Newport Beach City Council
September 13, 2022

IV. CURRENT BUSINESS
a. Three -Pronged Strategy of City Council and Focus of the Committee Recommended Action: No action taken
Chair Tucker reported the City is working legislatively and with other agencies to better define the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) number and credits that can be applied to the number.

Community Development Director Seimone Jurjis advised that the City has engaged with multiple State agencies. SCAG has issued a draft RHNA number of 4,832 housing units for the City. The Mayor has written letters to SCAG opposing the methodology and to HCD requesting clarification.

State law requires the City to permit accessory dwelling units (ADUs), but HCD's guidelines d❑ not provide sufficient credits for ADUs to meet RHNA numbers. Staff has drafted legislative changes, and Assembly Member Petrie -Norris has introduced legislation that defines RHNA credits and provides guidelines for substantial evidence. The City needs to build a coalition to support the bill and will appeal its RHNA numbers.

Chair Tucker indicated the City has to identify sites where residential development could occur and prepare an Inventory of Sites. The Tax Assessor's parcel number for each property must be listed on the Inventory. The certified number of RHNA units and credits will not be known for some period of time. Any political efforts to reduce housing units will likely occur late in the process.

Chair Tucker invited the public to comment.

Jim Mosher noted HEUAC's purpose and responsibilities do not include a complete focus on RHNA numbers. HEUAC is more of a forum for public input. The General Plan Update Steering Committee (GPUSC) attempted to conduct outreach and research, which could inform HEUAC's discussions. HEUAC shouid obtain input from the people who will be impacted by the need for housing as well as developers.

David Tanner suggested HEUAC direct the public as to how it can help HEUAC achieve its goals.

He requested an update regarding staffs efforts to expedite the processing of the Housing Element amendment, specifically an exemption from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), to affect the Greenlight provision or Measure S.

Mayor O'Neill noted that Still Protecting Our Newport (SPON) submitted the same request as Mr.

Tanner. The City has requested State Representatives sponsor legislation to exempt or at least expedite the CEQA process for a Housing Element Update. The sole purpose of the City's request was to try to meet the timing aspects of the Housing Element Update. The representatives declined the request.

Chair Tucker advised that he raised the issue of a CEQA exemption with the GPUSC in order to emphasize that HCD's schedule would be difficult to meet and if an EIR had to be prepared then additional time would be needed to complete a Housing Element Update. With respect to Mr.

Mosher's comments, the resolution directs HEUAC to make any recommendations it believes necessary. To begin the compliance process, HEUAC will need to identify sites. Greenlight will not change the Committee's work, but rather will merely add one more layer of approval, a public

Housing Element Update Advisory Committee Meeting
July 1, 2020

vote, after the Committee, Planning Commission and City Council complete their work. Therefore, Greenlight is outside HEUAC's purview.

In response to a committee member's question, Deputy Community Development Director Jim Campbell understood a housing project that is approved but not completed before June 30, 2021 may be counted towards the City's RHNA numbers. Currently, there is no information regarding counting live-aboards towards RHNA numbers. Staff will provide HEUAC with a tally of housing units.

Committee Member ❑eSantis noted SCAG has joined the San Diego Association of Governments and the Sacramento Area Association of Governments to sign a letter to the Governor and HC❑ to push back on the schedule. The Governor or the Legislature can change the timeline for the Housing Element Update, but HC❑ cannot. HCD recently extended the timeline for the local assistance program by six to eight months.
b. Discuss Methods to Identify Possible Housing Opportunity Sites Recommended Action: Discuss procedures for (i) identifying and contacting owners of potential housing opportunity sites; (ii) discuss approach to encouraging sites that could enable affordable housing in whole or in part; and (ii►) prioritizing sites in case the RHNA requirements are lower than currently anticipated
Chair Tucker related that there may be underutilized or vacant parcels in the City that can be opportunity sites. Newport Center, the west Newport area, and the Airport Area will be opportunity sites. He noted that in GPUSC community workshops, participants favored placing housing in Newport Center, the Airport Area, the area near Hoag Hospital, Banning Ranch, and the former landfill in Newport Coast. HEUAC will have to review each parcel in areas that might provide opportunity sites. The standard for opportunity sites is land that is suitable and available (feasible).

Determining whether a parcel is available will require some technical analysis. Determining whether a parcel is suitable will be decided by the full Committee and will require public input.

HEUAC will form a subcommittee to analyze sites to see how the process will play out. Anyone with ideas for potential opportunity sites should contact staff or committee members.

Committee Member Fruchbom added that feasibility means economically feasible.

Chair Tucker noted the City is required to plan for development, not to ensure sites are developed.

State law states a municipality that plans to use non -vacant land for more than 50 percent of lower - income RHNA requirements has to provide substantial evidence that there are no impediments to the use of the property in order to claim credit for the property.

In reply to Committee Member Kiley's query, Chair Tucker advised that HEUAC will review recent housing applications that were not developed. The first step is to identify sites where development is feasible. If sites are feasible, HEUAC will consider their suitability. The hot topic for the community will be which sites are suitable for housing.

In answer to Committee Member Sandland's inquiry, Chair Tucker agreed that his memorandum proposed HEUAC rank opportunity sites. He did not believe the State would reduce the RHNA numbers materially. However, if the City cannot comply with the RHNA numbers and the State does reduce the numbers, the Council can use the ranking of sites by the Committee and supporting information rather than having to start the process again.

Housing Element Update Advisory Committee Meeting
July 1, 2020

Committee Member DeSantis believed community input on a range of scenarios will be important when HEUAC prioritizes sites. The Orange County Business Council's in -fill capacity study focused on capacity within Orange County for additional housing development. Perhaps HEUAC can invite the study author to present information about changing market trends and the study's results.

Chair Tucker invited the public to comment.

Jim Mosher remarked that the public may not be familiar with committee members, which could be a problem if committee members want to engage with the public. He hoped committee members would have open minds. The infeasibility of the former landfill site is not obvious.

Chair Tucker indicated if development of the former landfill site was feasible, someone would have developed it by now.

An unnamed resident provided an unrelated comment about the COVID-19 pandemic.

C. Formation of Affordable Housing Subcommittee and Opportunity Sites Subcommittee
Recommended Action: Form an affordable housing subcommittee and a housing opportunity sites subcommittee to divide up workload
Chair Tucker reviewed the City's RHNA numbers by income level and stated he thought that three committee members had expertise in development of affordable housing. it was his hope that an affordable housing subcommittee would be able to educate HEUAC regarding choices.

Mayor O'Neill advised that Committee Members Bloom and Fruchbom have experience with affordable housing.

Chair Tucker proposed Committee Members Selich and Sandland form a housing opportunity sites subcommittee, which will analyze sites for feasibility. HEUAC will form a subcommittee for outreach in the future.

Jim Mosher asked if the affordable housing subcommittee will propose revisions to the goals and policies of the Housing Element and engage people living in or seeking affordable housing. Chair Tucker reported the purpose of the subcommittee is to assist HEUAC in understanding the financing and tax aspects of affordable housing and how the City can seek as many new affordable units as possible while still complying with RHNA. The subcommittee will not review the existing Housing Element regarding affordable housing from the vantage point of people living in or seeking affordable housing.

Mayor O'Neill suggested the City not only needs to zone for affordable housing, but hast to think it will actually happen. The question of whether the required number of affordable housing units can be constructed given the cost of land is legitimate. The Council needs to know if it is possible. If it is not possible, the Council needs to know the amounts of a subsidy and incentives that could achieve more affordable housing. The Council will need a primer on affordable housing and an explanation of what is needed to achieve affordable housing.

In response to Committee Member DeSantis' question, Chair Tucker stated programs that involve larger employers in the City to incentivize affordable housing is outside HEUAC's purview, although

Housing Element Update Advisory Committee Meeting
July 1, 2020

he noted that is something that Committee Member DeSantis might want to discuss directly with the City Council.

Chair Tucker invited the public to comment. Seeing no one wishing to comment, he moved, seconded by Committee Member Selich, to appoint Committee Members Bloom and Fruchbom and Chair Tucker to the affordable housing subcommittee and Committee Members Selich and Sandland and Chair Tucker to the housing opportunity sites subcommittee.

AYE: Tucker, Bloom, DeSantis, Fruchbom, Kiley, LePlastrier, Sandland, Selich, Stevens NO: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
d. Discuss Agenda Items for Next Meeting
Recommended Action: No action taken
Chair Tucker requested agenda items for a CEQA project description, a definition of substantial evidence, and an outreach process.

In reply to Committee Member Selich's query, Principal Planner Jaime Murillo advised that the proposed recommendations for substantial evidence were taken from the initial legislative amendments.

Chair Tucker invited the public to comment.

Charles Klobe suggested committee members may be confronted by folks who need a planning incentive to make affordable housing work. Residents may be resigned to the RHNA number, but they may not accept the City granting a subsidy or incentive that the resident has to pay for.

HEUAC may not find enough sites to comply with the requirements, but the State will be hard pressed to impose fines for not trying.

V. COMMITTEE ANNOUNCEMENTS OR MATTERS WHICH MEMBERS WOULD LIKE PLACED

ON A FUTURE AGENDA FOR DISCUSSION, ACTION OR REPORT (NON -DISCUSSION ITEM) Committee Member DeSantis requested the author of the in -fill capacity study address HEUAC regarding development trends and data from the study relevant to Newport Beach.

Committee Member Sandland requested staff advise HEUAC regarding the consultant's work and how the consultant's work will affect HEUAC's work.

In answer to Committee Member Bloom's question, Chair Tucker indicated HEUAC will receive information about housing units entitled or permitted before June 30, 2021.

Community Development Director Jurjis recommended a presentation from the consultant regarding HCD's guidelines and information HCD is seeking.

VI. ADJOURNMENT — 7.36 p.m.

Next Meeting: July 15, 2020, 6 p.m. in the City Council Chambers.

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE ADVISORY COMMITTEE MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS — 100 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE
WEDNESDAY, JULY 15, 2020
REGULAR MEETING — 6 P.M.

I. CALL MEETING TO ORDER — 6 p.m.

II. WELCOME AND ROLL CALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Larry Tucker, Jeffrey Bloom, Susan DeSantis, Paul Fruchbom, Elizabeth Kiley, Geoffrey LePlastrier, Stephen Sandland, Ed Selich, Debbie Stevens
MEMBERS ABSENT: (Ex Officio Member) Will O'Neill — arrived at 6:31 p.m.

Staff Present: Community Development Director Seimone Jurjis, Deputy Community Development Director Jim Campbell, Principal Planner Jaime Murillo, Senior Planner Ben Zdeba, City Traffic Engineer Tony Brine, Administrative Support Specialist Clarivel Rodriguez III. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON -AGENDA ITEMS
Deborah Allen, Harbor View Hills Community Association President, questioned the rationale of holding a public meeting on such an important topic in light of the coronavirus and suggested the City fight the State regarding the timing of the Housing Element Update.

Jim Mosher asked if the City would defend voters' disapproval of the Housing Element Update in a court because a provision of AB 1063 authorizes a court to order the Housing Element Update approved if the City submits it timely but final approval is delayed due to a local requirement for voter approval.

Philip Bettencourt believed consultants Kimley-Horn and LSA would serve the City well and appreciated the substantial materials provided to the public.

Dorothy Kraus hoped members of the Housing Element Update Advisory Committee (Committee) would introduce themselves and noted the foremost objective of the Committee is to serve as a public forum as stated in the Council resolution forming the Committee.

David Tanner inquired about the City's strategy to successfully update the Housing Element and public involvement in the process.

Chair Tucker advised that Committee members would introduce themselves later in the meeting.

The Committee will serve as a forum for public comments. The Council needs a draft Housing Element Update to consider and possibly adopt if it chooses to comply with the California Department of Housing and Community Development's (HCD) requirements. With respect to AB 1063, if thresholds are met and a Measure S vote is required, there will be a further approval process for Council actions. Measure S means the electorate can decide whether to proceed.

Housing Element Update Advisory Committee Meeting
July 15, 2020

IV. CONSENT CALENDAR
a. Minutes of July 1, 2020
Recommended Action: Approve and file
Chair Tucker noted his and Mr. Masher's revisions.

Chair Tucker moved, seconded by Committee Member Selich, to approve the minutes of the July 1, 2020 meeting as amended by himself and Mr. Mosher.

AYE: Tucker, Bloom, DeSantis, Fruchbom, Kiley, LePlastrier, Sandland, Selich, Stevens NO: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
V. CURRENT BUSINESS
a. Overview of Project Schedule
Recommended Action: No action; receive presentation from Kimley-Horn on the tentative project schedule and discuss as necessary.

David Barquist, Kimley-Horn & Associates, reported the State of California has imposed deadlines on all Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPO), and the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), the MPO for Newport Beach, has imposed deadlines on all jurisdictions within its region. The Housing Element planning period extends from October 15, 2021 to October 15, 2029, and the Housing Element due date is October 15, 2021. The October 15, 2021 due date may be delayed for up to six months. Legislative action is required to extend the due date. The State provides the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) allocations. The RHNA process includes development of allocations, an appeal period, and final adoption of the allocations at SCAG. Because of a number of issues, the State postponed the appeal period for up to 120 days, and the final allocations may not be approved until the end of 2020. In order to update the Housing Element, the City is assuming the draft allocation will be its final allocation.

The baseline analysis, which will extend through October 2020, includes a demographic housing profile, a constraints and resources analysis, analysis of fair housing issues, and a review of the performance of the prior Housing Element. Drafting of the Housing Element will extend through February 2021. The public review period will extend from March through July 2021. A draft Housing Element will be submitted to HCD for compliance review in June 2021. HCD has 60 days to review the draft Housing Element. During that review, HCD staff and City staff can and will communicate regarding issues. Staff anticipates public hearings will be held in September or early October 2021 in order to comply with the adoption deadline.

Committee Member Sandland requested the fiscal analysis, Task 7.3, begin prior to February 2021.

In response to Chair Tucker's questions, Mr. Barquist advised that the market analysis will be conducted by Keyser Marston Associates. The analysis will look at the implications of growth as it relates to the fiscal model prepared by a prior City consultant. It will determine the cost dynamic for such things as future opportunities for growth, affordability levels, and the rental market versus the owner market. Task 2.2, development of housing plan, is the policy component of the Housing Element, and work on it will occur along with Task 2.4, draft Housing Element. A draft Housing Element could be ready for presentation by November 2020, but work and analyses may be

Housing Element Update Advisory Committee Meeting
July 15, 2020

presented to the Committee prior to November. The project description is scheduled for an extended time period because there could be some issues with sites and decisions may affect the project description. Before the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) process begins in earnest, the project description should be accurate. The scoping meeting is typically held just after the notice of preparation is issued, but it can be held earlier or later in the process. The scoping meeting will define the bounds of the project for the public. The Initial Study, notice of preparation, and public process to begin the EIR is meant to focus on specific environmental issues.

In reply to Committee Member Selich's inquiries, Mr. Barquist indicated the EIR public review period is generally the final two months of the process. The public review period will be determined by the hearing dates before the Planning Commission and City Council. The public review period could occur between June and September 2021.

In answer to Committee Member DeSantis' query, Mr. Barquist related that the length of a Housing Element Update process depends on the jurisdiction and outreach and collaboration opportunities.

The average process extends for 12-16 months. The COVID situation, the nature of outreach, and potential legislative changes will influence the length of the process. The proposed schedule is feasible.

In response to Committee Member Sandland's question, Mr. Barquist stated funding and financing opportunities for affordable housing are part of the requisite analysis for the Housing Element. The analysis will consider existing local programs and regional, state, federal and private programs for affordable housing. A summary of the programs will be provided to the Committee.

In reply to Committee Member DeSantis' inquiries, Mr. Barquist noted the area subject to the VMT analysis will be determined in the next few weeks and will be shared with the Committee. October or November may be too early to have information from VMT analyses.

In answer to Committee Member Stevens' query, Mr. Barquist advised that a baseline assessment is part of the Housing Element policy. Committee Member Stevens suggested including the baseline environmental study as a separate task. The scoping meeting should be held during the public comment period for the Initial Study and notice of preparation.

Jim Mosher agreed that the scoping meeting seems to be scheduled late in the process. He inquired about the City's position regarding the SoCal Connect Plan. He wanted to know what the public review draft, Item 2.6, would be and how long the review period would be.

David Tanner stated under normal times, the Housing Element Update process would extend over two years. The schedule is unrealistic. if it is realistic, there will not be any public participation.

The schedule shows very little public involvement. He requested inclusion of Measure S in the schedule because Measure S will be required. He asked why the City is pursuing legislation that will exempt Measure S from a vote.

Chair Tucker assumed the consultant prepared the schedule based on the due date. The process will include public input. The Committee's task is to complete a draft Housing Element. Measure S is not within the Committee's purview.

Housing Element Update Advisory Committee Meeting
July 15, 2020

b. Lessons Learned from Prior Outreach and Discussion of Future Outreach Recommended Action: No action; receive presentation from staff on previous outreach efforts under the now dissolved General Plan Update Steering Committee and discuss future outreach efforts.

Senior Planner Ben Zdeba reported a major product of the General Plan Update Steering Committee was branding for the overall General Plan Update effort. Public engagement disclosed that the Land Use and Housing Elements were two of the most important elements for the community. A public workshop was held in each Council district on different days. More than 600 people were engaged in person and online during those workshops. One lesson learned from the prior outreach is engaging the public on such a complicated matter is not easy. The prior process developed a list of shared community values. Early in the process, outreach focused on community values and a vision statement. Approximately 400 people attended a kickoff event. The first workshop garnered the highest attendance with 68 people, and a workshop in December garnered the lowest attendance with 8 people. Workshops included an exercise for participants to reap locations for housing. A large amount of housing was placed in the Airport Area, Banning Ranch, the Hoag area, Newport Coast, and Fashion Island/Newport Center. Some housing was scattered around the City and placed in boats off the coast.

Chair Tucker advised that he attended five of the seven workshops and found the usual community members at the workshops. An Outreach Subcommittee will be appointed, but engaging the community is difficult.

Mildred Perez, Kennedy Commission, suggested the City engage community organizations early in the process to discuss meeting the housing needs of low-income people and to engage low- income communities. The Kennedy Commission would like to assist with public outreach.

David Tanner remarked that the questions asked at the workshops reflected the consultant's view and not the public's view. He requested a discussion of the numerous impacts to the General Plan from housing laws.

Dorothy Kraus suggested advertising begin now for the Housing Element Update, perhaps through a banner on the City's homepage and announcements on social media platforms.

Committee Member Stevens noted the pandemic, the closure of City Hall, and misconceptions are impediments to outreach.

Committee Member DeSantis believed outreach would probably not be in person; therefore, different strategies and technologies will be needed.

C. Overview of Current Housing Opportunity Sites, HCD Guidebook for Site Selection Criteria and Substantial Evidence
Recommended Action: No action; receive presentation from Kimsey -Horn and staff regarding current housing opportunity sites inventory of the Housing Element as well as the current site selection criteria pertaining to the update. The discussion should also touch on what "substantial evidence" means.

Nick Chen, Kimsey -Horn, reported sites are suitable for residential development if zoned appropriately and available for residential use during the planning period. Approximately half of the City's RHNA allocation is designated for very -low-income and low-income housing. HCD's

Housing Element Update Advisory Committee Meeting
July 15, 2020

memorandum is generally oriented toward meeting the lower -income need. The analysis of sites begins with units entitled after the start of the projection period, June 30, 2021, which can be counted towards the RHNA allocation. Next are the most available or the easiest to develop sites, also known as vacant sites, but vacant sites are not a readily available resource in Newport Beach.

Next in the analysis are non -vacant or underutilized sites, which are sites currently zoned for residential or other uses that are deemed, based on substantial evidence, re -developable for affordable housing within the planning period. New guidance states if 50 percent or more of the allocation is fulfilled with non -vacant or underutilized sites, there is an impediment to housing development and further evidence must be provided, evidence such as past performance in developing these types of sites or market analysis. The City is not responsible for development of sites, but for providing an environment for development of sites. Creative measures or alternative methods, such as accessory dwelling units, can be used to fulfill the allocation. HCD's memorandum provides methods for anticipating the number of accessory dwelling units that can be counted toward the allocation. Boats as housing units may be an alternative method.

Development has to result in no net housing loss, and any loss of units has to be accounted for in the Housing Element and sites analyses. Fair housing and the equitable distribution of housing has to be addressed and analyzed. The HCD memorandum defines substantial evidence as facts, reasonable assumptions or expert opinion that can be supported by facts.

