for in the current revised Housing Production Scenario bringing the total to 1,000 ADUs for the following reasons: A. The cost of building an ADU is lower because the land value does not have to be factored into the overall cost. B. Documented rental rates for the ADU's in Newport Beach in the low and very low category. C. The rapidly increasing trend in ADU interest and new applications, due to public awareness of new the new state laws D. Shortage of, available State or Federal subsidies for housing as documented in the HEUACAffordable Housing Subcommittee Report. E. Research indicating that newly constructed ADU's do not require subsidy to make the ADU's affordable to low-income households. REVISED HOUSING PRODUCTION SCENARIO We propose that the City allocate affordable housing and market rate units intelligently throughout the City in a way that will attract mixed -income, for-profit developers and give serious consideration to an Option C that focuses on meeting our RHNA requirements units for above -moderate income housing. Total affordable — 2,390 units (consists of 130 already entitled + 500 senior/homeless + 1000 ADU's + 760 low/very low units in mixed income high density apartments = 2,390 low/very low) This plan provides 1,140 moderate and above moderate apartments. This would require that the City prioritize working with private and non-profit developers who specialize in affordable housing to plan for and build mixed income housing units with a higher proportion of affordable units than in the current Draft Housing Prodution Scenario (example: 60% affordable/40% market rate; 70% affordable/30% market rate). We also request that the City Council give serious consideration 100% affordable housing projects in Coyote Canyon in a revised Housing Production Scenario. We believe that a plan for mixed -income housing and accessory dwelling units as proposed in Option C would not only satisfy the State's RHNA requirements, attract development that will not have a negative impact on existing neighborhoods, and is possible without a material increase in the number of overall housing units planned. The decisions we make over the coming months will shape our community for the years to come. We propose that we work together with the community to make sure that our plan is the very best one for our home and our future. Thank you for your time and consideration. Susan DeSantis 12 Savona Court Newport Beach, California 92657 714.423.7323 Attachment A Excerpt from the California Planning and Development Report, August 9, 2020 — The Missing Middle Is Real William Fulton We know this intuitively, but the latest numbers from the California Department of Housing & Community Development confirm it: California builds way too many houses at the top end of the market and not enough for everybody else. At the end of July, HCD issued its latest set of calculations about how cities and counties in California are doing at meeting their "RHNA numbers' " — the housing targets assigned to them in the Regional Housing Needs Assessment program. And it's not a pretty picture. The RHNA process divides the target into four categories: housing affordable to very low income residents (less than 50% of median income); low income (50-80%), moderate income (80-120%) and above -moderate (120% of median income and above. In 2019 — a year in which overall housing development declined in California — nevertheless the state produced almost 80% of the target for above - moderate residents — close to 100,000 units. The results for everybody else was dismal. The total for everybody else was 27,000 units. Figure 1 shows how the state as a whole did in category. Figure 1: Housing Permits As A % Of RHNA Target By Income Group 10D,00D 90,000 80,000 70 A00 60,000 50,000 40,000 30 X000 20 X000 10000 0 1 N Very Low Law Moderate Market To put it another way, statewide the RHNA targets call for 25% of all housing to be available to above - moderate income households — in essence, market -rate housing. Last year, 78% of all the housing built in the state was aimed at these higher -income households. 7 These numbers pretty much reflect statewide numbers over the past few years. HCD also released numbers for all jurisdictions for the entire current RHNA cycle — a cycle that began in 2014 or 2015 for most cities and counties — and the results were pretty much the same: More than three times as much housing for affluent households were build as housing for households with modest incomes. No wonder, as CP&DR reported last week, virtually all jurisdictions in the state are now subject to SB 35, the mandatory housing approval streamlining process adopted by the legislature in 2017. (In fact, the whole purpose of HCD's calculations, based on the RHNA annual progress reports filed by local governments, is to determine which jurisdictions are subject to SB 35.) Yet the high-end housing keeps finding a market — especially in coastal areas. When you break the HCD numbers down by region, an even more striking pattern becomes clear — market -rate housing is through the roof compared to RHNA targets in coastal areas, but virtually all other targets — including low/mod targets everywhere and market -rate targets inland — don't come close. For this analysis, CP&DR aggregated RHNA numbers for all jurisdictions in several regions during the current RHNA cycle. (This isn't quite apples -to -apples; as I said before, the current cycle began in 2014 for some regions and 2015 for others.) Figure 2 shows what the numbers look like at the regional level. For this analysis we compared very -low- and low-income targets into one category. Because the Southern California Association of Governments region is so big, we split into two categories — the coastal counties (Ventura, Los Angeles, and Orange) and the Inland Empire. Figure 2: Housing Permits Compared To RHNA Targets For Current Cycle, By Region 2.00.0% 180.0% 160.0% 140.0% 120.0% 100.0% 80.0% 60.0% 40.0% 20.0% 0.0% III- III _n-Wir ABAG (20155- Coastal Inland SCAG SACGG 2019) SCAG {2014- (2014.2019) (2014-201% 2019) ■ Low ■ Mad ■ Market ■■ SANDAG 2015-2019) The results are extremely striking: In both the Bay Area and coastal Southern California, high-end housing production has already exceeded the target for the eight-year RHNA cycle, while low -mod housing production lags far behind (though moderate -income housing does better than low-income housing.) The Inland Empire lags behind in all categories (so does the Central Valley, which is not shown 91 here because it has eight councils of governments), though Sacramento has hit 80% of its target for both market -rate and moderate -income housing. A further breakdown by county of the Bay Area and coastal Southern California further reinforces these trends. (For this analysis, we aggregrated numbers for all jurisdictions in each county together to come up with county numbers.) In the Bay Area, most counties are over their target for market -rate housing — though the numbers for low- and moderate -income housing production are not bad in some jurisdictions, as Figure 3 shows. Figure 3: Housing Permits Compared To RHNA Targets For Current Cycle, Bay Area 180.0% 100.0% 88.0 60.0% 40.0° 20.0"I 0.0% G ■ Law ■ Mod ■ Market All Bay Area counties have exceeded their market -rate target for the RHNA cycle. None have produced more than half of the low or mod target, except for Solano — the most inland of the nine Bay Area counties, close to Sacrmento — and, oddly, Napa County. San Francisco, Marin, and Napa, where liberal views are strong, have done a decent job on low-income housing. As Figure 4 shows, the trends in Southern California are even more striking. Figure 4: Housing Permits Compared To RHNA Targets For Current Cycle, SoCal 9 350.0% a 0a.4°% 250.0% 200.0"% 150.0% 100.0% 54.0% 0.0% {};6y P O `' o X11 —�■ �,1 ■ Low ■ Mad ■ Market Orange County moderate and market housing production is through the roof. L.A. is producing lots of high-end housing and not much else. The single-family havens of Riverside and San Bernardino County aren't coming close. Though largely a multi -family market at this point, Ventura isn't either. And nobody's doing a good job on low-income stuff. All of which points to a set of underlying trends in California that any housing policy has to grapple with: We know how to build high-end housing — single-family, condos, apartments — and we know how to spend what affordable housing money we have to produce some units. But there will never be enough affordable housing money to fulfill all need, and the market isn't producing much of anything for the middle of the market. No matter what the RHNA targets are — indeed, no matter what local housing policies are — these are two problems that California hasn't figured out how to solve yet. Orange County moderate and market housing production is through the roof. L.A. is producing lots of high-end housing and not much else. The single-family havens of Riverside and San Bernardino County aren't coming close. Though largely a multi -family market at this point, Ventura isn't either. And nobody's doing a good job on low-income stuff. All of which points to a set of underlying trends in California that any housing policy has to grapple with: We know how to build high-end housing — single-family, condos, apartments — and we know how