In reply to Committee Member Fruchbom's query, Mr. Chen advised that if the analysis shows that fulfilling a requirement is infeasible, staff would have to discuss with HCD next steps and an approach for addressing the situation.

Chair Tucker commented that locating affordable units on the coast will result in fewer units than locating them near Hoag or the airport. Equitable distribution will be a challenge. Mr. Chen explained that equitable distribution ensures units are not concentrated in lower resource areas.

All census tracts in Newport Beach are likely high resource areas. Chair Tucker noted the Airport Area is zoned for a different school district. HCD suggests a jurisdiction vary its development standards if it cannot generate sufficient affordable units. At some point, increased density becomes counterproductive. Landowners' decisions to redevelop their properties will be driven by economics.

In response to Committee Member LePlastrier's inquiry, Principal Planner Jaime Murillo explained staffs development of the sites inventory prepared for the 2006 General Plan Update. Staff included justification for the sites being legitimate opportunity sites. The Airport Area provided the greatest opportunity for housing, followed by Newport Center, Mariners Mile, and a few smaller sites. More analysis is needed to determine sites that can accommodate lower -income units. State law provides that if a site can accommodate at least 30 dwelling units per acre, it is presumed the site can accommodate lower -income housing. The Airport Area is the only area in the City with that minimum density. The Airport Area requires a minimum 10-acre site, and the City implemented a housing overlay exempting a development with at least 30 percent affordable units from the site requirement. Lower -income housing sites are concentrated in the Airport Area, but it is a high resource area. Unfortunately, development projects have reduced the number of lower -income units that can be developed in the Airport Area.

Committee Member Kiley remarked that because of the proximity to employment and transportation, the Airport Area is the logical location for affordable housing. In answer to her query, Principal Planner Murillo related that staff is looking at the possibility of accessory dwelling units (ADU) qualifying as affordable units. The potential for development of ADUs in the City is great.

SCAG is developing pre -approved methodologies to count ADUs regionally. At the time of

Housing Element Update Advisory Committee Meeting
July 15, 2020

permitting, property owners complete a questionnaire indicating the rent for an ADU, and in some cases the ADUs can be counted as low-income housing units.

In answer to Committee Member Fruchbom's question, Principal Planner Muriilo explained that in the Airport Area the minimum density is 30 units per acre and the maximum is 50 units per acre.

Staff used 30 units per acre and parcel size to develop the realistic capacity for the Airport Area.

The actual capacity of the Airport Area is closer to 4,000 units. Staff did not consider 60 or 80 units per acre because the General Plan does not allow such high densities.

Chair Tucker recalled the Mayor's letters to legislators regarding credit for ADUs. Public opinion seems to be split as to whether ADUs will be developed.

In response to Committee Member DeSantis' inquiries, Principal Planner Murillo believed the Committee will explore the potential for redeveloping existing land uses as housing. Changes in retail business models and the pandemic may provide justification for redevelopment of sites as housing.

Chair Tucker indicated surface parking lots are being redeveloped for other uses. The Sites Subcommittee is exploring all possibilities and hopes to find sites on the perimeter of town.

In reply to Committee Member Sandland's inquiry, Principal Planner Muriilo reported the Newport Crossings project with 350 units and Uptown Newport project with approximately 600 units have been entitled, but they have not been submitted for plan check. As such, it is likely they will be counted towards the City's RHNA allocation for the upcoming cycle. Unfortunately, the units that can be counted will be moderate or above -moderate -income units because the lower -income components have been completed. Staff will prepare a list of projects and units for the next meeting.

Jim Mosher commented that the vast majority of opportunity sites identified in 2013 have not been redeveloped during the current planning period, but some of the areas that have been redeveloped with housing were not identified as housing opportunity sites. The Committee may want to know the number of ADUs to which the safe harbor provisions of the HCD memo refer. Locating housing on the County's portion of Banning Ranch may not be a good idea because of the requirements to annex the property and to assume the County's RHNA allocation for the site.

Deborah Ailen indicated the community strongly supports locating 4,800 units on the periphery of the City.

David Tanner requested clarification of the viability under the new regulations of opportunity areas previously shown on the General Plan and not developed. Current laws allow each residential property owner within the City to construct an ADU on his property. More than 40,000 ADUs could be built within the City.

Dorothy Kraus inquired about preparation of a baseline number of units that have been built and the remaining capacity and about the Coastal Commission's review of opportunity sites in the Coastal Zone and the impact of the Coastal Commission's review on the October 2021 deadline.

Chair Tucker advised that opportunity sites within the Coastal Zone are not under consideration presently.

Housing Element Update Advisory Committee Meeting
July 15, 2020

Deputy Community Development Director Jim Campbell explained that the City has a robust GIS database of density. Much of the under -built density is located on R-2 properties. Staff has not created any summaries but has created maps, which have been provided to the consultant for evaluation of the current baseline. Staff will work with HCD to develop projections for ADUs and work with the community to increase development of ADUs. Redeveloping single-family homes on R-2 lots as duplexes may be an untapped resource for housing units, but it could be difficult to justify to HCD because staff would have to assess the amount of redevelopment over the next eight years based on a nonexistent program.

In response to Committee Member Kiley's inquiry, Deputy Community Development Director Campbell related that staff would like to count existing, unpermitted ADUs. However, HCD might take the position that existing ADUs are not a net increase in housing. The City may need to develop policies and programs to promote permitting of existing unpermitted ADUs and redevelopment on R-2 parcels so that HCD will accept the housing units. d. CEQA Project Description
Recommended Action: No action; receive presentation from staff on the project description as it pertains to compliance with the California Environmental Qualify Act (CEQA) and discuss as necessary.

Deputy Community Development Director Campbell reported the environmental review will be programmatic. The CEQA analysis will be based on discrete geographies and specific densities, which are the fundamental components of a project description. This approach to a programmatic environmental review will likely result in an EIR that reflects more impacts than what will be approved. There will not be an opportunity to change the project description to match the final inventory.

In reply to Chair Tucker's questions, Deputy Community Development Director Campbell explained sites may be removed from the inventory if they are not feasible or do not meet legal definitions, but sites cannot be added to the inventory. The project scope may be larger than the final sites inventory. Amendments to the Circulation Element may require environmental review and analysis.

Policies added to the Housing Element and Land Use Element may need to be evaluated. The project description has to be broader than potential sites. Many components will need to be analyzed before preparation of the EIR begins. The sites inventory will be specific while areas of interest can be fairly broad. Sites will be considered in parallel to preparation of the EIR. Staff and the consultants will prepare a project description and present it to the Committee for review and action. Meanwhile, the Committee will be reviewing potential sites. A Statement of Overriding Considerations is a possibility even if the RHNA allocation is fulfilled. While Level of Service has been replaced with Vehicle Miles Traveled, a Level of Service analysis will be needed to properly plan for intersections and to ensure housing fits as best it can within projections.

In answer to Committee Member DeSantis' inquiry, Deputy Community Development Director Campbell indicated staff will attend SCAG's workshop regarding a new tool for the site inventory.

In response to Committee Member Fruchbom's query, Deputy Community Development Director Campbell related that there has been talk about exempting the Housing Element Update from CEQA requirements so that jurisdictions can complete it on time. Staff will proceed under the assumption that the Housing Element Update is not exempt from CEQA requirements.

Housing Element Update Advisory Committee Meeting
July 15, 2020

David Tanner stated the project description should not be developed by staff or consultants. The City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance will require a Level of Service analysis. There will be massive gridlock if ADUs are developed and RHNA numbers are met. e. Subcommittee Progress Reports
Recommended Action: Receive verbal progress reports from both subcommittees and discuss as necessary.

Chair Tucker advised that the Affordable Housing Subcommittee discussed funding, financing, tax credits, subsidies, and rent restrictions for affordable housing. The challenge will be creating incentives that allow the construction of as much affordable housing as possible. At this time, achieving the RHNA allocations for affordable housing does not appear realistic.

Committee Member Fruchbom introduced himself as an affordable housing developer. The cost of providing an affordable unit in Newport Beach is higher than in many other cities, but state and federal regulations for affordable housing rents do not consider that fact. Tax credits generally do not provide sufficient income to construct the required number of affordable units. Because rents are high in Newport Beach, increasing the density to some economic limit creates more value for projects in Newport Beach than in an area with lower rents. Hopefully, the developer's profit from high -rent units will be sufficient to subsidize the affordable rents.

Committee Member Jeffrey Bloom introduced himself as the head of commercial lending for a regional bank. In addition, he oversees the bank's investment in low-income housing tax credits.

Finding tax credit investments in higher -income areas is extremely difficult. Incentives are needed for developers to construct projects in high -income areas and allocate funds saved from that project to projects in less -costly areas.

Chair Tucker indicated the Sites Subcommittee began analyzing parcels in a portion of the Airport Area for potential opportunities. There are many large parking lots in the area; however, office buildings have the rights to park in those lots. The subcommittee will probably draft letters to the property owners. The Airport Area is limited to 550 infill units, but that number will probably change.

Committee Member Selich introduced himself as a housing developer and a former member of the Newport Beach City Council, Planning Commission, Affordable Housing Task Force, and Local Coastal Program Implementation Committee.

Committee Member Sandland introduced himself as a licensed architect and retired real estate developer, primarily in infill and reuse projects. He has served on the City Hall Design Committee and the Building and and Fire Board of Appeals. The Sites Subcommittee also discussed buildings that could be repurposed or demolished for a higher and better use and wrap and podium projects.

For all of these projects, the property owner has to be willing to redevelop his property.

Committee Member LePlastrier introduced himself as a business adviser and a member of the Board for Olson Urban Housing.

Committee Member Kiley introduced herself as a commercial real estate appraiser.

Committee Member De Santis introduced herself as a consultant for stakeholder engagement and advised that she has worked with the California Association of Realtors, as the Director of the State Department of Housing, and with an urban planning firm.

Housing Element Update Advisory Committee Meeting
July 15, 2020

Committee Member Stevens introduced herself as an environmental consultant primarily for CEQA documents and as President of the Corona del Mar Residents Association.

Chair Tucker introduced himself as a former attorney for residential, retail and industrial real estate developers, an investor in commercial properties, and a former licensed real estate broker. He has also served on the Planning Commission, City Hall Design Committee, and Finance Committee.

Jim Mosher appreciated the introductions and the detailed subcommittee reports and hoped future agendas would include subcommittee reports.
f. New Subcommittee Appointments
Recommended Action: Appoint an additional opportunity sites subcommittee and appointment an outreach subcommittee.

Chair Tucker appointed Committee Members LePlastrier, Selich and Kiley to the Opportunity Sites Subcommittee for West Newport/Mesa and Committee Members DeSantis and Stevens to the Outreach Subcommittee.

Chair Tucker moved, seconded by Committee Member Selich, to confirm the appointments to the Opportunity Sites Subcommittee and the Outreach Subcommittee.

AYE: Tucker, Bloom, DeSantis, Fruchbom, Kiley, LePlastrier, Sandland, Selich, Stevens NO: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
VI. COMMITTEE ANNOUNCEMENTS OR MATTERS WHICH MEMBERS WOULD LIKE PLACED

ON A FUTURE AGENDA FOR DISCUSSION, ACTION OR REPORT (NON -DISCUSSION ITEM) Chair Tucker did not believe a presentation of the 2018 Orange County Business Council study would be useful even though it is an interesting study. The study could be good support for a draft Housing Element Update.

VII. ADJOURNMENT — 8:41 p.m.

Next Meeting: August 19, 2020, 6 p.m. in the City Council Chambers.

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE ADVISORY COMMITTEE MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS — 100 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 2, 2020
REGULAR MEETING — 6 P.M.

I. CALL MEETING TO ORDER — 6 p.m.

II. WELCOME AND ROLL CALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Larry Tucker, Jeffrey Bloom, Susan ❑eSantis, Elizabeth Kiley, Geoffrey LePlastrier (remote), Stephen Sandland, Ed Selich, Debbie Stevens, (Ex Officio Member) Will O'Neill (arrived at 6:10) MEMBERS ABSENT: Paul Fruchbom
Staff Present: Community Development Director Seimone Jurjis, Deputy Community Development Director Jim Campbell, Principal Planner Jaime Murillo, Senior Planner Ben Zdeba, City Traffic Engineer Tony Brine, Administrative Technician Amanda Lee Ill. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON -AGENDA ITEMS
David Tanner inquired regarding the City's strategy for updating the Housing Element; the rationale for spending more than $2 million to update the Housing Element; a Greenlight election; and the City's involvement in AB 1063. He offered to explain an alternative strategy that would save the City time and money.

Jim Mosher noted there have not been agenda items to discuss the frequency of the Housing Element Update Advisory Committee (HEUAC) meetings or the consultant's work on the Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The Circulation Element Update has been delegated to the Planning Commission when the City Council charged the HEUAC with updating the Circulation Element.

Nancy Scarbrough asked if the City has applied for any planning grants offered by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD).

Senior Planner Ben Zdeba reported the City has been awarded grants under the SB 2 planning grant program and the Local Early Assistance Planning (LEAP) grant program. The grant funds have been used to update the City's land management software.

Chair Tucker suggested the City Council is the appropriate body to consider Mr. Tanner's alternative strategy. The City Council has indicated a Greenlight vote will be held if the Housing Element Update triggers one. Chair Tucker believed a vote would be necessary. AB 1063 failed to receive the support necessary for advancing through the Legislature. The HEUAC will meet as needed and when necessary information is available. The HEUAC will receive updates regarding the environmental document. The decision has been made to delegate the Circulation Element Update to the Planning Commission.

Housing Element Update Advisory Committee Meeting
September 2, 2020

Mayor O'Neill advised that the need for a Greenlight vote will not be known until the end of the update process.

IV. CONSENT CALENDAR
a. Review Minutes of the July 15, 2020 Meeting
Recommended Action: Approve and file the minutes of July 15, 2020 At Committee Member Sandland's request, Principal Planner Jaime Murillo clarified that the Newport Crossings project has been entitled, but it has not been submitted for plan check. Staff anticipates the project's housing units can be counted towards the City's Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) allocation for the upcoming cycle.

Committee Member Sandland requested the minutes reflect Mr. Murillo's clarification of comments in the fifth paragraph on page 6 and reflect Building and Fire Board of Appeals rather than Building and Life Safety Board of Appeals on page 8.

David Tanner asked the City to create a folder to store all public comments rather than including public comments in each agenda item.

Chair Tucker requested the incorporation of Mr. Mosher's correction of typographical errors and proper names.

Committee Member Sandland moved, seconded by Committee Member Selich, to approve the minutes of the July 15, 2020 meeting as amended.

AYE: Tucker, Bloom, DeSantis, Kiley, LePlastrier, Sandland, Selich, Stevens NO: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Fruchbom
V. CURRENT BUSINESS
a. Community Outreach Plan
Recommended Action: Review and discuss the draft outreach plan. Provide direction to staff on how to proceed.

David Barquist, Kimley-Horn & Associates, reported the purpose of the plan is to ensure community engagement is sustained throughout the planning process. The overall goal is to provide a transparent process that provides sufficient and varied opportunities for public participation. The plan can be adapted to respond to the COVI❑ situation. The process chart depicts the planning phases and outreach activities for each phase. He summarized the use of Bang the Table, the online platform, and workshops; the HEUAC's and City Council's involvement; and opportunities for feedback regarding the EIR.

Committee Member ❑eSantis appreciated staff and the consultant incorporating the outreach subcommittee's comments in the plan. In response to her questions, Mr. Barquist recommended a four -week lead time to promote the initial workshop in October. Staff and consultants are working on the details of the workshop. A specific date in October has not been announced. Consultants will suggest technologies they feel are best for tasks. Bang the Table can be used for polling,

Housing Element Update Advisory Committee Meeting
September 2, 2020

analysis, mapping, and many other activities and will be the base technology. Workshops will be recorded and available for the public to review and provide feedback.

In reply to Committee Member Stevens' inquiry, Senior Planner Zdeba advised that the website has been updated and is live. A member of the public has commented on the removal of the prior planning effort, and staff is working on returning it to the website. The website will be updated throughout the process.

In answer to Committee Member Sandland's queries, Mr. Barquist indicated the overall schedule and associated action items are being updated and will be provided to the HEUAC. at or before its next meeting.

Chair Tucker remarked that the HEUAC needs to review and understand information about housing sites before it can provide direction regarding outreach. The HEUAC needs the information in order to obtain specific input from the public.

Deborah Allen, Harbor View Hills Community Association President, agreed with Chair Tucker's comments. The sites will be the issue for public comment. Notices of meetings and workshops should be provided to community associations and homeowners associations for distribution to the members.

Jim Mosher inquired regarding the anticipated deliverables from the workshops and the purpose of outreach. For outreach to be effective, the topic for public comment should be specific, and the input should have a meaningful effect on the outcome of the process. The HEUAC should consider better branding for the update effort. The number of community members who have used the outreach tools is probably small, and community familiarity with the tools is not sufficient reason to continue using the tools. Stakeholders should include potential future residents with low incomes.

David Tanner suggested the workshops be dialogs with the community such that the community helps draft the document. The schedule should be revised to accommodate a Greenlight election and Coastal Commission approval. None of the documentation refers to updating the Safety Element. Voters want to know the assumptions being used in modeling.

Nancy Scarbrough expressed concern about the timing of the outreach program. The content of workshops should be reviewed in advance to ensure the workshops will be productive and effective. Community input needs to be more than responses to questions.

Chair Tucker believed sites would drive discussions and community input. Hopefully, the outreach program will be designed to elicit input about sites. Stakeholders are residents, businesses, and owners of commercial properties where housing sites may be located.

Committee Member Stevens suggested a review of the housing sites subcommittee's work would help the public understand the complexities of selecting sites.

Committee Member DeSantis understood the community wants to know the location of housing sites and the effect of development at those sites on the look of the community. This will add another layer to the complexity of identifying sites.

Chair Tucker expected the look of potential developments to be a factor in decisions. In all likelihood, only a small number of sites could accommodate an all affordable housing project. The

Housing Element Update Advisory Committee Meeting
September 2, 2020

majority of affordable units would likely be components of large, above -moderate -income development projects.
b. Subcommittee Progress Reports
Recommended Action: Receive verbal progress reports from all subcommittees and discuss as necessary.

Chair Tucker reported the sites subcommittee has reviewed sites in the Airport Area to determine possible sites for housing. He reviewed each of the sites and pros and cons for redeveloping the sites.

Committee Member Selich advised that limited housing opportunities are available in West Newport areas zoned for residential, medical office, and public facility uses. Housing may be possible in areas zoned for industrial/commercial uses and in areas containing mobile home lots.

Chair Tucker explained that a zoning overlay retains the current use and adds a new use. An overlay may be important for the east side of MacArthur Boulevard. Tenants of affordable housing pay rent, but the rent amount is based upon income. Incentives will be needed for the development of affordable housing.

Committee Member Kiley related that rezoning a one or two-story commercial building to residential could increase the utilization of the site, which may be preferable to the property owner. The cost of demolishing a commercial building from the 1970s and replacing it with housing could be less than remodeling the commercial building.

Jim Mosher believed the State allows housing with adequate sound attenuation in 65 dB areas.

However, Noise Element Policy N 3.2 prohibits new residential development in 65 dB areas. A General Plan amendment has been noticed for the September 8 City Council meeting. The amendment would extend the existing overlay for housing into an area where housing is not allowed. He requested clarification of Committee Member Bloom's concept of incentives for development of projects in high -income areas.

Chair Tucker indicated developers could pay a fee for projects in high -income areas, and the fees would be used for affordable housing projects in areas with lower land costs.

In answer to Committee Member DeSantis' questions, Chair Tucker stated the HEUAC does not advise the Council regarding planning applications. If the Council approves the General Plan amendment, the HEUAC will have less to consider. The units have been incorporated into the roadmap.

C. Housing Element Sites Strategy
Recommended Action: Receive an overview of current projects in the development pipeline that can count towards the RHNA allocation and discuss strategies to identify housing opportunities.

Senior Planner Zdeba reported the City's draft RHNA allocation will be increased to 4,834 units.

The roadmap is simplistic and does not include income designations. Entitled and unbuilt projects may be under construction but have not received a certificate of occupancy and will provide 1,136 units. Projects under review have not been entitled and could provide 878 units.