to spend what affordable housing money we have to produce some units. But there will never be enough affordable housing money to fulfill all need, and the market isn't producing much of anything for the middle of the market. No matter what the RHNA targets are — indeed, no matter what local housing policies are — these are two problems that California hasn't figured out how to solve yet. 10 Received After Agenda Printed April 27, 2021 Item No. SS3 Mulvey, Jennifer Subject: FW: 4302 Ford Rd -- Not feasible for housing From: Amy Hykes <am_h_�kes&hot_mai1.com> Sent: Monday, April 26, 20214:24 PM Cc: Zdeba, Benjamin <b.zdeba@newportbeachca..ov>; Campbell, Jim <iCampbell_2newportbeachca. ©v>; Housing Element Update -- Advisory Committee <HEupdate@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: 4302 Ford Rd -- Not feasible for housing Good afternoon! It was brought to my attention that the 4302 Ford Rd. site has been identified as a "feasible" site for housing. A developer was interested in building here a couple years ago and it created a lot of neighborhood opposition for several reasons. I live in the Port Streets. We pay to live in Newport Beach because it isn't overdeveloped like many of the surrounding communities. We need to be smart and safe about how we develop our beautiful city. This space specifically backs up to a city park. Any housing unit would be forced into this small lot. I think from a town planning perspective this would look out of place from any viewpoint (from the park as well as the intersection at MacArthur). This project will impact the park parking lot. Housing Residents will have overflow guests or visitors use the park parking. This parking lot is frequently full for various sports functions, pickle ball players, families using the park and people wanting to walk dogs. There would be no way to police whether housing residents friends are using the park lot to visit. This could unfairly prohibit access to other people from using the park. Any housing will increase traffic on Ford Rd and Mesa View Rd. Mesa View Rd already gets backed up frequently, especially in the morning and after school. It is also packed with parking, illegally and double parked, every afternoon and on weekends with sports going on at the fields. This already creates safety hazards. Any housing unit would increase the existing traffic and create hazards and unsafe situations. Especially for kids who are playing, people running, riding bikes, etc at the park, fields or on the bike path. In addition, many student use that bike route to get to CDM high school as well. Any housing built there would not have room to be set back enough and therefore would look out of place and overdeveloped. Even the Bluffs apartments are set back from the road further and most of their structures are only 2 stories high. I know the developer before would have built a 3 story building that would have looked way out of place. Please keep me posted on any updates to this project and how residents can provide input on this before it is finalized. Thanks, Amy Hykes Received After Agenda Printed April 27, 2021 Item No. SS3 Mulvey, Jennifer Subject: FW: 4302 Ford Rd From: Justin Zev <Justin thezevs.com> Sent: Monday, April 26, 20217:46 PM To: Zdeba, Benjamin <bzdebaLZ ewpoortbeacncaov>; Campbell, Jim <JCampbell newportbeacnca.�ov> Subject: 4302 Ford Rd Jim and Ben, I'm sure you are both very aware of our concerns as Port Street Home Owners so I won't bore you with all of the details. Everyone who looks at this thinks it's a bad idea other than the people looking to profit off of it. I would love to know where it stands right now. How do we go about helping the City of Newport Beach acquire this land? Hope all is well. Justin Zev Received After Agenda Printed April 27, 2021 Item No. SS3 Mulvey, Jennifer Subject: FW: STOP 4302 Ford Rd! From: Islandmdl <islandmdl Paoi_com> Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 20218:14 AM To: Zdeba, Benjamin <bzdeba newportbeac_hca.rov> Subject: STOP 4302 Ford Rd! Mr. Zdeba, Our community has "Significant and Real" concerns regarding the City Councils consideration to build housing on 4302 Ford Rd! As you know, this area is adjacent to the sports park which is frequented by a large number of children and their families. How in the world this location could be deemed acceptable to build housing and thus significantly increase traffic and safety concerns defies logic! We adamantly opposed your plans to build on this location and ask our voices be heard! Besides safety, there is also the question of liability to the city, economic impact to the surrounding residents and lack of opportunity to expand