Housing Element Update Advisory Committee Meeting
September 2, 2020

In reply to Chair Tucker's questions, Senior Planner Zdeba indicated the unit count for the Uptown Newport project pertains to Phase 2. Phase 2 will begin when TowerJazz's lease expires. Principal Planner Murillo explained that the Newport Crossings project was approved under the Newport Place affordable housing overlay. The overlay allows housing development up to 50 dwelling units per acre subject to design review only. To qualify for housing under the overlay, the developer has to commit to providing a minimum of 30 percent of units at the low-income level. The developer has received a density bonus in exchange for low-income housing. This is the first application to utilize the overlay. Plans have not been submitted for plan check. The Airport Area has a maximum development limit of 2,200 units, but most of those units have to be developed through the conversion of commercial floor area. Five hundred fifty infill units are also allowed. The Residences at 4400 Von Karman project is utilizing 260 of those infill units. The developer received a density bonus for providing very -low-income units. The Newport Village project complies with minimum commercial standards and maximum residential standards and is currently under review.

The project does not seek more intensity than is allowed.

Committee Member Kiley suggested the RHNA allocation and business closures caused by COVID may provide an opportunity to amend the General Plan to support more residential and less commercial space in mixed -use projects.

In answer to Mayor O'NeiII's queries, Principal Planner Murillo explained that if a project is permitted and built prior to June 30, 2021, the units in the project will be credited to the current cycle. The guidelines state the cutoff date is the date of entitlement, permitting, or issuance of a certificate of occupancy. Staff relies on the date a certificate of occupancy is issued. The Newport Crossings project has been entitled but has not obtained permits. The Uptown Newport project is subject to a Development Agreement.

Senior Planner Zdeba advised that 781 units from the 2014-2021 Housing Element inventory could count if they comply with the guidelines for the current cycle. The number of units does not include any units at Banning Ranch because annexation probably could not occur prior to the deadline.

In response to Committee Member Sandland's inquiry, Senior Planner Zdeba indicated the 781 units are based on the realistic development capacity of the existing inventory and do not include sites slated for redevelopment. He agreed to provide a tabulation of the units.

Senior Planner Zdeba described alternatives to new construction as preservation of existing affordable units and conversion of market -rate units to affordable units. The guidelines limit the number of alternative units to 25 percent of the City's very low and low-income requirements.

Mobile home units can be identified as committed and preserved for affordable housing, but the 55-year minimum affordability term may be a deterrent to property owners taking that action.

In, reply to Chair Tucker's queries, Senior Planner Zdeba stated realistically 12 units could be preserved within the timeframe for the current cycle. Chair Tucker believed there are few opportunities to achieve the 594 units.

Senior Planner Zdeba related that 1,000 units is an aggressive target for the production of accessory dwelling units (ADUs). With the changes in State law, the production of ADUs is much easier. To achieve this number, the City would have to commit to promoting ADUs, monitoring ADU production, and being held accountable should 1,000 units not be achieved. The ADU target number is open for discussion.

Housing Element Update Advisory Committee Meeting
September 2, 2020

In response to Chair Tucker's inquiries, Senior Planner Zdeba indicated there would be consequences for failing to achieve 1,000 ADUs. State law does not allow the imposition of new or existing private restrictions on ADUs.

Senior Planner Zdeba explained that the City could commit to a rezoning program that would account for shortfalls in achieving goals.

In answer to Committee Member Sandland's questions, Senior Planner Zdeba advised that the beginning of the planning period is June 30, 2021. None of the goals include potential units at Banning Ranch. Principal Planner Murillo reported live-aboards with permanent utility hookups can count towards the allocation. Moorings in Newport Harbor do not provide permanent utility hookups and cannot count.

In reply to Committee Member Selich's queries, Senior Planner Zdeba reported the number of units obtained through rezoning could be 445 if the other goals are achieved. Staff has not analyzed the number of units from the existing inventory to suggest a realistic number of units that could be achieved. The assumptions for existing inventory sites, alternatives to new construction, and ADUs will affect the target for rezoning.

Committee Member Bloom remarked that the net number of needed units is 2,009 absent income restrictions. With income restrictions, the target for low-income units is about 3,300 units.

Approximately 6,200 units will be needed to satisfy the income restrictions. Principal Planner Murillo related that only 88 of the 1,136 units entitled and unbuilt are lower -income units. Staff needs to present the number of units per income category for each target.

In answer to David Tanner's question, Chair Tucker stated the HEUAC will attempt to find sufficient sites to accommodate housing. If the HEUAC cannot accomplish that, it will report it to the Council.

Mr. Tanner suggested the HEUAC ask staff and consultants about the strategy if the allocation cannot be fulfilled. He inquired about opportunities for public input in the roadmap.

Jim Mosher remarked that the HEUAC is not envisioning all affordable housing projects. The goal for low and very -low-income units is more than 2,000. To achieve 2,000 units, the number of overall units will have to be more than 4,834. The City Council has asked the Harbor Commission to review live-aboards, perhaps with the idea of counting them towards the RHNA allocation. The Harbor Code prohibits houseboats.

Chair Tucker reported approximately 2,400 units in the lower affordability range are required. If market -rate housing projects can include no more than 20 percent affordable housing, 12,000 housing units will be needed to provide 2,400 affordable units.

Mayor O'Neill recalled the Council's direction for three paths: providing a compliant Housing Element, pushing back legislatively, and pushing back legally. The Council will consider an appeal and legal options when it receives the formal RHNA allocation. The Council's legislative efforts ended when the bill it supported died. Completing the Housing Element Update in 14-15 months is not possible. The expectation for the HEUAC is to find as much compliance as possible and make recommendations to the Council. The Council will then review its options.

In reply to Committee Member Selich's question, Principal Planner Murillo advised that a rezoning program, if needed, would be contained in the Housing Element that the City Council adopts. The City will have three years to complete rezoning, which could include General Plan amendments. A

Housing Element Update Advisory Committee Meeting
September 2, 2020

Greenlight vote would not occur until rezoning and associated General Plan amendments are proposed. A Greenlight vote and Coastal Commission approval are not needed to submit the Housing Element to HCD.

Committee Member DeSantis remarked that affordable housing does not have to be achieved through inclusionary requirements only. The HEUAC can explore other methods to achieve affordable housing that will not increase the number of overall units. A housing trust fund and mortgage programs are examples of such methods. Newport Beach employers could be interested in contributing to a housing trust fund for workforce housing.

Chair Tucker commented that the HEUAC will need to document and describe the reasons it cannot meet the RHNA allocation, if that occurs.

Mayor O'Neill referred to the City's efforts to subsidize permanent supportive housing, which could aid compliance with the RHNA allocation.

Mary Ann Soden encouraged the HEUAC to consider nonprofit and affordable housing partners to build affordable housing.

In answer to Committee Member Sandland's question, Chair Tucker indicated he is working with staff to draft a letter to property owners regarding redevelopment of their properties. d. Appointment of an Additional Sites Subcommittee
Recommended Action: Appoint an additional sites subcommittee.

Chair Tucker moved, seconded by Committee Member Selich, to establish an Additional Sites Subcommittee composed of Chair Tucker and Committee Members Selich and Stevens.

AYE: Tucker, Bloom, ❑eSantis, Kiley, LePlastrier, Sandland, Selich, Stevens NO: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Fruchbom
VI. COMMITTEE ANNOUNCEMENTS OR MATTERS WHICH MEMBERS WOULD LIKE PLACED ON A FUTURE AGENDA FOR DISCUSSION, ACTION OR REPORT [NON -DISCUSSION ITEM] Chair Tucker requested details of affordable housing.

Vll. ADJOURNMENT — 8:39 p.m.

Next Meeting: October 7, 2020, 6 p.m. in the City Council Chambers.

1T1

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE ADVISORY COMMITTEE MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS — 100 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE
WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 7, 2020
REGULAR MEETING — 6 P.M.

CALL MEETING TO ORDER — 6 p.m.

WELCOME AND ROLL CALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Larry Tucker, Jeffrey Bloom, Susan DeSantis, Paul Fruchbom (remote), Geoffrey LePlastrier, Stephen Sandland, Ed Selich, Debbie Stevens
MEMBERS ABSENT: Elizabeth Kiley (excused), (Ex Offici❑ Member) Will O'Neill Staff Present: Community Development Director Seimone Jurjis, Deputy Community Development Director Jim Campbell, Principal Planner Jaime Murillo, Senior Planner Ben Zdeba, Administrative Support Specialist Clarivel Rodriguez

PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON -AGENDA ITEMS
Jim Mosher noted the City Council has amended the General Plan and approved a development agreement for a developer to build housing that does not require low-income or very -low income units on property adjacent to the Airport. Allowing all developers to do this would result in the need to find locations for up to 49,000 units to achieve quotas for affordable housing.

Nancy Scarbrough commented that the Circulation Element had been delegated to the Planning Commission without a Council vote or public awareness. She wanted to know when and where that decision was made and whether staff or consultants have begun work on updating the Circulation Element.

CONSENT CALENDAR
a. Minutes of the September 2, 2020
Recommended Action: Approve and file the minutes of September 2, 2020 Chair Tucker indicated Mr. Mosher has provided a minor correction.

Chair Tucker moved, seconded by Committee Member Selich, to approve the minutes of the September 2, 2020 meeting as presented.

AYE: Tucker, Bloom, ❑eSantis, LePlastrier, Sandland, Selich, Stevens NO: None
ABSTAIN: Fruchbom
ABSENT: Kiley

Housing Element Update Advisory Committee Meeting
October 7, 2020

V. CURRENT BUSINESS
a. Subcommittee Progress Reports
Recommended Action: Receive verbal progress reports from all subcommittees and discuss as necessary.

Chair Tucker reported the sites subcommittees for the Airport Area and West Newport Mesa have completed their reviews, and staff has posted the subcommittees' notes to the website. The site subcommittee for the remainder of the City is awaiting information from staff. The goal is to have the subcommittee's review complete and its notes posted prior to the next HEUAC meeting and the workshop.

Senior Planner Ben Zdeba advised that the information should be available for the subcommittee the following week.

Chair Tucker explained that the sites subcommittees graded each site as feasible, potentially feasible, or infeasible. Feasible sites have physical characteristics that may allow housing development. Infeasible sites appear not to have the ability to accommodate housing. Potentially feasible sites may accommodate housing, but the subcommittee could not make a determination based upon current information. After public input, the HEUAC will decide if a parcel is suitable for housing.

Committee Member Sandland requested staff maintain a tabulation of the number of acres and potential units the sites could generate in each category. Deputy Community Development Director Jim Campbell advised that staff will maintain a tabulation of the acreage of the sites and could provide a range of densities or unit yields at different densities.

In response to Deputy Community Development Director Campbell's query, Chair Tucker explained that the HEUAC should determine sites are suitable for housing prior to staff contacting the property owners. The subcommittees have no decision -making authority. Deputy Community Development Director Campbell expressed concern because the HEUAC would receive public input prior to making a decision, and public input would occur over a number of months. Staff should contact property owners sooner rather than later to learn of their interest in building housing on their properties. In addition, staff should probably contact more property owners than the HEUAC identifies in order to gather additional information about sites. Chair Tucker expected the workshops to provide public input regarding the sites that could accommodate housing. The October 20, 2020 workshop could provide input for the HEUAC to consider in its October 21 meeting. The HEUAC will review sites in the Airport Area and West Newport Mesa on October 21 and the rest of the City on November 4. By November 4, the HEUAC should have enough input for staff to begin contacting property owners. Deputy Community Development Director Campbell did not believe the October 20 workshop would consider specific sites; therefore, the HEUAC would not have public input regarding specific sites for its October 21 meeting.

Jim Mosher requested a more logical numbering system for the parcels and suggested the HEUAC webpage contain a list of subcommittees, subcommittee members, and the task of each subcommittee.

Chair Tucker related that the numbering system was provided to the subcommittee, and the subcommittee did not change it.

Housing Element Update Advisory Committee Meeting
October 7, 2020

Deputy Community Development Director Campbell indicated the webpage could be updated to include a list of subcommittees.

Dorothy Kraus remarked that the lack of a response to Ms. Scarbrough's comments about the Circulation Element leaves an unsettling feeling. She inquired about the rationale for deeming the Road and Track building as infeasible when the underlying zoning for the parcel is residential.

Chair Tucker explained that he made a recommendation to staff and the Mayor that the Planning Commission update the Circulation Element as it has experience with traffic matters and HEUAC members do not. He was not privy to how the decision occurred.

Committee Member Selich advised that the subcommittee was informed that the Road and Track building is undergoing remodeling for a private school's educational offices. With the school's investment in the building, the subcommittee felt it was infeasible for housing. In addition, a major portion of the parking lot for the building is in the public right-of-way for the extension of 15th Street.

Deputy Community Development Director Campbell reported several years ago the Hearing Officer granted an extension of the nonconforming office use for Kobe's project at the Road and Track site. Pacifica Christian School is making similar investments and extending that nonconforming privilege. Changing zoning on the site from residential to commercial would require a General Plan Amendment. Also, the shape and size of the parcel makes a residential development on the site challenging. In order to include the site in the Housing Element Update, the City needs reasonable evidence that the site could change land uses during the planning period.

Chair Tucker appreciated Ms. Kraus' input as the type of input the HEUAC wants to receive. b. Strategy for Public Input on Sites
Recommended Action: Discuss and provide direction on how to best seek public input on the housing opportunity sites inventory.

Chair Tucker wanted to receive quality input regarding the suitability of sites listed in the subcommittees' notes. Following the October 20 workshop, the HEUAC will review feasible and potentially feasible sites, hear public input provided at the workshop, and determine sites suitable for housing. HEUAC review of sites in the Airport Area and West Newport Mesa will be scheduled for October 21, and sites in the remainder of the City will be scheduled for November 4.

In response to Chair Tucker's question, David Barquist, Kimley-Horn and Associates, advised that the City has the right to adopt a Housing Element as it sees fit, but the City has to abide by State law. If the City adopts a Housing Element that does not comply with statutory requirements, the State will not certify the Housing Element. There are some challenges to self -certifying a Housing Element. In his opinion, the community's desires and statutory requirements should be considered equally. Chair Tucker understood penalty provisions contained in recent legislation apply pressure on cities to achieve their RHNA allocations. Mr. Barquist could provide the HEUAC with relevant legislation.

Chair Tucker did not want the public to participate in the engagement process and then feel as though the HEUAC ignored its input. He read the Code section regarding public participation.

Housing Element Update Advisory Committee Meeting
October 7, 2020

C. Outreach Plan Update
Recommended Action: Receive an overview of the outreach plan efforts, including information on the schedule moving forward and the upcoming October 20 virtual workshop and the November 96 virtual workshop for the Circulation Element Update.

Mr. Barquist reviewed opportunities for community engagement, which include digital engagement, committee/advisory meetings, in -person or virtual workshops, online video presentations, and webinars. The first community workshop is scheduled for October 20, 2020, will be held online, and will be interactive without a presentation. Engagement opportunities will be available through the website and HEUAC meetings
Senior Planner Zdeba related that 36 people have registered via Zoom for the October 20 workshop. The community was notified of the workshop through email blasts and Nextdoor posts.

The community may register for the workshop on the website. A Circulation Element kickoff workshop is scheduled for November 16, 2020.

In response to Committee Member DeSantis' inquiries, Mr. Barquist emphasized the interactive nature of the October 20 workshop. The workshop will include lessons learned from prior outreach efforts, the context for RHNA, a series of activities, and next steps. Scenario building or modeling with different densities will occur after the October workshop. Vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and circulation will be part of the analysis. Mitigation measures for VMT impacts and many other topics will be part of community education.

In answer to Committee Member Stevens' question, Mr. Barquist stated the Lego exercise will not be repeated as staff has clearly directed the consultant team not to repeat activities. The workshop will focus on locations within areas of the City.

Chair Tucker remarked that if the HEUAC cannot achieve the RHNA allocation during the update process, sites will be selected based on their ability to provide housing units, which is not a good planning method.

Committee Member DeSantis referred to a letter from Olen Properties. Visioning is not reviewing individual sites but preparing a realistic model for an area based on available sites and the development community's input regarding feasibility.

In reply to Committee Member Selich's query, Mr. Barquist explained that during the workshop, participants can respond to polls and share their ideas.

Jim Mosher hoped the workshop will have some form. He expressed concern about having to provide information to Zoom in order to register for the workshop. He inquired whether workshops would be recorded and posted on the website. He requested clarification of the Circulation Element workshop and the center column of the chart for outreach opportunities.

Charles Klobe commented that without State and Federal subsidies, the City will not find enough sites to accommodate 49,000 housing units, which will include the required number of affordable housing units. The HEUAC should decide it will submit an incomplete Housing Element. He suggested staff reach out to coastal cities in the same position as Newport Beach and develop a regional coalition to approach the State.

Housing Element Update Advisory Committee Meeting
October 7, 2020

Dorothy Kraus expressed confusion regarding the role of the outreach subcommittee in obtaining public input on sites. The HEUAC seems to be glossing over Committee Member DeSantis' comments regarding visioning. The Outreach Plan and the websites are confusing and do not relate to each other.

Chair Tucker advised that Committee Members DeSantis and Stevens form the outreach subcommittee. They coordinate the outreach program with staff and consultants in order to obtain meaningful public input. The City can fight its RHNA allocation or update the Housing Element to achieve the allocation. if individuals feel the City should fight the allocation, they should address the City Council.

Deputy Community Development Director Campbell indicated the workshops will be recorded and posted on the website. A detailed script or agenda of the workshop is not ready for publication.

Zoom registration requires a name and email address. Staff will update the City Council on October 13, 2020, but currently no other meetings with the Planning Commission or City Council have been scheduled.

Chair Tucker requested the workshop script be provided to the outreach subcommittee for comment. The affordable housing subcommittee is awaiting information from Principal Planner Jaime Murillo.

Committee Member DeSantis noted Orange County has a housing trust fund, and cities may create a local fund to subsidize housing units.

Senior Planner Zdeba explained that the Circulation Element webinar is listed at the top of the chart.

In response to Committee Member Sandland's question, Deputy Community Development Director Campbell clarified that workshops and webinars will allow the community to participate through chat and polling features.

Chair Tucker recommended the workshop include an announcement of the HEUAC's schedule for reviewing sites in the Airport Area, West Newport Mesa, and the remainder of the City. d. Affordable Housing Compliance
Recommended Action: Receive an overview of what "affordable housing" means in the context of Orange County, as well as the new affordable housing requirements related to the housing opportunity sites inventory. Discuss strategies for compliance.

Mr. Barquist defined affordability as the ability to pay based on income and housing cost.

Affordability is based on median family income (MR), which is calculated by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for each county. Orange County's MFI of $103,000 is high in comparison to many counties in the state. RHNA assumes a family of four individuals. The Housing Element is required to identify sites by income category. Affordability for a site is generally based upon the density allowed for the site. According to the State, 30 dwelling units per acre is the default density for affordable units. Sites can accommodate more than one income category.

The Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) recommends a 15-30 percent buffer for additional dwellings to cover no net loss.

Housing Element Update Advisory Committee Meeting
October 7, 2020

In reply to Committee Member Selich's questions, Mr. Barquist indicated the City would have to find sites to accommodate affordable housing that a developer does not build on a site designated for affordable housing. Staff will track affordable housing sites and construction of affordable housing. A subsidy could be a policy solution for construction of affordable housing.

Chair Tucker advised that most sites in Newport Beach are non -vacant, which is required for housing in the lower -income range. Therefore, the substantial evidence rule will come into effect.

In answer to Chair Tucker's query, Mr. Barquist explained that different strategies and methods can encourage property owners to redevelop their land.

Committee Member Selich remarked that the City cannot provide enough incentives, fee reductions, or bonus programs to make up the deficit of constructing affordable housing.

Committee Member Fruchbom related that coastal cities have the most difficulty providing affordable housing because their rents are higher than countywide rents, on which RHNA requirements are based. He calculated a developer's loss in constructing a hypothetical one - bedroom apartment unit at 50-60 percent AMI in Huntington Beach and in Newport Beach.

According to his very rough estimation, a bond measure levying $6,000 on every man, woman, and child in Newport Beach could provide funding for affordable housing. Theoretically, it is possible for tax credits and cheap land to fill a developer's deficit, but the demand for tax credits is immense.

The City could offer increased density in exchange for affordable units. In the past, he surveyed the City for sites that could accommodate a development with affordable housing and found only one site, City -owned land near the maintenance yard.

Chair Tucker questioned whether the State would accept a Housing Element that utilizes strategies to achieve affordable housing allocations, regardless of the success of the strategies.

Committee Member Selich expressed concern regarding the no net loss requirement.

Chair Tucker suggested the no net loss requirement will have to be covered through an overlay that requires affordable housing as part of a residential development.

In response to Committee Member DeSantis' inquiry, Mr. Barquist stated the City could use in -lieu fees to construct affordable housing in other cities. Committee Member DeSantis noted UCI has a fund for silent second mortgages on affordable housing. The City of Livermore and the County of Marin are subsidizing mortgages to attract residents. Chair Tucker added that UCI is subsidizing affordable housing located on UCI's property. He questioned whether the State would accept affordable housing built in another city.