the ever increasing need for park space in community! We request you DENY ANY BUILDING submission(s) for this parcel! Mike Port Streets Resident 1 Received After Agenda Printed April 27, 2021 Item No. SS3 Mulvey, Jennifer Subject: FW: Planned re -zoning of Pacbell space -----Original Message ----- From: Galefriedman <galefriedman0@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, April 26, 20214:46 PM To: Zdeba, Benjamin <bzdeba@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: Planned re -zoning of Pacbell space [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hello I am a resident of Newport Beach writing to you regarding the topic of re -zoning of the Pacbell site at Ford Rd and MacArthur. I remember a recent discussion regarding this parcel and am asking the city to zone it as park/ recreational use only. Residential units would in increase traffic and pose a hazard to residents using the existing recreational space/ soccer fields/park/tennis courts. There are many children in this area and increased traffic would certainly increase the risk of injury. Thank you, Gale Friedman 2001 Port Provence Place Sent from my iPhone Received After Agenda Printed April 27, 2021 Item No. SS3 Mulvey, Jennifer Subject: FW: Housing plan - Ford Road From: Robyn Ashton <ashtonfannd cox net> Sent: Monday, April 26, 2021 1:07 PM To: Housing Element Update Advisory Committee <HEupdate@newQortbeachca.gov> Subject: Housing plan - Ford Road [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Please take the small parcel of land off of the proposed development list for Newport Beach. This would not be a safe location for 45 housing units. There is not sufficient parking which would spill over into the Port Street neighborhood. MacArthur Blvd is already too busy. Is an environmental impact study required and will it be made public? There is also no easy way to access this space for residents, moving trucks, and other visitors. The whole idea of having to add so many housing units to Newport Beach is so disturbing. We already have major traffic increases when people drive to the beach, which has increased since the pandemic. Thank you Robyn Ashton Port Street resident Received After Agenda Printed April 27, 2021 Item No. SS3 Mulvey, Jennifer Subject: FW: 4302 Ford Rd -- Not feasible for housing From: Amy Hykes <amyhykes &hotrnail.corn> Sent: Monday, April 26, 20214:24 PM Cc: Zdeba, Benjamin <bzdeba@nevvportbeachca gov>; Campbell, Jim <JCampoe i_tF)ne\n;por oeachca_L,_,o,,>; Housing Element Update Advisory Committee <HEupdate(@ ewportbeachca hov> Subject: 4302 Ford Rd -- Not feasible for housing [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Good afternoon! It was brought to my attention that the 4302 Ford Rd. site has been identified as a "feasible" site for housing. A developer was interested in building here a couple years ago and it created a lot of neighborhood opposition for several reasons. I live in the Port Streets. We pay to live in Newport Beach because it isn't overdeveloped like many of the surrounding communities. We need to be smart and safe about how we develop our beautiful city. This space specifically backs up to a city park. Any housing unit would be forced into this small lot. I think from a town planning perspective this would look out of place from any viewpoint (from the park as well as the intersection at MacArthur). This project will impact the park parking lot. Housing Residents will have overflow guests or visitors use the park parking. This parking lot is frequently full for various sports functions, pickle ball players, families using the park and people wanting to walk dogs. There would be no way to police whether housing residents friends are using the park lot to visit. This could unfairly prohibit access to other people from using the park. Any housing will increase traffic on Ford Rd and Mesa View Rd. Mesa View Rd already gets backed up frequently, especially in the morning and after school. It is also packed with parking, illegally and double parked, every afternoon and on weekends with sports going on at the fields. This already creates safety hazards. Any housing unit would increase the existing traffic and create hazards and unsafe situations. Especially for kids who are playing, people running, riding bikes, etc at the park, fields or on the bike path. In addition, many student use that bike route to get to CDM high school as well. Any housing built there would not have room to be set back enough and therefore would look out of place and overdeveloped. Even the Bluffs apartments are set back from the road further and most of their structures are only 2 stories high. I know the developer before would have built a 3 story building that would have looked way out of place. Please keep me posted on any updates to this project and how residents can provide input on this before it is finalized. Thanks, Amy Hykes Received After Agenda Printed April 27, 2021 Item No. SS3 Mulvey, Jennifer Subject: FW: Parcel 11/4302 Ford Rd/APN 458 361 10 From: Bob Whiton <BWhiton@synopttek.