Mr. Barquist clarified that the Housing Element contains courses of actions that should achieve the RHNA allocation. The specific details of those actions do not have to be included in the Housing Element. To obtain affordable housing, the City could provide incentives or streamline permitting for accessory dwelling units (ADU), increase densities, create affordable overlay zones, promote the preservation of existing affordable units, or promote the conversion of market -rate units to affordable units.

In reply to Committee Member Sandland's questions, Mr. Barquist explained the City's ability to count affordable units when their affordable covenants, which are set to expire, are renewed.

Deputy Community Development Director Campbell reported the current Housing Element

Housing Element Update Advisory Committee Meeting
October 7, 2020

contains a list of project sites subject to affordable covenants. Staff has registered with the State to receive notice prior to the expiration of covenants. Theoretically, the City could negotiate with property owners to pay for an extension of the covenants. Staff has contacted property owners where the covenants were about to expire, and all property owners have rejected offers to extend the covenants. Senior Planner Zdeba indicated covenants on 12 properties will expire during the 2021-2029 planning cycle.

In answer to Committee Member Selich's query, Mr. Barquist related that the no net loss requirement applies to the entire RHNA allocation.

Chair Tucker commented that staff and consultants will provide the HEUAC with alternatives for affordable units. The HEUAC will likely consider an inclusionary fee.

Mr. Barquist indicated HCD considers whether the Housing Element meets the spirit and intent of the law and substantially complies with the law. Staff can discuss potential programs and strategies with HCD prior to completing the Housing Element.

Committee Member ❑eSantis suggested salaries for Newport Beach jobs should be prominent in the workshop discussion so that the community can relate to residents of affordable housing Jim Mosher suggested staff clarify the statement that HCD considers a density of 30 units per acre as suitable for affordable housing and the application of that density to the Newport Airport Village project.

Deputy Community Development Director Campbell reported a site identified for affordable housing must have a density of 30 units per acre. He recommended the Housing Element reflect the number of affordable units proposed for the Newport Airport Village project rather than the maximum number of units that could be built on the site. His recommendation would apply to the Newport Crossings project and any remaining development in the Uptown Newport project. e. RHNA Appeal Filing -Council Item for October 13
Recommended Action: Receive and file.

Chair Tucker remarked that the appeal lists retail commercial and industrial properties without describing economic constraints on converting those properties to residential uses. He has submitted language addressing that issue to staff. In determining the number of housing units needed, the State did not consider the availability of land for housing.

Jim Mosher stated other cities will appeal their allocations and make arguments similar to Newport Beach's arguments.

Deputy Community Development Director Campbell advised that a draft letter has been included in the meeting packet and will be presented to the City Council on Tuesday along with a request to authorize an appeal. The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) will convene its litigation committee, which could mean SCAG is considering litigation regarding RHNA.

In answer to Committee Member DeSantis' query, Principal Planner Murill❑ reported the deadline to submit an appeal is October 26, 2020, A 45-day comment period will follow the deadline. Once the comment period expires, SCAG will hold hearings, which are estimated to last four to six weeks.

Housing Element Update Advisory Committee Meeting
October 7, 2020

The appeal process is expected to conclude in late January or early February 2021. At that time, cities will have their final RHNA allocations.

VI. COMMITTEE ANNOUNCEMENTS OR MATTERS WHICH MEMBERS WOULD LIKE PLACED ON A FUTURE AGENDA FOR DISCUSSION, ACTION OR REPORT [NON -DISCUSSION ITEMy Chair Tucker requested a presentation by the Kennedy Commission and a discussion of the appropriate time for staff to contact property owners about building housing on their properties.

Committee Member DeSantis' requested a presentation by Renaissance Housing, an affordable housing developer. Chair Tucker suggested that occur when the Affordable Housing Subcommittee has information to share.

Committee Member Sandland requested Mr. Barquist provide an updated outreach schedule by October 21, 2020.

VII. ADJOURNMENT — 8:23 p.m.

Next Meeting: October 21, 2020, 6 p.m. in the City Council Chambers.

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE ADVISORY COMMITTEE MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS — 100 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE
WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 21, 2020
REGULAR MEETING — 6 P.M.

I. CALL MEETING TO ORDER — 6 p.m.

II. WELCOME AND ROLL CALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Larry Tucker, Jeffrey Bloom, Susan ❑eSantis, Elizabeth Kiley, Geoffrey LePlastrier, Stephen Sandland, Ed Selich, Debbie Stevens MEMBERS ABSENT: Paul Fruchbom, (Ex Officio Member) Will O'Neill (excused) Staff Present. Community Development Director Seimone Jurjis, Deputy Community Development Director Jim Campbell, Principal Planner Jaime Murillo, Senior Planner Ben Zdeba, City Traffic Engineer Tony Brine, Administrative Support Specialist Clarivel Rodriguez Ill. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON -AGENDA ITEMS
Jim Mosher remarked that a loophole in the Housing Crisis Act allows people to merge lots and demolish multifamily housing if the new development is limited to a single unit, which seems contrary to the intent of the Housing Crisis Act.

IV. CONSENT CALENDAR
a. Minutes of the October 7, 2020 Meeting
Recommended Action: Approve and file the minutes of October 7, 2020 Chair Tucker advised that Mr. Mosher has suggested some minor corrections to the October minutes.

Chair Tucker moved, seconded by Committee Member Selich, to approve the minutes of the October 7, 2020, meeting with Mr. Mosher's revisions.

AYE: Tucker, Bloom, DeSantis, Kiley, LePlastrier, Sandland, Selich, Stevens NO: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Fruchbom
V. CURRENT BUSINESS
a. Presentation by The Kennedy Commission
Recommended Action: Receive a presentation from Cesar Covarrubias of The Kennedy Commission followed by brief questions and answers.

Chair Tucker indicated The Kennedy Commission is an affordable housing advocacy group that was founded in 2001. The Housing Element Update Advisory Committee (HEUAC) is interested

Housing Element Update Advisory Committee Meeting
October 21, 2020

in hearing about strategies, policies, and incentives that will result in affordable housing development.

Cesar Covarrubias shared information regarding median home price, household income, affordability, and Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) allocations for Orange County.

Two cities in Orange County have specific policies for affordable housing and have met their RHNA allocations in the very -low-income and low-income categories. Overlays and specific plans can encourage housing as part of mixed -use developments. Institutional and church campuses are potential sites for mixed -use concepts. The Surplus Land Act, a mixed -income housing ordinance, an affordable housing strategic plan, housing opportunities zoning or an overlay, and an affordable housing land trust support affordable housing. The Veterans and Affordable Housing Bond Act, the No Place Like Home program, the Orange County Housing Finance Trust/JPA, the Orange County Housing Trust, the Orange County Housing Bond 2020, and the Mental Health Services Act can be used to fund affordable housing.

Chair Tucker commented that there are areas in the City where property owners may be enticed to build housing on their properties. Policies that relax development standards and increase allowed density can encourage housing development, but at some point increased density makes construction costs infeasible.

Mr. Covarrubias suggested incorporating the City's housing objectives into an overlay or zoning change. Changes to the State Density Bonus Law may result in more affordable housing. Office buildings can be redeveloped with a more intense and intentional use. Adopting policies and programs for affordable housing is essential to the development of affordable housing.

In answer to Committee Member SandIand's question, Mr. Covarrubias advised that The Kennedy Commission is reviewing the potential for housing located in areas such as Banning Ranch and portions of the Airport Area located within the 65 dB CNEL contour. Planning growth around existing uses is challenging but doable.

In reply to Committee Member DeSantis' query, Mr. Covarrubias indicated he is aware of cities discussing agreements to use funding from one city to build affordable housing in the other city.

However, he did not anticipate such agreements would work well because of each city's need to fulfill its allocation for low and very -low-income housing.

In response to Committee Member Stevens' comment, Mr. Covarrubias remarked that if amenities are located close to housing, residents will probably make fewer vehicle trips. b. Orange County Mayors' Letter to the Southern California Council of Governments (SCAG)
Recommended Action: Receive and file.

Chair Tucker felt the Mayors' letter could be more fruitful in reducing RHNA allocations than other approaches. The public should be aware of the letter.

Jim Mosher inquired regarding the reasons for the Mayors of Dana Point and San Clemente not signing the letter.

Housing Element Update Advisory Committee Meeting
October 21, 2020

C. Subcommittee Progress Reports
Recommended Action: Receive verbal updates from each subcommittee, as appropriate.

Chair Tucker reported that the subcommittee for opportunity sites in the remainder of Newport Beach met the prior day, and a report will be scheduled for the next HEUAC meeting. The affordable housing subcommittee will review different approaches to obtain affordable housing at different income levels and may craft an inclusionary plan. d. October 20, 2020 Virtual Housing Workshop Recap
Recommended Action: Receive an overview of the first virtual housing workshop and discuss any takeaways. Provide feedback or direction to staff and the consultants on any changes or considerations for future workshops.

David Barquist, Kimley-Horn and Associates, reported 72 people participated in the workshop.

Analysis of feedback provided during the workshop is underway, and a report will be available via the Newport Together website. Engagement occurred during the workshop and will continue online. During the workshop, members of the public inquired about a no housing response to questions. In light of the draft RHNA allocation for Newport Beach, the consultant team does not believe a no housing response is practical. In subsequent stages of outreach, the team can explore the most appropriate locations for growth and development and different types of housing. The public can view the workshop and provide feedback on the Newport Together website.

In reply to Committee Member Stevens' question, Mr. Barquist advised that the team will explore methods to obtain public input for individual opportunity sites during both in -person and virtual meetings. Committee Member Stevens remarked that the interactive portion of the workshop was easy and a good start to obtaining public feedback.

Committee Member DeSantis suggested future virtual workshops include more opportunities for two-way communication. The presentations and polling were well done. The workshop could have been longer to allow more dialog with the community. She emphasized the importance of creating visions for opportunity areas while reviewing parcels in the areas. Mr. Barquist noted the difficulty of sustaining the public's attention for an extended period of time. Engagement will build and improve as the schedule progresses. The team is working with the City's Public Information Officer to distribute information to the community through different avenues. The public and committee members can assist by sharing links and posts to meetings and information.

Deborah Allen, Harbor View Hills Community Association President, advised that she discussed the workshop with seniors at OASIS, a number of whom attended the workshop, and neither the seniors nor she felt the technology was easy to use or the workshop encouraged community input.

The input may have been too structured for a community that is accustomed to voicing their opinions. Questions have to have a no project response. if the goal is to obtain community input, the public has to be allowed to express opinions.

Nancy Scarbrough noted 18 of those present for the workshop were staff and committee members.

The inability to converse was extremely frustrating. Future workshops need to be more interactive with the public.

Jim Mosher concurred with comments regarding the lack of two-way communication. The workshop did not mention HEUAC meetings, and the website does not list all HEUAC meetings.

Housing Element Update Advisory Committee Meeting
October 21, 2020

Adriana Fourcher felt the workshop was not collaborative. In -person meetings with small group discussions should be possible. She had some difficulty participating in the polling and did not believe her responses were counted. Input from the business community is needed.

Melanie Schlotterbeck, representing Olen Properties, expressed disappointment with the repetition of information during the workshop. She supported the use of breakout rooms during virtual meetings to allow individuals to comment. There has been no mention of new and innovative housing types and mixed -use development. Housing options need to include a range of sizes, prices, and affordability. The City needs a vision for the Airport Area.

Hoiyin Ip suggested community groups will help distribute information about meetings and workshops. One city in Orange County has been assessing in -lieu housing fees for many years.

David Tanner hoped the City would work with The Kennedy Commission to learn about the effects of affordable housing on public services. Staff is intentionally misinforming the public regarding the scope of the Housing Element Update by discussing only RHNA information.

Dorothy Kraus remarked that workshop participants were the usual group who attend or participate in public meetings. Staff and the consultants need to use more traditional means to notify the public about meetings.

Chair Tucker advised that the State has disrupted the City's planning process and shortened the time for a planning process. Staff has not intentionally misled anyone. Public comments have included some valid criticisms of the outreach process. The HEUAC is charged with preparing a plan to comply with State requirements. Consequently, no development is not an option.

Committee Member Stevens related that the City's Public Information Manager asked the outreach subcommittee to distribute information about the workshop, and the subcommittee sent emails to almost 1,000 people. The community may not be interested in planning efforts. e. Sites Rundown: Airport Area
Recommended Action: Review the list of potential sites and discuss feasibility. Solicit input from the public on the list and the Committee's discussion.

Chair Tucker directed staff to begin contacting the owners of properties identified as feasible or potentially feasible for housing. He assumed members of the public would agree with the subcommittee's designations for sites as the public has expressed interest in locating housing in the Airport Area. He reviewed the subcommittee's consideration of parcels 43, 113, 37, 69, 95, 87, 23, 70, 80, 81, 111, 9, 24, 131, 135, 38, and 79 and the Saunders site.

Committee Member Sandland suggested the parcel numbers for the Saunders site should be provided. If the prohibition of housing in the 65 dB CNEL is relaxed, parcels 87 and 23 may be potentially feasible rather than infeasible. Chair Tucker indicated the subcommittee may reconsider designations for parcels located within the 65 dB CNEL if the prohibition is relaxed.

Committee Member Bloom commented that abandoning streets s❑ that parcels may be combined would theoretically create more land and larger parcels. Parcels could be even more feasible for housing. Chair Tucker clarified the comment as abandoning private circulation rather than streets.

Housing Element Update Advisory Committee Meeting
October 21, 2020

Jim Mosher did not recall the HEUAC agreeing with the subcommittee's approach of not considering parcels within the 65 dB CNEL. Based on the statement that the subcommittee is not considering parcels within the 65 dB CNEL at this time, he inquired when the subcommittee would consider those parcels. Chair Tucker suspected the subcommittee would consider those sites if all other sites do not provide sufficient housing to comply with the RHNA allocation or if someone proposes a project on a parcel within the 65 dB CNEL.

In reply to Chair Tucker's inquiry, Deputy Community Development Director Jim Campbell related that a policy in the Noise Element of the General Plan states parcels within the 65 dB CNEL are not appropriate for housing development. The Airport Land Use Commission would find housing development incompatible with the 65 dB CNEL.

Chair Tucker reviewed the subcommittee's consideration of parcels 51, 72, 88, 71, 91, 122, 52, 138, 77, 68, 106, 121, 19, 33, 117, 116, 119, and 120.

Adriana Fourcher remarked that the dB rating pertains to jet traffic. Noise studies are needed for small plane traffic because the departure pattern for small planes is over the parcels being considered for housing. Deputy Community Development Director Campbell advised that the noise contours are based on a composite of both runways and represent a 24-hour average of all aircraft traffic.

Chair Tucker reviewed the subcommittee's consideration of parcels 66, 67, 83, 61, 62, 63, 76, 16, 105, 47, 31, 13, 99, and 104. The subcommittee omitted parcels 39 and 89, which are located partially within the 65 dB CNEL. Parcel 39 is small, and the building on parcel 89 has been refurbished. Therefore, parcel 39 is infeasible and parcel 89 is feasible.

Committee Member Stevens expressed concern that airplane noise was last studied and the CNEL contours determined in 1985. Deputy Community Development Director Campbell indicated an update of CNEL maps is not on the horizon. Staff could discuss the topic with Airport Land Use Commission staff and provide a report to the HEUAC.

Chair Tucker reviewed the subcommittee's consideration of parcels 4, 1, 5, 6, 2, 3, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13- 16, 17, 12, 37-42, 43-69, 70, and 71-76.

Adriana. Fourcher advised that helicopters from a helicopter school and the Orange County Sheriffs Office fly over the area and beneath the departure pattern for small planes. A noise study is needed.

Chair Tucker reviewed the subcommittee's consideration of parcels 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 19, 20, 25-27, 31, 21-24, 28-30, 34-36, and 83.

Adriana Fourcher noted many property owners oppose the residential project proposed for the parking lot of Koll Center Newport.

Melanie Schlotterbeck, representing Olen Properties, indicated parcel 19 is an Olen Properties building and is not part of a residential project. The review of parcels focuses on site selection rather than the integration of sites with their surroundings. She questioned whether sites would be excluded if a property owner did not respond to a request for information. This is an opportunity for the City to partner with landowners and developers to enact a vision for the area. The focus on housing and not mixed uses is a lost opportunity to create a community. The Airport Area could

Housing Element Update Advisory Committee Meeting
October 21, 2020

become a vibrant, walkable, bikeable, mixed -use, urban core that attracts a range of residents, incomes, and opportunities. She encouraged the HEUAC to create a vision for the Airport Area. f. Sites Rundown: West Newport -Mesa
Recommended Action: Review the list of potential sites and discuss feasibility. Solicit input from the public on the list and the Committee's discussion.

Committee Member Selich noted the West Newport Mesa area contains medical office uses, mobile home parks, various densities of residential uses, older single -story industrial/commercial buildings, and a series of institutional uses. The subcommittee has discussed the need to preserve opportunities for smaller -scale industrial and service businesses and recommends a zoning overlay concept as some but not all parcels may convert to residential uses. It is important not to convert everything to residential in order to have a well-balanced land use plan. He reviewed the subcommittee's consideration of parcel 56 (Newport Health Care); parcel 27 (Ebb Tide); parcels 62 and 64 (Road & Track Building); parcel 63 (Coastline College); the private school site north of parcel 50; the City Utilities Yard; the City General Services Yard; parcels 36, 116, 123, and 182 (four mobile home parks); the area bordered by Superior, 1511, and Monrovia; the area bordered by Hospital Road, Placentia, and Superior; and parcels 12, 41, 42, and 49.

Commissioner Member Sandland suggested combining parcels 13 and 11 could result in a designation of potentially feasible. Perhaps staff could send a letter to the property owners inquiring about interest in building housing on the parcels. Committee Member Selich noted the demand for medical office buildings is high at the current time. Committee Member Kiley concurred with sending a letter as the owners can indicate no interest.

Chair Tucker advised that parcels 14 and 44 will be designated infeasible and parcels 13 and 11 will be designated potentially feasible.

Committee Member Selich reviewed the subcommittee's consideration of the small residential parcels between Dana and Flagship; parcels 3, 39, 48, 117, 124, and 228; parcels 74 and 122; parcels 24 and 40; parcels 17 and 51; parcels 2, 10, and 23; parcels 5-7, 9, 18-22, 26, 28, 29, 31- 34, 36, 37, 46, 47, 53, 55, 60, 61, and 227; parcels 4 and 16; and parcels 50 and 59. The HEUAC may wish to consider contacting Hoag Hospital regarding construction of workforce housing in the area.

Deputy Community Development Director Campbell advised that the business located on parcel 47 has some air quality issues and has installed equipment to hopefully resolve the issues.

Committee Member Stevens indicated the business has been reviewed for both ground and soil contamination. The cleanup requirements for industrial uses are different from the requirements for residential uses. The time and expense to clean up the site for residential uses may be prohibitive.

An unidentified speaker appreciated the suggestion to contact Hoag Hospital. The small amount of land available for construction is dismaying. The Mayors' letter may be the best approach to seek a reduction in the RHNA allocation.

Housing Element Update Advisory Committee Meeting
October 21, 2020

VI. COMMITTEE ANNOUNCEMENTS OR MATTERS WHICH MEMBERS WOULD LIKE PLACED ON A FUTURE AGENDA FOR DISCUSSION. ACTION OR REPORT [NON -DISCUSSION ITEM} Chair Tucker noted the subcommittee for housing sites in the remainder of Newport Beach will report at the next meeting. He requested a discussion of inclusionary zoning and fees.

Committee Member Sandland requested a discussion of large employers that could support housing.

VII. ADJOURNMENT — 8:53 p.m.

Next Meeting: November 4, 2020, 6 p.m. in the City Council Chambers.

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE ADVISORY COMMITTEE MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS — 100 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE
WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 4, 2020
REGULAR MEETING — 6 P.M.

I. CALL MEETING TO ORDER — 6 p.m.

II. WELCOME AND ROLL CALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Larry Tucker, Susan DeSantis, Paul Fruchbom, Elizabeth Kiley, Geoffrey LePlastrier, Stephen Sandland, Ed Selich, Debbie Stevens, (Ex Officio Member) Will O'Neill
MEMBERS ABSENT: Jeffrey Bloom (excused)
Staff Present: Community Development Director Seimone Jurjis, Deputy Community Development Director Jim Campbell, Senior Planner Ben Zdeba, Administrative Support Specialist Clarivel Rodriguez
Ill. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON -AGENDA ITEMS
Deputy Community Development Director Jim Campbell reported 47 of 197 jurisdictions located within the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) region have filed appeals of their Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) allocations. Eighteen agencies in Orange County filed appeals. Four agencies, including the City of Newport Beach, filed appeals against the City of Santa Ana. The City has sent a letter to SCAG trying to get sponsorship of legislation that will protect local jurisdictions subject to another agency's oversight.

IV. CONSENT CALENDAR
a. Minutes of the October 21, 2020 Meeting
Recommended Action: Approve and file the minutes of October 21, 2020 Chair Tucker noted Mr. Mosher has submitted corrections to the October 21, 2020 minutes.

Chair Tucker moved, seconded by Committee Member Selich, to approve the minutes of the October 21, 2020 meeting with Mr. Mosher's revisions.

AYE: Tucker, DeSantis, Fruchbom, Kiley, LePlastrier, Sandland, Selich, Stevens NO: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Bloom

Housing Element Update Advisory Committee Meeting
November 4, 2020

V. CURRENT BUSINESS
a. Subcommittee Progress Reports
Recommended Action: Receive verbal updates from each subcommittee, as appropriate.

Chair Tucker advised that the affordable housing subcommittee met to discuss methods for financing and developing affordable housing projects. The subcommittee will prepare a report of potential incentives to generate affordable housing. The Housing Element Update Advisory Committee (HEUAC) may discuss the subcommittee's report during its December 2, 2020 meeting, and the Council will determine which, if any, approach to pursue. b. Sites Rundown: Remainder of Town
Recommended Action: Review the list of potential sites and discuss feasibility. Solicit input from the public on the fist and the Committee's discussion.

Chair Tucker noted the report is in draft form and will be revised and attached to the agenda for the next HEUAC meeting. Before any parcel is approved for inclusion on the sites inventory list, the HEUAC will have to find that housing is a suitable use for the parcel. The intent of the review is to narrow the number of sites that staff will investigate and the HEUAC will consider after receiving public input. Sites that the subcommittee determines are infeasible or does not review may later be determined to be feasible or potentially feasible and may be evaluated for suitability.

Sites may be brought to the subcommittee's attention and may be ultimately included in the sites inventory after public input.

In reply to Committee Member ❑eSantis' questions, Chair Tucker related that defining feasible, potentially feasible, and infeasible is more art than science. Crafting definitions other than those previously stated is not possible. The feasibility determination for any site could change if the site is viewed in the context of a vision for the area. However, the State form requires a listing of sites by parcel number. Committee Member DeSantis believed a site inventory is a critical piece of the Housing Element Update, but neither the HEUAC nor the community can provide adequate input without a vision for the major opportunity areas. Seeking community input without providing a vision is meaningless.

In response to Committee Member Fruchbom's query, Chair Tucker clarified Committee Member DeSantis's position as the HEUAC should be doing more than reviewing sites. In order to begin the planning process, the HEUAC needs to understand the source of traffic trips and where housing can be placed.

Committee Member Stevens noted combining some sites could result in a designation of feasible.

Listing more than one parcel number per site on the State's form is probably acceptable.

Chair Tucker stated undeveloped sites listed in the sites inventory for the fifth cycle are considered feasible for the sixth cycle. He reviewed the designations for Parcels 1, 2, 3, 4, 6-9, 10, 12, 11, 13, 14-17, 18, 19, 20, and 21.1.

Jim Mosher reiterated his request for staff to list the subcommittees and their members on the webslte. He questioned whether the feasibility of sites pertains to technical or economic feasibility; whether income level affects feasibility; the term "remainder of town" when the maps d❑ not show all of Newport Beach outside the Airport Area and West Newport Mesa; and the numbering system for parcels.

Housing Element Update Advisory Committee Meeting
November 4, 2020

Chair Tucker explained that the term "remainder of town" resulted from the subcommittee's request for staff to prepare information for certain sites. The subcommittee may have inadvertently overlooked some sites. He reviewed the designations for the Dunes west of the lagoon and Parcels 22, 23, 24, 25, 36, 39, 40, 42, 43, 44, 35, 34, and 33.

Mayor O'Neill related that he as Mayor will send a formal invitation for the Irvine Company to participate in the Housing Element Update process unless there are strong objections to doing so.

Chair Tucker and Committee Members Kiley, Stevens, Sandland, and DeSantis encouraged Mayor O'Neill to send an invitation. Committee Member DeSantis proposed Mayor O'Neill send invitations to Hoag Hospital, major employers within Newport Center, and churches that own large parcels.

Jim Mosher noted there is no analysis or conclusion for Parcel 37.

Committee Member Kiley clarified that feasibility for the sites pertains to the ability to physically construct housing on a site. The property owners will determine whether housing is financially feasible.

Chair Tucker reviewed the designations for Fashion Island and Parcels 30, 29, 27, 28, 31, 32, 114- 120, 122, 121, 105-109, 104, 110-113, 107 (the County bus depot), 98-102, 103, 91-97, 87-89, 77, 78, 80-86, 57-61, 63-76, 45, 47-56, and 52.

Committee Member Sandland proposed revising the designation for Parcels 98-102 and 103 to feasible. The Irvine Company may be willing to discuss Parcels 46-54.

Debra Allen, Harbor View Hills Community Association President, reported the sight plane ordinance applies to certain areas and limits building heights in those areas.

Jim Mosher remarked that buildings on Parcels 45 and 47-56 should not obstruct views from Fashion Island Circle.

Chair Tucker reviewed the designations for Parcels 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, and 128.

Committee Member Sandland suggested the subcommittee explore the parcels across Pacific Coast Highway from Parcel 22, the City's Avon parking lot, and the parking lot for Mariner's Square.

Committee Member Selich advised that Lower Castaways Park is deed restricted to parkland.

Chair Tucker noted the parking lot for Mariner's Square is subject to a height limit and located in the Coastal Zone. In addition, the parking would have to be replaced.

Committee Member Kiley indicated a number of lots along the Peninsula and Bay are included in the Housing Element for the fifth cycle and covered by paragraph 1 of the subcommittee's report.

Jim Mosher requested the maps reflect the sites listed in the fifth cycle. One or two housing units could be built on a small lot; therefore, small lots should not be deemed infeasible based on size alone.

Charles Klobe proposed contacting a developer that is constructing a residential project on a closed landfill to determine if housing can be built on Parcel 128.

Housing Element Update Advisory Committee Meeting
November 4, 2020

Johnny advised that night lighting around the Library and the Orange County Transportation Authority bus depot needs to be brighter.

Mary Ann Soden encouraged the HEUAC to consider projects that provide housing for very -low, low, and moderate -income households.

Chair Tucker reported Parcels 45-54, Avon parking lot, and the Mariners Square Parking Lot will be added to the list as potentially feasible, and he will inquire regarding construction of residential units on a closed landfill.

In answer to Committee Member DeSantis' query, Chair Tucker indicated the subcommittee will explore an exchange of zoning for land on which 100-percent affordable housing may be built.

Committee Member DeSantis encouraged the affordable rousing subcommittee to explore those possibilities so that the bulk of affordable units is not provided through inclusionary zoning.

Chair Tucker requested staff add the sites from the fifth cycle Housing Element to the map.

In reply to Committee Member Sandland's inquiries, Chair Tucker related that staff may prepare a tabulation of acreage from sites designated feasible and potentially feasible after learning of property owners' interest in developing housing. Deputy Community Development Director Campbell advised that staff plans to send letters to property owners in the next few weeks and follow up with property owners in an effort to obtain their responses by the end of the year.

C. Site Suitability Input and Community Engagement
Recommended Action: Receive an overview of the outreach plan moving forward, including how the community will be engaged on the suitability of the sites that are identified as feasible or potentially feasible. Provide feedback and direction to staff and the consultant on the outreach plan.

Senior Planner Ben Zdeba reviewed public engagement opportunities in October through HEUAC, City Council, and Planning Commission meetings and a virtual community workshop and in November through HEUAC, City Council, and Planning Commission meetings, two virtual housing suitability workshops, and a virtual Circulation Element workshop. The housing suitability workshops will begin to consider density, which has policy implications. The public will be able to comment verbally and through the chat box and to respond to polls during the housing and Circulation Element workshops.

In answer to Committee Member DeSantis' questions, Senior Planner Zdeba advised that the public may provide feedback regarding parcels identified by the subcommittee and other parcels during the workshops. On the Newport Together website, community members may place pins on a GIS map to indicate their preferences for locations of housing types. If the HEUAC agrees with the plans for November workshops, staff will begin an extensive promotion of the workshops through social media and email blasts. Committee Member DeSantis suggested posts and emails contain a link to Newport Together and information about providing feedback through the website.

Senior Planner Zdeba noted a potential social media campaign to drive more traffic to the website.

The City's appeal of the RHNA allocation should be resolved in February 2021. If the City's appeal is successful, the City's allocation could theoretically be reduced by half. Committee Member DeSantis commented that focusing messaging on the needs of the community rather than a State mandate could generate more community interest and feedback.

Housing Element Update Advisory Committee Meeting
November 4, 2020

In response to committee Member Stevens' inquiries, Senior Planner Zdeba indicated the potential housing sites will be divided between the two housing workshops. Activities utilized during the workshops will be available on the website for the public to provide feedback after the workshops.

Staff has prepared a flyer promoting the workshops to distribute in the community.

Chair Tucker remarked that "none of the above" will not be a response to questions about locations for housing because the City has to find enough sites to comply with the RHNA allocation.

Jim Mosher inquired whether the workshops will extend for the full two hours. He suggested staff publish questions from the workshops ahead of the workshops so that community members have time to consider their responses. Community members are less likely to provide feedback if they feel it will not have a practical effect on HEUAC discussions and decisions.

Debra Allen suggested information for the workshops include a list of sites to be discussed in each workshop and instructions for participating in polling and verbal and chat box comments.

Senior Planner Zdeba clarified that flyers will include a list of areas to be discussed in each workshop. Discussion topics for the workshops will be published on the website prior to the workshops. The workshops will extend for two hours unless the public completes their questions and comments in less than two hours.

Mary Ann Soden concurred with requests for publication of workshop information and suggested staff promote the workshop in print media and allow the community to participate in workshops from the Community Room.

Chair Tucker advised that the HEUAC will not meet on November 18, 2020.

VI. ADJOURNMENT — 8:04 p.m.

Next Meeting: November 18, 2020, 6 p.m. in the City Council Chambers.

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE ADVISORY COMMITTEE MINUTES
ZOOM
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 2, 2020
REGULAR MEETING — 6 P.M.

CALL MEETING TO ORDER — 6 p.m.

WELCOME AND ROLL CALL
MEMBERS PRESENT (remote): Chair Larry Tucker, Jeffrey Bloom, Susan DeSantis, Paul Fruchbom, Elizabeth Kiley, Geoffrey LePlastrier, Stephen Sandland, Ed Selich, Debbie Stevens
MEMBERS ABSENT: (Ex Officio Member) Will O'Neill (excused) Staff Present (remote): Community Development Director Seimone Jurjis, Principal Planner Jaime Murillo, Senior Planner Ben Zdeba, Administrative Support Technician Amanda Lee

PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON -AGENDA ITEMS
David Tanner indicated the public has been told that they will get answers to their questions at this meeting, but there is not an agenda item for this topic. He inquired as to when the public will have an opportunity to ask questions and receive answers.

Hoiyin Ip remarked that virtual meetings are missing the energy of in -person meetings and suggested more interaction with the public during workshops and activities before and after workshops to get participants thinking about housing topics.

IV. CONSENT CALENDAR
a. Minutes of the November 4, 2020 Meeting
Recommended Action: Approve and file the minutes of November 4, 2020 Committee Member Sandland corrected the third paragraph of page 4 to read "Chair Tucker reported Parcels 46-54, the Avon parking lot, and the Mariners Square parking lot will be added to the list as potentially feasible, and he will inquire regarding construction of residential units on a closed landfill."
Chair Tucker moved, seconded by Committee Member Sandland, to approve the minutes of the November 4, 2020 meeting as amended.

AYE: Tucker, Bloom, DeSantis, Fruchbom, Kiley, LePlastrier, Sandland, Selich, Stevens NO: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None

Housing Element Update Advisory Committee Meeting
December 2, 2020

V. CURRENT BUSINESS
a. Subcommittee Progress Reports
Recommended Action: Receive verbal updates from each subcommittee, as appropriate.

Chair Tucker reported the sites subcommittees have completed their work temporarily. The notes for sites in the remainder of town have been revised. The affordable housing subcommittee met on October 27, 2020 to discuss the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) numbers and preparation of a full report to the Housing Element Update Advisory Committee (HEUAC). The purpose of the report is to educate the HEUAC regarding the various methods for financing and developing affordable housing projects. Understanding the affordable housing business will help the HEUAC reach a recommendation for the Council. Chair Tucker indicated he has prepared a first draft of the report and sent it to staff for review. He will modify the report after staff's review, if necessary, and circulate it to subcommittee members for revision. The report should be complete in December.

In response to Chair Tucker's question, Senior Planner Ben Zdeba advised that staff is preparing maps containing all sites and a list of properties from the fifth cycle that have not been developed.

Staff hopes to provide both at the next meeting as a "receive and file" agenda item.

Committee Member Fruchbom related that he read information indicating Shopoff sold an acre in Uptown Newport for 66 luxury condominiums at an average price of almost $400,000 per unit or more than $24 million for the real property. If the information is true and the City can create land through increased densities, the land value of the units will be extraordinarily high and should allow the City to extract some reasonable fees for added density.

Charles Klobe added that the Uptown Newport project is entitled for 66 luxury condominiums with no requirement for anything less than above moderate, which should increase the price of land.

The entitlements that Picerne is seeking for the 4400 Von Karman project only allows 5% of the total units to be low-income units while the apartments will be market rate.

Chair Tucker recalled Shopoff building a fair number of affordable units in the first phase of the project and Picerne seeking a density bonus of 20 percent in exchange for either 10 percent low- income units or 5 percent very -low-income units. Picerne chose 5 percent very -low-income units.

David Tanner asked about the validity of statements that staff is considering placing housing within the 65 decibel (dB) CNEL contour and, if true, the rationale for doing that. It would seem to open the City to litigation.
b. Virtual Workshops Recap
Recommended Action: Discuss the virtual workshops so far and takeaways from them.

Receive an overview of the outreach plan timeline moving forward and provide feedback to staff and the consultant.

Senior Planner Zdeba reported the November 16 and 17, 2020, site suitability workshops obtained community input regarding potential density, scale, and attributes that could be applied to sites and the suitability of housing on the sites. Forty to 50 people attended each night, and dialog with the public was greater during the second workshop. The November 23 Circulation Element workshop included a good discussion with the community and solicited good feedback.

Housing Element Update Advisory Committee Meeting
December 2, 2020

Jenna Tourje, Kearns & West, advised that the public provided good information through the chat feature, and she shared that information with all participants during the workshop.

Chair Tucker noted participants could offer multiple comments and were not limited to one 3-minute time period. Staff and the consultants have addressed the shortcomings of the first workshop.

In reply to Committee Member Sandland's inquiries, Ms. Tourje indicated recordings of workshops are available on newporttogether.com. The team is preparing an after -action report that will include key comments from the workshops and printouts of comments from the chat feature. The report should be ready in the next week. The team can capture comments regarding specific sites.

In answer to Committee Member DeSantis' queries, Ms. Tourje related that the team has been promoting the Newport Together website through ads, emails, and campaigns. Seventeen people have provided input on the map. Many people have visited the website without providing feedback on parcels. One thousand thirty-six unique IP addresses have visited the website over the past month. Currently, there is nothing tangible to which the public can respond. Senior Planner Zdeba added that the next utility bill will include a postcard regarding the January Circulation Element workshop. Hopefully, the postcard will drive a little more traffic to Newport Together and generate input. Staff is exploring contacting homeowners' associations (HOA) in the vicinity of the affected areas to generate interest.

Deborah Allen, Harbor View Hills Community Association President, commented that staff has attempted to make the process as transparent as possible and that she has heard good feedback from participants in the second workshop. Contacting HOAs with a list of sites should generate interest and input.

Nancy Scarbrough believed the format of the two workshops was much more interactive than previous workshops. Twelve to 13 of the participants were staff and committee members, and another ten were people who regularly attend public meetings. Some participants told her they left the workshops early because they did not feel their opinions would affect the outcome.

Chair Tucker advised that he sent an email about the workshops to 75 people who were likely to attend, and one email recipient attended the first night.

Adriana Fourcher encouraged the HEUAC to engage business owners in discussions of Airport Area sites.

Committee Member DeSantis suggested presenting information about specific sites to HOAs interested in those sites. Chair Tucker indicated the HEUAC needs to narrow the list of sites before talking to HOAs.

C. Housing Element Update Progress Documents
Recommended Action: Discuss, receive, and file.

David Barquist, Kimley-Horn and Associates, reviewed the five basic components of the Housing Element Update. Drafts of the Community Profile and Review of Past Performance components have been prepared.

Chair Tucker advised that this item will come back at the next meeting for additional thoughts and comments because of the substantial amount information contained in the documents.

Housing Element Update Advisory Committee Meeting
December 2, 2020

Mr. Barquist indicated there will be a number of opportunities to comment on the draft documents as the process progresses. For the Community Profile, the Government Code requires an assessment of housing needs and an inventory of resources and constraints, specifically an analysis of the population, employment trends, and household characteristics. The analysis tells stories about the community and assists with the development of policies and programs that address needs. The Review of Past Performance document evaluates the 2014-2021 Housing Element goals, objectives, policies, and programs to determine whether they contributed to attaining the State's housing goals and were effective in attaining the community's goals and objectives, and to determine the progress of the City in implementing the Housing Element. Past performance is a good basis for including policies from the fifth cycle in the sixth cycle. Many policy changes will relate to new and emerging needs.

In response to Committee Member Stevens' question, Mr. Barquist related that census data will not be available for this analysis. Much of the information is based on projections.

In reply to Committee Member DeSantis' inquiries, Mr. Barquist stated the HEUAC can discuss specific policies and explore options at any time. The subcommittees and staff have already begun the discussions. Chair Tucker added that the HEUAC and the public need to understand affordable housing in order to stimulate ideas about meeting the RHNA allocation. The HEUAC may not need to meet with affordable housing developers because one is a committee member. Talking with a developer may not be appropriate as developers will compete for any sites the update process generates. Committee Member DeSantis anticipated the HEUAC needing to explore the parameters of an inclusionary zoning policy. Chair Tucker indicated committee members and the public can ask questions about inclusionary zoning when the affordable housing subcommittee presents its report.

Adriana Fourcher noted the population growth forecast for the City of Newport Beach is 8.4 percent over the next 20 years. Meeting the RHNA numbers may result in more housing units than are actually needed. Building housing in the Airport Area may displace jobs.

Chair Tucker noted the HEUAC is tasked with complying with the RHNA allocation.

Jim Mosher commented that if the HEUAC oversees the writing of the Housing Element with public guidance, having an outline of the new Housing Element would be valuable. Misstatements of facts in the two documents detract from the credibility of the documents.

Hoiyin Ip appreciated the interesting presentation.
d. RHNA Sites Identification Strategy
Recommended Action: Receive an overview of a strategy to comply with the RHNA allocation through the sites inventory and alternative housing opportunities.

Mr. Barquist advised that Table B in the November 24, 2020 memo contains incorrect information.

In the very low column, projects in the pipeline should be 135, the total should be 146, and the net remaining need should be 1,307. The text below the table will be revised accordingly. The City of Newport Beach has been allocated 4,834 housing units and has to identify sites that can accommodate that allocation through the planning period. After subtracting existing capacity, projects in the pipeline, and accessory dwelling units (ADU), the City's net remaining RHNA allocation is 1,307 very -low-income units, 831 low-income units, 1,022 moderate -income units, and

Housing Element Update Advisory Committee Meeting
December 2, 2020

0 above -moderate -income units. The next step is to determine candidate sites that will subsequently undergo evaluation of their suitability for housing. The HEUAC has identified a number of candidate sites, and letters have been sent to the property owners to determine their interest in redeveloping their properties. A number of property owners have responded to the letters. Next, the net remaining need will be refined based on each property owner's interest in redevelopment, site conditions and constraints, statutory limitations and constraints, and prioritization of sites. Finally, the HEUAC, staff, and the community will begin to create policy and programmatic solutions to meet the unaccommodated need.