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 202111:21 AM To: Housing Element Update Advisory Committee <HEupdate@newportbeachca gov> Subject: Parcel 11/4302 Ford Rd/APN 458 36110 [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Please don't allow Parcel 11/4302 Ford Rd/APN 458 361 10 to be developed. It would have major detrimental effects on the Port Streets. Bob Whiton 1821 Port Margate 71=1.606.8319 Received After Agenda Printed April 27, 2021 Housing Element Update Comments Item No. SS3 1. The Draft Housing Element Update contains a number of creative ways to partially satisfy the City's RHNA requirement. When the Housing Element Update is submitted to the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), HCD will determine if the Housing Element Update is, or is not, in compliance. 2. The current Draft Housing Element Update is not in compliance, it does not satisfy all RHNA requirements. One example: The Housing Element fails to have sufficient parcel -by -parcel landowner support, a requirement of the Housing Element Update. 3. Since the City cannot satisfy the State Housing Element RHNA requirements, the City Housing Element Update should only contain the reauired elements it can meet. Otherwise. the State will reauire the to do all the creative thines and will ask for more. The Citv will have nothine in reserve! 4. What is the total number of new housing units by unit type and density anticipated in the Housing and Circulation Element Update to satisfy the City's RHNA requirement (4,845 units, 24,000 units, or more)? 5. The City needs to incorporate "Environmental Justice" into the Housing Element Update. For example, the State Attorney General and housing advocates (law firms who have commented on the City's draft Housing Element) will not standby and allow low-income housing in high noise areas, and perhaps low- income housing in areas the residents can't afford to live in. 6. The City should anticipate the Housing Element Update will be subject to comments from the public, including residents of Newport Beach who do not support the Housing Element Update. 7. The City should not try to circumvent the Greenlight initiative and submit a certified Housing Element which has no effect. (Does the City think the State won't get wind of this?) 8. The City should not piecemeal CEQA by not addressing the "whole of the action" (the whole of the General Plan update) in the Environmental Impact Report and subject the City to potential litigation. Circulation Element Update Comments linked to the Housing Element Update 1. Does the City intend to qualify for Measure M funding (Yes or No)? If Yes, Measure M requires the City Circulation Element to comply with the County MPAH. 2. What is the minimum existing County MPAH requirement for PCH along the Mariners Mile, the West Newport area and for MPAH roadways in the airport area? 3. Is the existing Circulation Element consistent with the existing MPAH? If Not, please explain where and why. 4. Has the County approved any compliance exceptions to the existing City MPAH? If Yes, please explain where and why. 5. Does the existing Circulation Element exceed existing MPAH requirements? If Yes, please explain where and why. 6. Will the proposed Circulation Element Update be in compliance with the County MPAH? If Yes, what improvements to the City MPAH will be required? 7. Will the proposed Circulation Element Update exceed the minimum requirements of the County MPAH? If Yes, please explain where and why. 8. Will the proposed City Circulation Element Update be requesting any exceptions to compliance with the County MPAH? If Yes, please explain where and why. 9. What is the total number of new housing units by unit type and density to be used in the Circulation Element Update to satisfy the City's RHNA requirement (4,845 units, 24,000 units, or more)? 10. What traffic generation factor will be used for cumulative impact analysis. 11. What is the minimum Level of Service allowed by the County/City MPAH? (LOS E)? The City Council and residents should have a full understanding of the total impact of RHNA on the City, prior to submittal of a Housing Element Update to the State. David Tanner (dave@earsi.com) Page 1 of 1 City Council - Housing Element Comments 4-27-21