In reply to Chair Tucker's questions, Mr. Barquist reported the number of housing units generated by projects in the pipeline is correct, but the numbers are fluid due to assumptions. The law states that cities must identify RHNA obligations by income category, but it does not require a developer to identify affordability categories when developing a project. The City is obligated to ensure there is no net loss when projects are developed. If there is a net loss, the City has 120 days to provide rezoning that accommodates the net loss. Essentially, the City needs to accommodate more units than its RHNA obligation to avoid the net loss scenario. The California Department of Housing and Community Development's (HCD) general recommendation is to plan for 10 to 30 percent more units than allocated. If the HEUAC determines sites will not accommodate the full amount of growth, the Housing Element may contain a program of actions to address the deficiency. At the time of adoption, the Housing Element may identify all sites to accommodate the RHNA allocation or include a policy mechanism to identify all sites within three years.

Committee Member Stevens noted the City will need to create policies that encourage developers to include more units in the very -low and low-income categories in their projects.

In answer to Committee Member Sandland's queries, Mr. Barquist related that sites will be divided into the four categories. The sites inventory will list the seven descriptors for each site, and the required HCD form will provide the information.

Committee Member Sandland stated some sites will have to be identified for 100 percent affordable housing in order to meet the RHNA allocation.

Committee Member Kiley understood the HEUAC would identify sites, and the Council would develop policies, including a policy to fund 100 percent affordable housing. The City previously had a program that required developers to pay a fee for luxury residential developments, and the City used the funds for affordable housing. The City of Irvine has a similar program.

Chair Tucker noted affordable housing projects typically provide 50 or so units rather than 400 units. Financing for 100 percent affordable housing projects is more complicated than financing for any other type of affordable housing project. In -lieu fees are not sufficient to construct the number of affordable units for which the fees are paid.

Committee Member Fruchbom advised that more than $0.5 billion would be needed to fund the required number of affordable housing units. The shortfall for each affordable housing unit is about $250,000. The problem is exacerbated by higher costs and rents in Newport Beach.

Chair Tucker highlighted the difficulties of meeting the allocation for affordable units.

Committee Member Selich viewed the excess number of above -moderate units as increasing the total number of units needed. As developers build mainly above -moderate units and few very low,

Housing Element Update Advisory Committee Meeting
December 2, 2020

low and moderate units, the City will be in a never-ending cycle of zoning for the no net loss scenario.

Committee Member Sandland remarked that the City will have to look to property owners with other economic interests. Perhaps employers and churches will be willing to give up a portion of their properties for housing in exchange for a concession.

In response to Committee Member DeSantis' inquiry, Mr. Barquist reported the total number of ADUs was based on the number of ADUs constructed in the City. HCD provides criteria for affordability of ADUs located in the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) region. The intent is to expand the opportunities for construction of ADUs through policies and programmatic enhancements.

Committee Member DeSantis noted Vancouver has imposed a tax on vacant units to fund affordable housing and has increased the tax three times in the past 12 months.

In answer to Committee Member Bloom's query, Mr. Barquist advised that the sites inventory does not have to include the feasibility of developing a site. Whether or not a site is developed as planned comes into play with the no net loss scenario.

Adriana Fourcher believed a tax or fee imposed to fund affordable housing would be passed to consumers. Imposing a tax on vacant homes conflicts with the City's concerns about VRBO and Airbnb. Property owners pay property taxes and should not have to pay a fee or rent their home if they choose to take an extended vacation.

David Tanner suggested the HEUAC develop estimates of in -lieu fees for units in the different affordability levels. He inquired about the penalty for the Housing Element not attaining its goals.

Chair Tucker indicated the answer to Mr. Tanner's question is probably unknown at this point.

Nancy Scarbrough asked if Mayor O'Neill has contacted the City of Irvine about sharing information with the City. Chair Tucker indicated he has not received any information about it.

Jim Mosher remarked that Table B seems to reinforce the historical anomaly that Newport Beach has great difficulty producing moderate housing units. He inquired whether the production of moderate -income housing in Newport Beach is a real problem, whether the barriers are known, and whether it can be corrected. Chair Tucker suggested increasing density to 50 to 60 units per acre may generate moderate housing.
e. Formation of an Additional Sites Subcommittee
Recommended Action: Form an additional sites subcommittee to review the potential for housing sites within the 65 dB CNEL contour in the Airport Area.

Chair Tucker reported a property owner has expressed interest in developing housing on his property located within the 65 dB CNEL area. Building housing within the 65 dB CNEL is not unlawful, but the interior noise level must be mitigated to below the noise threshold. The Mayor has suggested a subcommittee explore the feasibility of developing properties within the 65 dB CNEL contour.

Chair Tucker appointed Committee Members Sandland and DeSantis to the Additional Sites Subcommittee.

Housing Element Update Advisory Committee Meeting
December 2, 2020

David Tanner advised that the noise standard for the exterior living environment is 65 dB and for the interior living environment is 45 dB. He suggested the Additional Sites Subcommittee consult with a noise consultant or the City's CEQA consultant to learn the law on this topic. This will result in nothing more than litigation for the City.

Committee Member Sandland was aware of apartment buildings being constructed within the 65 dB CNEL and adjacent to freeways in other cities.

Fred Fourcher indicated his office is located beneath the flight path of the left runway at John Wayne Airport and outside the 65 dB CNEL area. He cannot have his windows open and conduct phone calls because aircraft noise is too loud. The area is not hospitable for people attempting to enjoy the outdoors.

VI. ADJOURNMENT — 8:25 p.m.

Next Meeting: January 6, 2021, 6 p.m. in the City Council Chambers.

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE ADVISORY COMMITTEE MINUTES

ZOOM MEETING, NEWPORT BEACH, CA
WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 20, 2021
REGULAR MEETING — 6 P.M.

CALL MEETING TO ORDER — 6 p.m.

II. WELCOME AND ROLL CALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Larry Tucker, Jeffrey Bloom, Susan DeSantis, Elizabeth Kiley, Geoffrey LePlastrier, Stephen Sandland, Debbie Stevens, (Ex Officio Member) Will O'Neill
MEMBERS ABSENT: Paul Fruchbom
Staff Present: Community Development Director Seimone Jurjis, Deputy Community Development Director Jim Campbell, Principal Planner Jaime Murillo, Senior Planner Ben Zdeba, Administrative Support Specialist Clarivel Rodriguez
III. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON -AGENDA ITEMS
None
IV. CONSENT CALENDAR
a. Minutes of the December 2, 2020 Meeting
Recommended Action: Approve and file the minutes of December 2, 2020.

Committee Member Sandland moved, seconded by Committee Member DeSantis to approve the minutes of the December 2, 2020 meeting as presented.

AYE: Tucker, Bloom, DeSantis, Kiley, LePlastrier, Sandland, Selich, Stevens NO: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Fruchbom
V. CURRENT BUSINESS
a. Subcommittee Progress Reports
Recommended Action: Receive verbal updates from each subcommittee, as appropriate.

In answer to Chair Tucker's inquiry, Senior Planner Ben Zdeba advised that the update of parcel numbers for the map of the remainder of town and information for the 65 decibel (dB) Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) subcommittee hopefully will be ready on January 21, 2021.

Chair Tucker indicated that he will finalize reports for the Airport Area, the Hoag industrial area, and the remainder of town and ask staff to attach them to an agenda. Committee Member Sandland

Housing Element Update Advisory Committee Meeting
January 20, 2021

will report regarding the safety zones and the noise contour of the 65 dB CNEL area later in the meeting, and the Housing Element Update Advisory Committee (HEUAC) will review sites in the 65 dB CNEL at the next meeting.

In response to Committee Member Stevens' inquiry, Committee Member Sandland stated there are approximately 200 properties in the 65 dB CNEL area. b. Housing Element Update Progress Documents
Recommended Action: Discuss, receive, and file.

Chair Tucker recalled that committee members did not have sufficient time to review the voluminous Community Profile and Review of Past Performance documents provided for the December 2, 2020 meeting. Consequently, he had requested this agenda item for committee members to provide comments and ask questions.

C. Update on Property Owner Responses
Recommended Action: Receive an update from staff on the progress being made with receiving responses from property owners of properties identified as either "potentially feasible" or "feasible."
Chair Tucker recalled the HEUAC's desire to learn of property owners' interest in redeveloping their properties prior to discussing the suitability of properties for redevelopment.

Deputy Community Development Director Jim Campbell reported that the letter attached to the staff report was sent to several hundred property owners and some owners of mobile homes. Staff has received many calls and some emails from owners.

Senior Planner Zdeba advised that he informs mobile homeowners who respond to the letter about the Newport Together website to be involved in the process. Staff sent the letter to about 500 people, including mobile homeowners. Of note, Tait has expressed interest in redeveloping the Coyote Canyon landfill site. Some property owners have indicated no interest in redeveloping their properties. Staff does not attempt to change the property owners' minds but ensures they understand the process and the opportunities. Staff has received mixed interest from property owners in the Airport Area, Newport Center, Corporate Plaza, and the Dover Westcliff area. Staff is compiling the responses in a spreadsheet.

In reply to Chair Tucker's inquiry, Senior Planner Zdeba estimated 50-75 property owners and mobile homeowners have responded to the letter.

Deputy Community Development Director Campbell indicated that he has scheduled a meeting with Tait Engineering to discuss preliminary concept plans and densities for the Coyote Canyon site. The County of Orange (County), the landfill property owner, submitted a letter expressing support for the effort. Russ Fluter, who owns the Palisades Tennis Club site and several properties in Mariners' Mile, has expressed interest in redevelopment and offered to contact the Hyatt Regency about the adjacent golf course. Owners of some of the mobile home parks on 151h Street are interested in increased density. The owners of Banning Ranch continue to discuss the possibility of public acquisition of Banning Ranch for open space. If that does not occur, the owners will probably be interested in a project. Property owners in Cannery Village have responded to the letter. While the lots in Cannery Village are small, they can accommodate at least one or two

Housing Element Update Advisory Committee Meeting
January 20, 2021

residential units. The consultant will use the spreadsheet of property owners' responses in their analysis of all sites to produce a draft list for the HEUAC in February.

In answer to Chair Tucker's questions, Deputy Community Development Director Campbell related that staff can send follow-up letters to property owners who have not responded and whose properties can accommodate a significant number of units. For the February 17, 2021 meeting, staff can provide a list of acreages based on parcel sizes and propose some densities for discussion purposes. Based on Tait's representations, the 32-acre site at Coyote Canyon is technically neither a landfill nor habitat area. Staff is attempting to confirm that it is not included in a Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP) / Habitat Conservation Plan.

In reply to Committee Member Sandland's and Chair Tucker's questions, Deputy Community Development Director Campbell stated he will contact Newport -Mesa Unified School District (NMUSD) about its property adjacent to Banning Ranch. Most of the NMUSD property is located within the city limits. A letter was not sent to Hoag Hospital, but staff will contact Hoag immediately.

Senior Planner Zdeba clarified that letters were sent to NMUSD and Hoag Hospital.

Council Member O'Neill requested staff notify him of the date of the HEUAC's discussion of the Coyote Canyon site as he needs to ensure community members are aware of the discussion.

In response to Chair Tucker's inquiry, Deputy Community Development Director Campbell explained that staff intends to submit a draft sites inventory with a progress draft of the Housing Element to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) in mid -May.

David Barquist, Kimley-Horn and Associates, reported the submission needs to contain all requisite documents and analyses and should contain the majority of the City's policy direction.

In reply to Committee Member DeSantis' query, Deputy Community Development Director Campbell indicated a letter was sent to the owners of the Newport Beach Golf Course, and they have expressed interest in redeveloping the golf course for housing, particularly the portion located south of Irvine Avenue. If the site is deemed suitable, its priority may be lower because of its proximity to John Wayne Airport (JWA).

Dorothy Kraus requested the name of the entity that has expressed interest in developing Banning Ranch and notification of discussions with Newport Banning Ranch (NBR) regarding a possible project.

Community Development Director Seimone Jurjis clarified that staff is actively discussing some level of development on the property with its owner, Newport Banning Ranch, LLC, as a backup plan if public acquisition of the property does not occur.

Nancy Scarbrough noted the Banning Ranch and Coyote Canyon sites are located in the county and inquired regarding the City or the County counting any housing units developed on the sites toward the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) numbers.

Chair Tucker believed the County owns the Coyote Canyon site, but it is in the city. The Banning Ranch site is located almost entirely in the county. Deputy Community Development Director Campbell clarified that housing on the portion of the Banning Ranch site located in the city can be counted toward the City's RHNA. If the City annexes the remainder of the site, the City and the County will negotiate RHNA issues.

Housing Element Update Advisory Committee Meeting
January 20, 2021

In answer to Chair Tucker's queries, Deputy Community Development Director Campbell explained that in order to count housing approved for the Banning Ranch site, the City has to show substantial evidence that the housing will be built during the planning cycle. Given the Coastal Commission's oversight of the site and annexation issues, convincing HCD that housing will be built may be difficult. If the number of sites for housing is limited, development of the Banning Ranch site may have to be considered. The City, Newport Banning Ranch, and the Coastal Commission are discussing possible development of the least environmentally constrained portion of the site. He indicated he has not received a response from the Irvine Company, but the Irvine Company may have responded to Community Development Director Jurjis or the Mayor.

Council Member O'Neill advised that the Irvine Company contacted the City Manager, who requested the Irvine Company respond in writing.
d. Affordable Housing Subcommittee Memorandum
Recommended Action: Discuss the draft memorandum and receive comments from the Committee and the public.

Chair Tucker reported affordable housing is a very complicated issue. Virtually all affordable housing projects are tied to 9% tax credits, which are allocated to each state on a per capita basis.

Each state allocates the tax credits to projects. Affordable housing projects compete for a limited number of tax credits and typically seek multiple funding sources. Generally, a subsidy or incentive offsets the reduced rent charged for an affordable unit. There are currently two federal programs and one State program. Inclusionary housing ordinances are cities' efforts to encourage affordable housing projects through granting entitlements, waiving fees, and/or altering development standards. For an affordable housing project to be financially viable, the land cost has to be very low. The no net loss law requires a jurisdiction to account for affordable units that are listed on an approved sites inventory but not built as listed. The report contains policies and potential strategy alternatives for the Council's and public's consideration. HCD has determined that 68% of the accessory dwelling units (ADU) projected for the planning cycle may be credited toward the City's lower -income RHNA number. The City will have to achieve a performance metric for construction of ADUs or face repercussions.

Principal Planner Jaime Murillo advised that since 2018, 78 ADU applications have been approved or are under review, which is approximately 25 ADUs per year. Over the next eight -year cycle, the projection is about 200 ADUs. The projection will have to be supported by a policy that aggressively promotes and incentivizes ADUs. Ultimately, HCD will want the City to commit to a monitoring program and provide a backup plan if it fails to meet estimates for ADUs. HCD will accept some assumed affordability rates for ADUs.

Chair Tucker remarked that if the City seeks a higher number of ADUs, it will need to implement a program to promote ADUs. Some residents may be unhappy with the program if a neighbor constructs an ADU such that it obstructs the light and air on their property.

Committee Member Kiley noted the projection of 25 ADUs per year does not consider the State law that eliminates most restrictions on ADU construction. Principal Planner Murillo explained that staff is debating the impact of the law on the number of ADUs with HCD. The number of ADU applications was small in 2018, increased in 2019, and was quite large in 2020. Staff has considered using the trend to exponentially increase the projection for ADUs. If the projection is aggressively large, HCD will probably require monitoring and support for the projection.

Housing Element Update Advisory Committee Meeting
January 20, 2021

Committee Member Stevens appreciated the affordable housing report because it simplifies a complex issue. In response to her inquiry, Chair Tucker related that the total amount of 9% tax credits is negotiated through Congress. Federal and state governments place regulations on the use of the tax credits.

Committee Member Bloom related that Amazon recently announced a $560 million investment in the preservation and protection of 2,300 units in the Seattle area. That is a subsidy of approximately $243,000 per unit and demonstrates the magnitude of subsidies required for affordable housing.

Council Member O'Neill stated the City's RHNA for very -low-income units is 1,451. Using a loss of value of $494,000 per unit, constructing the RHNA requirement will require almost $717 million in subsidies. Chair Tucker clarified that the loss of value analysis in the report does not include the value enhancement of the City granting entitlements for projects. A loss of value analysis is nuanced and needs to be conducted for each project. The relevant point is that there is a limit to the number of affordable units a project can provide and remain financially viable.

Hoiyin Ip remarked that some residents may not appreciate having a 100% affordable housing project in their neighborhood. The California Energy Commission is hosting a conference about sustainable affordable housing, and one of the topics is funding.

Chair Tucker clarified that 100% affordable housing projects and projects with a mix of housing individually do not provide a large number of affordable units. In order to achieve the number of affordable units in the RHNA, the City will need many market -rate units to subsidize the affordable units.

In answer to Committee Member DeSantis' inquiry, Principal Planner Murillo indicated a property owner related to him a cost of around $80,000 to convert a garage to an ADU. New construction could cost as much as $200,0004300,000. Mr. Barquist advised that an estimate of $10,000 for an ADU conversion is extremely low.
e. Update Schedule Moving Forward
Recommended Action: Receive an overview of the schedule moving forward and discuss, as necessary.

Deputy Community Development Director Campbell reported on February 17, 2021, the HEUAC will begin the policy discussion. A virtual public workshop is scheduled for February 24. Staff will present a draft Housing Element Update to the HEUAC on March 17, the public on March 22, the Planning Commission on April 7, and the Council on April 27. Once HCD provides its comments on the progress draft, staff can schedule additional meetings.

In response to Chair Tucker's questions, Deputy Community Development Director Campbell advised that the February 17 sites analysis discussion will begin with entitled projects that are eligible for the Housing Element Update and a placeholder for ADUs and move to sites that can provide units to fill the gap between the RHNA requirement and the number of units provided by entitled projects and ADUs. The discussion will include property owner interest, densities, and constraints. The progress draft needs to correlate policies and the availability of sites. HCD may have difficulty understanding the breadth of housing policies if the sites inventory is not part of the progress draft. The sites inventory will be refined over the summer. Also on February 17, staff will present an initial narrative and outline of the project description for the Environmental Impact Report (EIR).

Housing Element Update Advisory Committee Meeting
January 20, 2021

Chair Tucker recommended scheduling an HEUAC meeting on March 3, 2021 to continue discussion of the sites inventory and obtain additional public feedback.

Committee Member Sandland suggested moving discussion of the 65 dB CNEL area, including safety zones and the contour, to February 3 to provide more time for the sites analysis discussion on February 17.

In reply to Committee Member Stevens' question, Principal Planner Murillo reported the City's appeal of Santa Ana's RHNA allocation was heard and denied on Friday. The City's appeal of its RHNA allocation was heard and denied on January 19. Of the many appeals filed, the County of Riverside's appeal is the only one to be granted thus far, and it may result in a small increase in the City's allocation. The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) has not yet determined if it will litigate the State's regional allocations.

Committee Member Kiley suggested discussions with the Irvine Company about further development of Newport Center should be a priority. Deputy Community Development Director Campbell indicated receipt of the Irvine Company's letter, depending on its content, will open discussions between the Mayor, Community Development Director Jurjis, or Deputy Community Development Director Campbell and the Irvine Company's executive management. Council Member O'Neill clarified that the Irvine Company's communication with the City Manager appears to indicate the Irvine Company does not intend to engage significantly in a discussion of the City's RHNA allocation. Consequently, the City Manager requested a written response.

Committee Member DeSantis requested an update regarding housing legislation that takes effect in 2021 and requested staff update and provide the memorandum of housing legislation prepared for the General Plan Update Steering Committee.

Deputy Community Development Director Campbell advised that staff will explore updating the housing legislation memorandum. An update regarding recent legislation can be scheduled for a future meeting.

Chair Tucker preferred a legislative update focus on legislation that affects site selection and the sites inventory.

VI. ADJOURNMENT — 7:49 p.m.

Next Meeting: February 3, 2021, 6:00 p.m. via Zoom.

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE ADVISORY COMMITTEE MINUTES

ZOOM MEETING, NEWPORT BEACH, CA
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 3, 2021
REGULAR MEETING — 6 P.M.

CALL MEETING TO ORDER — 6 p.m.

II. WELCOME AND ROLL CALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Larry Tucker, Jeffrey Bloom, Susan DeSantis, Paul Fruchbom, Elizabeth Kiley, Geoffrey LePlastrier, Stephen Sandland, Debbie Stevens Qoined at 6:06 p.m.), Will O'Neill (Ex Officio) (joined at 6:03 p.m.)
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
Staff Present: Community Development Director Seimone Jurjis, Deputy Community Development Director Jim Campbell, Principal Planner Jaime Murillo, Senior Planner Ben Zdeba, Administrative Support Specialist Clarivel Rodriguez
III. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON -AGENDA ITEMS
Jim Mosher expressed surprise to learn of an unscheduled vacancy on the Housing Element Update Advisory Committee (Committee) and the qualifications for the position. The enabling resolution does not contain a position with the qualifications listed for the vacant position. Also, the enabling resolution designates the current Mayor as the Council's representative to the Committee, and Council Member O'Neill is no longer Mayor.

IV. CONSENT CALENDAR
a. Minutes of January 20, 2021 Meeting
Recommended Action: Approve and file the minutes of January 20, 2021.

Chair Tucker moved, seconded by Committee Member Bloom to approve the minutes of the January 20, 2021 meeting with revisions proposed by Jim Mosher, Hoiyin Ip, and Chair Tucker.

AYE: Tucker, Bloom, DeSantis, Fruchbom, Kiley, LePlastrier, Sandland NO: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Stevens
V. CURRENT BUSINESS
a. Subcommittee Progress Reports
Recommended Action: Receive verbal updates from each subcommittee, as appropriate.

Housing Element Update Advisory Committee Meeting
February 3, 2021

Chair Tucker reported he provides the affordable housing memorandum to parties who contact him about affordable housing. Based on comments submitted to him, he will revise the memorandum and circulate it to the Affordable Housing Subcommittee for approval. In addition, he received requested information for the memorandum pertaining to sites in the remainder of town after the agenda deadline for the current meeting. Updated memoranda will be placed on the agenda for the next Committee meeting.
b. Feasibility of Housing in the 65 dB CNEL and Subcommittee Action Report Recommended Action: Receive an update from Committee Members Sandland and DeSantis on their exploration of properties as being "potentially feasible, " "feasible, " or "infeasible" within the 65 dB CNEL areas near the John Wayne Airport. Discuss the analysis prepared and receive and file.

Committee Member Sandland advised that the subcommittee only considered parcels that were physically able to accommodate housing in place of or in addition to the current use of the parcels.

Parcels were designated as feasible, potentially feasible, and infeasible. He provided the subcommittee's criteria for designating sites as feasible, potentially feasible, and infeasible.

Parcels that are overlaid with a CNEL contour greater than 70 dB were deemed infeasible. The Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) has established Site Safety Compatibility policies. Zones 1 and 2, Runway Protection Zones, prohibit residential uses within the zones. Zone 3 is the Inner Turning Zone. Zone 4 is the Outer Approach/Departure Zone, and the basic compatibility indicates residential uses should be limited to low density. Zone 5 contains properties immediately adjacent to the runway and prohibits residential uses. Zone 6 is called the Traffic Pattern Zone. The compatibility policies state that residential land uses shall be allowed in this area. The subcommittee considered these basic compatibility qualities and determined that Zones 1-5 would be infeasible, and Zone 6 could be considered feasible or potentially feasible. John Wayne Airport (JWA) and the City both utilize CNEL contours of 65 and 70 dB, and the subcommittee did not explore alternatives. The subcommittee does not have all the facts regarding the various parcels; therefore, the designations are subjective. Some of the parcels could be reclassified as feasible, potentially feasible, or infeasible. Staff will contact the owners of properties identified as feasible or potentially feasible. Before the Committee approves any parcel for the site inventory list and after public input, the Committee would have to find that housing is a suitable use. Additional deliberations regarding suitability will involve density and could involve development standards.

The subcommittee does not endorse housing on any particular site but has narrowed the list of sites that staff will review and that the Committee will consider adding to the site inventory after receiving public input.

Jim Mosher remarked that the 65 dB contour is very old. The actual contour changes with the flight patterns of aircraft departing JWA. The 65 dB contour has contracted such that almost all of Campus Drive is located outside the contour.

Chair Tucker noted the Committee did not consider the 65 dB area initially but may have to if sites are needed.

Deputy Community Development Director Jim Campbell agreed with Mr. Mosher in that noise contours change with traffic at JWA. For planning purposes, the adopted Airport Environs Land Use Plan is the determining factor. Staff anticipates a change over time but not a remarkable change. Some of these sites may be needed to fill a gap between required and identified sites.

Sites within the 65 dB noise contour may be the last sites included on the list because of noise.

Housing Element Update Advisory Committee Meeting
February 3, 2021

Chair Tucker added that there may be more opportunities for more affordable units at these sites.

Brett Feuerstein, owner of a portion of the Newport Beach Golf Course, indicated the property is located within the 65 dB CNEL and split between Zones 6 and 4. If the City needs to utilize sites within the 65 dB contour, the property would be perfect for some type of residential use. Based on his interpretation of the Airport Safety Zones, a residential use located in Zone 4 should have a density equal to the average density of all surrounding uses. If needed, the property could provide up to 100 units
Chair Tucker requested staff review the details of Zone 4 because the summary language for Zone 4 is confusing.

In response to Committee Member Kiley's inquiry, Mr. Feuerstein felt a density that provided more than 100 units might be aggressive for Zone 4. The portion of his property located in Zone 6 could provide up to 50 units per acre.

Committee Member Sandland reviewed the subcommittee's designations for Parcels 1, 1.5, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 11, 48, 50, and 9. At the Committee's request, Committee Member Sandland only went over Parcels 17, 19, 21, 22, 29, 24, 41, 41.1, 114, 115, 119, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 128, 129, 142, 141, 146, 147-155, 158, 163, 165-169, 156, 157, 159, 160, 161, 189, 190, and 191, which the subcommittee designated as feasible or potentially feasible.

Committee Member Bloom noted that constructing a parking structure on the portion of the Newport Beach Golf Course property located in Zone 4 and constructing residential uses on the portion in Zone 6 may be feasible.

Committee Member Stevens concurred with Mr. Mosher's concern about relying on old data, equipment, and aircraft and with Deputy Community Development Director Campbell's comment that this is the data we are stuck with. The subcommittee handled the analyses well and found some potentially decent -sized parcels.

Chair Tucker related that the Council will have to deal with the safety issue if units within the 65 dB CNEL contour are needed to meet the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) number.

Committee Member Sandland added that the subcommittee attempted to follow policies from the Basic Compatibility Qualities.

Charles Klobe remarked that Mr. Feuerstein proposed low-income housing in the form of condominiums and questioned whether Mr. Feuerstein understands that the Committee is looking for low- to very -low-income units.

Chair Tucker clarified that some of the property may be condominiums, but they would not be affordable housing. Nothing will be built if the burdens of affordability render projects infeasible.

The State will have to confront the low-income issues when it reviews Housing Elements submitted by 197 jurisdictions.

Deborah Allen felt a residential project at the Newport Beach Golf Course would be wildly popular with the Newport Beach community regardless of density and affordability because development would constrain John Wayne Airport's (JWA) expansion.

Housing Element Update Advisory Committee Meeting
February 3, 2021

C. Approach for Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU)
Recommended Action: Receive an overview of the possible approaches for using ADUs to count towards the RHNA requirement.

Chair Tucker commented that ADUs as potential units are different from other housing types.

Assumptions have to be made in estimating the number of units that will be built. The City will receive credit for ADUs at certain affordability levels that are quite attractive. The disadvantage to ADUs is they may be built next to neighbors who are not expecting them. The Council will have to set the policies.

David Barquist, Kimley Horn and Associates, reported the memorandum describes the process and considerations for ADUs. Attached to the memo are the Southern California Association of Governments' (SCAG) methodology and excerpts from the Site Inventory Guidebook developed by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). ADUs are one strategy to accommodate growth needs, and single-family residences and multifamily developments will be needed to accommodate growth. HCD's approach to counting ADUs is called the Safe Harbor Approach and utilizes historical trends to project a yearly average of production over the course of the planning period. This approach eliminates the need to calculate affordability levels. Supplemental policies and programs may be needed to encourage development of ADUs.

In response to Committee Member Fruchbom's query, Mr. Barquist indicated ADU production has been approximately 25 units per year, and projecting that over the planning period provides the City's Safe Harbor.

Mr. Barquist continued the presentation, stating the ADU unit yield is 200 for the planning period.

The City may take a more aggressive approach and adopt policies and programs that support a more aggressive approach. HCD will review these aggressive approaches on a case -by -case basis. The City is obligated to perform to the aggressive approach through the planning period and should balance its vision with a realistic projection to avoid no net loss implications.

In answer to Chair Tucker's inquiries, Mr. Barquist explained that theoretically the City could accommodate 4,834 ADUs. The question is the realistic number of ADUs that can be built during the planning period because the City is obligated to produce that number of ADUs. The Council will have to balance the tensions among the policies it creates for each type of housing. In his experience, jurisdictions are utilizing the Safe Harbor Approach.

Principal Planner Jaime Murillo advised that housing laws require the City to plan and zone for a variety of housing types and different densities. ADUs are viewed as an alternative to the sites inventory. HCD staff has stated clearly that the Safe Harbor Approach is acceptable, but they are open to an aggressive approach. Because the majority of ADU applications are pending in plan check, staff has to ensure the ADU projections for the Safe Harbor Approach are appropriate. A projection of 1,000 ADUs may be aggressive. While ADUs are allowed in any residential zone, there has to be a demand for ADUs. HCD will likely request a monitoring program for an aggressive approach. If the City does not meet its production targets, HCD will require the City to find alternative sites.

In reply to Committee Member Stevens' queries, Principal Planner Murillo stated HCD will probably not require monitoring for a Safe Harbor Approach. However, recent conversations with HCD staff seem to indicate monitoring may be required for a Safe Harbor Approach. Mr. Barquist indicated

Housing Element Update Advisory Committee Meeting
February 3, 2021

the City may adjust its zoning for other housing types if ADU production exceeds projections.

Basically, the City has to show it can accommodate its unaccommodated need.

In answer to Committee Member Sandland's question, Chair Tucker reiterated that the City would have to justify its ADU projections regardless of the method for calculating the projections.

Committee Member LePlastrier indicated he is working with family members to plan an ADU. The cost for a freestanding ADU is approximately $300 per square foot.

Committee Member Kiley believed a projection of 400 ADUs is realistic with the recent changes in housing laws. An amnesty program for existing illegal ADUs could capture additional units.

Projecting the number of ADUs based on a percentage of single-family lots is reasonable.

Committee Member DeSantis concurred with the feasibility of a projection for more than 200 ADUs.

San Diego is exploring ways to provide financing and preapproved architectural drawings and site plans for ADUs. Using best practices from other Southern California cities, the City should be able to craft a program that will support an increase in the projections. Developing a program that makes sense for Newport Beach, is supported by the community, and facilitates this is reasonable.

In response to Committee Member Kiley's inquiry, Committee Member DeSantis advised that staff has access to the Turner report and the website for best practices.

Nancy Scarbrough supported an aggressive approach because there is no history for ADUs. With education, Newport Beach residents would probably strongly prefer 2,000 ADUs over tens of thousands of high -density units concentrated in the City. Once the City zones for high -density projects, it will be impossible to reduce that zoning.

Charles Klobe supported an aggressive approach. The report indicates Newport Beach's historical rent for an ADU is approximately half that reported in other jurisdictions. That history of low rent should support an aggressive approach for low- and very -low-income ADUs. Achieving 2,000 ADUs over the next nine years is highly likely.

Chair Tucker commented that affordable units have to happen on private property, and private developers are not going to lose money to build affordable housing. The construction of affordable units just is not going to happen as designed.

VI. ADJOURNMENT — 7:42 p.m.

Chair Tucker noted on March 17, 2021 the Committee is scheduled to make a recommendation for the Planning Commission and City Council to consider in April. The Committee will likely continue working on the sites inventory after it makes a recommendation.

Deputy Community Development Director Campbell reported a first housing opportunities list will be presented at the next meeting. A public workshop regarding the policy framework and the first sites analysis is scheduled for February 241h. The process will repeat in March. The Council study session on February 9, 2021 will include the RHNA appeal, the Committee's progress, and ADUs.

In answer to Committee Member DeSantis's question, Deputy Community Development Director Campbell related that a workshop for the Circulation Element will be held on February 10.

Housing Element Update Advisory Committee Meeting
February 3, 2021

Next Meeting: February 17, 2021, 6 p.m. via Zoom.

City of Newport Beach
2021-2029 HOUSING ELEMENT
Public comments received regarding the Housing Element Update. Personal addresses and contact details have been redacted for piracy.

A summary matrix of public comments to the Draft Housing Element is provided in this section.

Appendix C: Summary of Community Outreach (September 2022 Final Housing Element) C-14

City of Newport Beach -
2021-2029 HOUSING ELEMENT
Public Comments Matrix
The following table provides a summary of comments received during the 30-day public review period of the draft Housing Element Update. The City has reviewed and considered these comments in the deve lopmentofthe revised Draft Housing Element.

Responses to community comments, as appropriate, are included in the table.

Public Review Draft Comments
Response to Comments
I have concerns regarding the low-income housing project. I picked Newport Beach to be my home for its The City is obligated by
exquisite style and I pay a hefty tax fee to keep it this way. Adding low income housing will impact us negatively state law to identify sites by
so please stop this project.
various income categories
throughout the community.

I assumethe "inventory area" is acreage, I see Banning Ranch is listed at 46 acres. Is this net acres, not Net acreage is the assumed
inclusive of sensitive habitat? If this has not been vetted, the assumed density may not be accurate or acreage used for calculating
comparable if you have to cram more units on less footprint. unit yield and may be less
It doesn't seem logical to me to include Banning Ranch as 1 of 3 major focus areas (ie. Airport Area - 2,022 than total acreage of the
units, Newport Center- 1,814 units and Banning Ranch - 1,375). These are fairly comparable total net unit site.
numbers, but the locations are vastly different. The Airport Area and Newport Center both clearly meet the SCAG/RHNA requirements for focusing 50% on transit -oriented locations and 50% on those with job Banning Ranch focus area is
accessibility. The allocation of units between these 3 areas doesn't seem to be proportionate to the goals. identified in the current
Beyond this, Banning Ranchseems to be a much more environmentally sensitive area.

General Plan and is
Lastly, it seems very aggressive and unfeasible to propose 1,375 units on Banning Ranch afterthe last plan that generally consistent with
Coastal Commission voted down was based on a developer -proposed "reasonable" number of 895 units. the assumptions in the
Increasing the proposed unit target over what has already been rejected seems like an exercise in futility.

Housing Element Draft
We need housing. The Banning Ranch site needs to be considered. But perhaps it is more practicalto target +/-895 units.

City of Newport Beach
2021-2029 HOUSING ELEMENT
Public Review Draft Comments
Response to Comments
Please preserve our popular and irreplaceable community recreational asset that will be lost if you rezone the Recreation, infrastructure,
Newport Beach Golf Course on Irvine Ave. nearthe airport. We love it and need it far more than more housing. safety are examples of the
considerations when
identifying future feasible
housing opportunity.

Please vote against the re -zoning of Newport Beach Golf Course! This course is a staple within our community! Comment Noted.

It creates great value and beauty within our neighborhoods. It would be such a disservice to remove any part of the golf course!
With having such a year of staying home due to the pandemic I know of countless Newport families who have enjoyed this [Golf] course and it's beautywhich helped tremendously with being able to be outside safely.

What a terrible shameto take it away! Please reconsider by maintaining Newport Beach's open spaces and please don't bend to the pressure like other cities have succumbed to by jamming structures on top of one another.

NO on rezoning golf course. Green space cannot be replaced. Our quality of life is at stake Comment Noted.

Please do not rezone the Newport Beach golf course off of Mesa and Irvine. It will take awayfrom the Comment Noted.
character of the community and city and we really don't have a lot of open space. I strongly oppose the low- income housing or any additional housing for that area. That golf course brings a lot of joy to the below average golfer who just wants to socialize and learn the game and that is a good thing for the sport as well.

We do not need any more high/medium density housing made out of cheap materials that are popping up all Comment Noted.
over Newport Beach. They look like units that are designed for affordable housing placed on prime real estate.

Keep our green spaces exactlythat and create a park with recreational facilities for our families. We do not need any more housing in Newport Beach. This just adds to more crowded living, traffic congestion, and widening of streets.

We are stronglyagainst the rezone of Newport Beach Golf Course and want to see it remain as -is. It is an Comment Noted.
irreplaceable community recreational asset. Changing this for residential will set a bad precedent for development and elimination of othergolf 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.

City of Newport Beach
2021-2029 HOUSING ELEMENT
Public Review Draft Comments
Response to Comments
Please do not rezone the Newport Beach golf course off of Mesa and Irvine. It will take away from the Comment Noted.
character of the community and city-- we really don't have a lot of open space. I stronglyoppose the low- income housing or any additional housing for that area. That golf course brings a lot of joy to the below average golfer who just wants to socialize and learn the game and that is a good thing for the sport as well.

I've lived in Newport since 1975 and I'm saddened by all the changes - it's alreadytoo crowded and this would just add to it.

As a resident and neighbor in close proximity to the proposed location for rezoning on Birch St in Newport Comment Noted.

Beach, I'd like to let my voice be heard and vote NO to the proposed changes. This area is an extremely high traffic area. Cars can often be seen racing up and down the area. There is a lot of congestion in this area. It's not an ideal corner for walking or stopping for an entrance. The golf course keeps the lands beauty and allows for recreational ratherthan loading this high traffic area into an even bustier and more dangerous intersection.

There have been several deaths at this intersection and countless accidents. Having small children and being so close we don't want to exacerbate the problem of high -density traffic when we are already challenged with so many break-ins. In addition to keeping this portion of Newport Beach recreational is ideal. It really makes the land desirable and beautiful considering we have enough traffic and pollution living next to the airport. Please keep the space green & for recreational purposes. Please DON'T rezone holes 3-8 on the Mesa Dr side. This is a popular and irreplaceable community recreational asset that will be lost if rezoning happens. For the good of the community please reconsider and vote no to rezoning this gem.

I am reading the housing element, and I got to the bottom of page 72 here:

The additional information
https://www.newportbeachca.gov/PLN/Housing Element Update/March 10 2021 Draft/Section3 Ho has been added to this
section and is provided in
usingConstraintsandResources.pdfAt the bottom of the page, the last sentence says, "Other programs that affirmatively further fair housing and implement the Al's recommendations include:" But the next page is the the Draft submittal to HCD.
next section. There is no list of programs.

I am against the City of Newport Beach changing the land use of the Newport Beach Golf Course and possibly Comment Noted.
the YMCAto make way for new housing in the Bayview Heights neighborhood.

We do not want or need the zoning changed to make our area more dense. Our community is a small one already and now you want to over build it and make it more dense. The city has already approved rezoning for a multi storysenior care facility where Kitayama was on Bristol even though the neighborhood was against it. 3 City of Newport Beach
2021-2029 HOUSING ELEMENT
Public Review Draft Comments
Response to Comments
Now you want to build 100's of houses on the others ide of our neighborhood on Mesa Dr. Where does it end? It's a total money grab for millions of dollars once the land is sold for development. Plus, residents enjoy the recreation facilities like the public golf course and the YMCA. The city is rezoning plenty around other parts of Newport Beach so please leave the Back Bay alone so we may enjoy the little open space we do have.

I am not understanding "Element" I know the words land & housing. What is the proposal in plain language "Element" is a term used in
that the city wants to do?
state housing element law
to describe the different
Chapters of the General
Plan. The General Plan is a
policy document adopted
by Resolution of the City
Council.

This is not going to happen...???? Howwhere and why? Can I build a 60 story 300 unit high rise oceanfront in Comment Noted.

Com???
You get me the land I can get it built. ridiculous.

Can you add me to the City's mailing list so that I can receive updates regarding the Housing Element Update? I Interested parties can
am a resident of Newport Beach and I work for a residential and mixed -use develope r/homebuilder, so I'd like contact Citystaff or visit
to be involved in the update process and be a resource for the City in meeting their RHNAallocation. www.NewportTogether.co
m to register for regular
updates.

WE ARE EMPHATICALLY OPPOSED TO NEW CONSTRUCTION ATTHE NEWPORT BEACH GOLF COURSE (Birch Comment Noted.

Street/Mesa). This type of development will negatively impact our neighborhood on many levels.

Rezoning Newport Beach Golf Course, a popular and irreplaceable community recreational asset, for residential Comment Noted.
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.
4 City of Newport Beach
2021-2029 HOUSING ELEMENT
Public Review Draft Comments
Response to Comments
My mother is an over 50-year resident of Newport Beach. She does not use a computer but is interested in Interested parties can
following the General Plan Update. Could you please mail her hard copy updates? contact City staff if they
require special
accommodations.

My property is identified as site #161. Please withdraw or remove from consideration. I do not want my By Council direction,
property changed in use or zoning from high rise office. I am not interested in very low-income housing. Do I property owners who have
need to have an attorneyaddress this to insure that my site is removed from this plan and appendix B? requested removal from
consideration will be
granted that request.

I know the Cityhas alreadyappealed this arbitrary allocation of housing units and was denied, but I'm The Citywill continue to be
encouraging you to continue to push back.
actively involved efforts
Please tell us how we can unify as a group to counter this overreach and intrusion into a city's right to plan its related to RHNA allocations
future.
and will proactively monitor
Do we have any legal options, or does this have to be fought from a political angle? For now, please only local and state efforts
submit the minimum number of units required by RHNA. The more we can reduce the number of units we have during and afterthe
to build, at the same time stretching out the years over which they are built, the more we will have a chance to Housing Element Update
eliminate, or mitigate, the impact this forced housing will have on our community. We have many acres of land process.
that are either unsuitable, or unbuildable, without major grading and destruction of beautiful natural terrain - Coyote Canyon and Banning Ranch, to name two. If the number of availableacres is reduced due to inviability The City is concurrently
(i.e. Coastal Commission or difficult terrain), does this reduce the number of units we're required to build? updating the Circulation
Have we already counted all the affordable "over -the -garage" and "behind -the -house" units that may be un- Element and will include an
permitted, but could be counted as housing units?
Environmental Impact
Report that will address the
Traffic, water and Resources:
potential impacts to traffic,
We can't handle the traffic we have now: many residents rate traffic congestion as their biggest complaint. water and other resources.

Traffic from 4800+ housing units will only exacerbate this problem. If there is another water shortage like the The Sites analysis, Appendix
one a few years ago, there will probably need to be rationing to provide for these additional housing units. Has B, describes the intended
5 City of Newport Beach
2021-2029 HOUSING ELEMENT
Public Review Draft Comments
Response to Comments
that been factored into the equation? Who is going to pay for the increased police, fire and emerge ncyservices location of potential rezone
that we will be burdened with?
sites
Whereto put the initial housing:

Since the majority of these new units are to be moderate, low and very low income housing, this means higher density and taller buildings. The area by the SNA Airport (where I live) would be the most logical and appropriate area to put the majority of this high -density housing: it would be compatible with the multi -story commercial buildings and hotels that exist there now. Also, this area's proximityto major freeways would lessen the traffic traveling through our city. Please do not touch the Newport Beach Golf Course in the Back Bay- our city needs these public recreational areas. Yachting,golf, tennis, hiking and outdoor activities are central to our community. Please keep this housing away from the coast -there is already enough traffic congestion there, as well as serious concerns and objections to higher buildings, increased density and incompatibility with existing neighborhoods.

We stronglyoppose this [rezoning the NB Golf Course to build housing]! Irvine Ave has just recently been Comment noted.
expanded from Bristol to Mesa and can not handle much more traffic during prime drive time. From Mesa to University, it is always backed up. The traffic and negative impact will be horrendous.

I hereby voice my objection to the conversion of public land currently utilized as a golf course to multidwelling Comment noted.
housing. This proposal is not in the best interests of the citizens of Newport Beach and any progress to move forward with the transaction will result in alienating your constituents. The congestion that is already significant along this stretch of Irvine Blvd, Bristol, 73 FWY and the other streets adjacent tothe Orange County Airport will only increase with this rezoning. Please do not approve the rezoning of this area.

The Commission discussed among other things the Sight Plane Ordinance which is a protected view plane The Sight Plane Ordinance
granted in 1971 by the Irvine Company to Harbor View Hills. It limits building heights in Corporate Plaza and has been discussed with the
Corporate Plaza West to roughly 32 feet. The Planning Commission concluded the Sight Plane Ordinance states City Council and is a
a long established City Policy that should be maintained and protected in the zoning or design standards for re- consideration in the
development in the area it covers when the housing element is adopted. Please protect the Sight Plane identification of opportunity
Ordinance.
sites and future rezoning
actions.

City of Newport Beach
2021-2029 HOUSING ELEMENT
Public Review Draft Comments
Response to Comments
NBGC owner wants big property value increase by using State housing mandate to get otherwise impossible rezoning from golf course to high density residential but NBGC is more popular and profitable than ever with good return on investment
Comment noted.

Housing Element has many existing commercial and residential zone properties with free market incentives for high density housing without the many negative impacts, consequences, and ramifications of developing the golf course:

1. loss of golf course and open space

2. sets precedent for development on other golf courses, parks, sport fields, and open space.

3. consideration of new housing directly under flight path contradicts many years NB working for curfew, for noise reduction, against increased flights, against airport expansion, etc. andwill make opposition to future airport development less credible and effective.

4. new housing under flight path contradicts when airport impacts were used to justify eminent domain taking of many neighborhood homes for Birch St office development.

5. elimination of front 9 would reduce viability of existing 18-hole golf course and open the door for development and runway extension on driving range parcel and County owned back 9.

6. inappropriate use of recreational open space for residential will generate public opposition to entire Housing Element plan
Please remove NBGC from Housing Element list before going to the next review level, maintain golf course protective zoning, keep one of the good reasons we enjoy living here, and save us all time energyand frustration dealing with this completely unacceptable proposal.

One of the beauties of our area is the surrounding recreational/open space. This zoning is for the benefit of not The Housing Element
only our neighborhood but for all Newport Beach residents, surrounding communities and visitors alike. If the identifies candidate sites for
proposed rezoning is approved the impact would destroythe intent that was meant for the entire community potential rezones. State law
to enjoy. I urge you NOT to consider the proposed rezoning. obligates the Cityto identify
adequate sits to
accommodate future
project housing need.
7 City of Newport Beach
2021-2029 HOUSING ELEMENT
Public Review Draft Comments
Response to Comments
The Newport Beach Golf Course is part of the community. A place where the community can come together Comment noted.
amidst all the chaos and enjoy the outdoors. A place where families and residents alike can spend a day on the course with no worries. I stronglyoppose the rezoning efforts and hope CityCouncil rethinks this change.

I live close to the proposed location [NPB golf course] and am extremely concerned about all of the problems Comment noted.
resulting from the congestion that this proposal would cause. Please do NOT rezone this area and remove this proposal entirely from this location. It simply cannot supportthe increase in traffic and other related issues.

Our specific concern and opposition relates tothe parcels located near and on the current public golf course on Comment noted.

Irvine Avenue, Birch, and Mesa streets.

1. Our neighborhood already experiences speed and traffic issues, whetherfrom speeding neighbors or those businesses (delivery or adjacent) using our adjoining streets to bypass traffic on Irvine, Birch, or Bristol. More housing will only contribute tothose safety risks. It is unclear how related circulation and transportation plans would evolve as part of the drafted/planned developments. Our immediate community has witnessed at least a half dozen traffic -related deaths in the immediate area, including pedestrians, motorcyclists, and auto drivers. We've even witnessed a helicopter crash that killed three and plane crash that also killed three nearby. As you know, the proposed development is directly under the flight path of flights from J WA.

2. We live in a beautiful City whose residents value open space and the natural areas in, around, and through our neighborhoods. Replacing the open spaces with residential or commercial development will further impede into and degradethe City's natural habitats that make us unique, robbing our families of the public space experience we've come to enjoy and hold dear.

3. Significant environmental impact can be expected not just in the area currently defined by the golf course, but to the watershed feeding to and from the Back Bayand the natural preserve surrounding it.

4. While it is unclear how any of the development and infrastructure will be funded, we are concerned our families will bear some financial burden in supporting the potential developments.

Development of any portion of the golf course is not a solution we can or are willing to support. Please help us in preserving the City we want to commit to in the long term.

I do not support the near 100% buffer and the inclusion of almost 10,000 units in the Housing Element. I The Housing Element
understand the need for a buffer, but not more than 15-20%. I would rather see us have to review/revise our identifies potential sites to
w

City of Newport Beach
2021-2029 HOUSING ELEMENT
Public Review Draft Comments
Response to Comments
Housing Element in a few years, as opposed to suggesting that an extensive amount of existing commercial accommodate future
areas be converted to residential (or mixed uses). I would like to seethe path that other cities take, review projected growth and does
comments from HCD, and see if there area ny changes instate law before the City makes this kind of drastic not represent actual
move. Newport Beach is not alone in its concern with the RHNA allocations and requirements. I disagree with construction. Sites
moving forward with the planning efforts to allow this many housing units. identified in the Housing
Element mayor may not be
utilized in future rezoning
efforts.

The buffer is used to protect
the Cityfor the implications
of no net loss provisions in
state law.

There is currently nothing to cap the number of housing units that could be constructed in the Housing The potential overlay zones
Element to 4,845 units. Before the Housing Element is approved, those caps must be in place, e.g., zoning or other appropriate zoning
overlays that limit the development in each study area of the city. I believe those overlay zones should tool will be adopted
recognize existing ordinances. For example the City's Sight Plane Ordinance, (#1596) that limits the height of subsequent to the Housing
all buildings and landscaping to a maximum of 32 feet which applies to the sites in Corporate Plaza, Corporate Element. Provisions related
Plaza West, and CdM Plaza should be identified.
to existing policies will be
considered as these
amendments are made in
the future.

I believe that we should be more aggressive in the use of ADUs and JADUs to help reach our RHNAgoals. While The accommodation of
I don't think we can meet our entire RHNAgoals with ADUs, I believe the number should be at least double the RHNA need is identified in
334 units that are currently shown in the Housing Element. This topic has been discussed a number of times at the Housing Element by a
the Housing Element Update Advisory Committee meetings and there appeared to be general support for an variety means including
increase into the 700-800-unit range. The laws regarding ADUs have recently been implemented and are overlay zones, existing
beginning to be used more widely throughout the City. I think we should take advantage of that in our Housing 0 City of Newport Beach
2021-2029 HOUSING ELEMENT
Public Review Draft Comments
Response to Comments
Element and that 700-800 ADUs would be easily achievable. Inaddition, an active program toencourage and entitled projects, available
look for unpermitted ADUs should be implemented to take credit for existing, unpermitted ADUs. Since ADUs vacant land and ADU's.
are by definition 47% low-income, it's very helpful to our RHNA compliance without impacting any one area of The policy program contains
the City.
a policy addressing
unpermitted ADU's.

The goal of the State in developing the RHNA numbers has been to provide a better housing/jobs balance so As a built -out community
that people do not need to drive large distances togetto work. The strategy inthe Housing Element has been with severelylimited vacant
to find undeveloped space, primarily in commercial areas of the city, for development of low-income housing land, the majority of new
(since the city is largely developed). If we rezone our vibrant commercial areas for residential development, development opportunity
we potentially reduce the employment opportunities and further impactthe housing/jobs balance. I would like will occur on infill, existing
to stress this point to the state.
developed parcels.

I remain concerned that more housing has been suggested inthe industrial portion of the City. Specifically, As a built -out community
identifying a metal plating facility (Hixson) that is contaminated and undergoing remediation as a potential site with severelylimited vacant
for housing and increasing housing near the site, is very poor planning and potentially dangerous. While the land, the majority of new
site will likely be remediated, it is doubtful that it would be availablefor residential housing anytime soon. development opportunity
will occur on infill, existing
developed parcels.

We have watched our neighborhood start to transition from an 'empty nester' community to now a 'family' Comment noted.
community. Adding a large "low income" apartment complex where open green space is currently located makes no sense from the perspective of creating a family community atmosphere. The more recent families making up our neighborhood have kids that enjoy the 2 parks on Mesa Drive along with the horse trails adjacent to the canal that butts up to the apartment site. This is a disaster waiting to happen and we are totally against it.

I am opposed building 100's of units where the golf course back nine is now. Keep our open space! Comment noted.

The rezoning of the NBGC front 9 to low income housing is a seriously bad idea. This area is directly under the Comment noted.
flight path of John Wayne Airport, falls within an upscale residential community and adds to the overall congestion we experience every day in the area. This is literally the opposite of progress. Why not purchase the property instead. Leave it a golf course or park. Contribute to the natural environment. We don't want to 10 City of Newport Beach
2021-2029 HOUSING ELEMENT
Public Review Draft Comments
Response to Comments
see more cars, trash cans and congestion. This is Newport Beach. Not a place that really needs low income housing. Plenty of that exists in ruined communities already like Santa Ana, Anaheim and Garden Grove. Our area alreadysuffers from poor leadership associated with airport expansion.

I am adamantly opposed to such a move [rezone part of the Newport Beach Golf Course]. I oppose a housing Comment noted.
project there, and any rezoning of this area ... and urge you to take the housing item off the table at this location.

I remember losing the Bayview Elementary School on the bluff to high density housing townhouses. And now many of our streets have been rezoned to office buildings. The Newport Beach Golf Course is not only an integral part of our community, but a welcomed breath of fresh air and open space for everyone to come enjoy. It's also one of the very few or only affordable golf facilities open to the public in this area for families to learn and enjoy the game. And it provides a much -needed attractive relief to the corner of Irvine Ave and Mesa Dr. I strongly urge you to leave the Newport Beach Golf Course as it is for all to enjoy, and to maintain the aesthetics of our community.

It is hard to briefly summate why all the reasons that turning the golf course into a high -density low-income Comment noted.
housing project is a bad idea. Some of the more apparent issues are CEQA related in terms of noise and traffic.

Also, removing the only affordable public golf course in Newport Beach is sad to consider. I understandthere may be housing mandates but the folks at this end of town seem to take on an unreasonable burden for solving these types of issues. Please remove this property from consideration.

I stronglyoppose the golf course housing project. We want to preserve this are as it is not expand it.

Comment noted.

Absolutely not!
As a local resident and taxpayer, I am against this rezoning [of the Newport Beach Golf Course for high density, Comment noted.
low income housing] and am highly concerned about the traffic issues that will compound to an already busy area. We witness at least 1 major accident a month that occurs on the corner of Mesa and Santa Ana and can't imagine how many more there are that we do not see while we are at work. This rezoning is not good for the overall local community, traffic, and safety. I DO NOT support this rezoning and truly encourage to reevaluate this decision.

I am completely against the rezoning of the Newport Beach golf course!!! No more High -density housing!!! I Comment noted.
live off of Mesa Dr. The traffic alone is unbearable, my son was hit by a car, due to excessive parked cars on 11 City of Newport Beach
2021-2029 HOUSING ELEMENT
Public Review Draft Comments
Response to Comments
Mesa Dr. from overflow parking of high -density housing. I can't even pull out of my street without taking a chance of being hit.

I'd like to voice my opposition to any plan to rezone the golf course and build high density housing to replace it.

Comment noted.

Please take this location off consideration. Bayview Heights has alreadygone through a lot of rezoning with office buildings all around us. We want to continue to enjoy and use the open space of the golf course. We like having open spacejust like other communities around Newport Beach. Please stop picking Bayview Heights to rezone.

I am against any rezoning or development to any portion of the Newport Beach Golf Course.

I stronglyoppose the rezoning of the Newport Beach Golf Course - holes 3-8 (lots 23,24,25,26) and the golf Comment noted.
course project. Please take this housing item off the table at this location. Bayview Height is special and unique to all who live here. Living here, we put up with the airport noise and office buildings all around us. Now you want to get rid of our open space (NB Golf Course) and subject us to high density housing. Many people use the NB Golf coursefor great recreation. It will be a great loss to our community. We want to keep the golf course as open space so it can continue to be utilized as an affordable recreational area. Please rethinkthis. You are trying to develop too much in the airport area. We are a small neighborhood, please do not overcrowd us with high density housing.

My wife and I are ADAMANTLY OPPOSED tothe potential rezone of the Newport Beach Golf Course to a Comment noted.
development for low income housing. The Cityof Newport Beach would be better suited to re -developing this location to one that supports the existing population of the city and creates tax dollars and/or a location that will support further business growth. Low income housing developers will "Sell" cities on the needs of low income housing because it is a business for them to take government funds to build these projects that PAY THE DEVELOPER, but DO NOT SUPPORT A NEED for the Cityof Newport Beach. A low income housing project would do nothing for the actual economy of people who live here other than bring in a body of people who will further their political agenda with voting rights within the Cityof Newport Beach and the attorneys they bring with them. We are ADAMANTLY OPPOSED and will vote against this zone change as well as their supporters at every voting opportunity.
12 City of Newport Beach
2021-2029 HOUSING ELEMENT
Public Review Draft Comments
Response to Comments
We know the issue of affordable housing is a big item in our State, and the State of California is imposing edicts Comment noted.
on many Cities in regard to this. Please slow down this City-wide housing issue so as to gather more facts, more citizen input/ comments and studythe issue.

In regard to our Bayview Heights/Santa Ana Heights Neighborhood, we have seen the details and the housing Comment noted.
count of what could be planned and installed on the golf course area, i.e. holes 3 - 8 (lots 23, 24, 25, 26). This has the potential for hundreds of units to go up in the golf course area. We do not want this! We very strongly oppose this golf course housing project, oppose any rezoning of this area, and demand that you take the housing item off the table at this location. The golf course is currently zoned SP - 7. That means, "Open Space and Recreational District: SP-7 (OS/R) - Open Space and Recreational District is intended to establishthe long-term use and viability of the Newport Beach Golf Course." Our family opposes the re -zoning of the NB Golf Course area to build high density low-income housing on Mesa Comment noted.

Drive.

We've always focused on the Bayview Heights equestrian neighborhood for its open space and the neighborhood itself, the safetyfor our 2 year old and soon -to -be -born second child, the schools, the cleanliness, the community, the slower paced feel you don't quite get in the hustle bustle of the peninsula. This will absolutely affect our health and safety, it will increase traffic, impact the environment (the natural preservation of the Back-Bayarea), and it will affect our schools and my kids' education. I am by no means opposed to low-income housing. I understand the need and support the fact that Orange County should provide more of it. Please find an alternative location and remove this housing item off the table at this location.

I am writing to you today to express my extreme opposition to turning the front seven holes of our golf course Comment noted.
into public housing. It makes absolutely no sense to take away recreational and park areas from the public mainly becausethe population density in the surrounding areas are already increasing at an alarming rate and we will need all the open spaces we can get to make sure people have a place for relaxation and recreation.

It is well known and well published that affordable housing should never be concentrated in one area as The Housing Element
originally contemplated in the Airport area. Historytells us that this can lead to significant problems within responds to the
communities. The concept of in -lieu fees appears to contribute to this problem. Have we conducted a study requirements of AB 686.
by an affordable housing professional that tells us how to allocate low-income and market rate units Council direction has
13 City of Newport Beach
2021-2029 HOUSING ELEMENT
Public Review Draft Comments
Response to Comments
intelligently throughout the City in a way that will address this concern? This high concentration will only indicated the desire for a
serve to undercut present efforts underway to revitalize the area, undermine existing property values and, in more equitable distribution
turn, result in an unfair and inequitable impact to area businesses and landowners. Please note that Assembly of units citywide. The sites
Bill 686 (2018) establishes anew mandate to "affirmatively further fair housing." The California Department of analysis has considered
Housing and Community Development has explained that this new law must "ensure that sites zoned to these factors.
accommodate housing for lower -income households are not concentrated in areas .. . but rather dispersed throughout the community, including in areas with access togreater resources, amenities, and opportunity." The City has policies in place today that require developers to provide affordable housing as part of what would The policy program provides
otherwise be a market rate apartment project. These deals are referred to as mixed -income projects. For- for a variety of methods to
profit affordable housing developers prefer mixed -income projects and are financed through private capital achieve a balance of
and a public subsidy, if needed. Nonprofit developers do not have access to private capital and build what the affordability levels to meet
government is willing to subsidize. Today in California, that is Extremely Low affordable housing and housing existing and projected need.
for the homeless. Have we studied the value of creating public policy to allocate affordable housing and The policy program also
market rate units intelligently throughout the City in a way that will attract mixed -income, for -profit includes provisions to
developers, and how arewe reflectingthat in our RHNAallocation? You would not have to look any further explore inclusionary policy
than our One Uptown Newport property as a successful mixed income development providing affordable to further explore
rental units (based on 50% of OC median
proportional mix of
income) for 20% of the property's residents in Orange County's most affluent city. Our recommendatio incomes.
n is to create a fair and proportional mix of 60% market and 40% affordable (low and moderate incomes) ratio equally in high opportunity locations which have the capacityfor multifamily housing and are consistent with good urban land use planning. In our opinion those areas are the Airport, Newport Center, Coyote Canyon, and Banning Ranch.

The proposed densities are not based on product that can actually be built from a development perspective.

Future implementing
Three storygarden product at most can achieve 30 units to an acre. Moving up the density scale is Type V revisions to the Zoning Code
wrap product which jumps to approximately 55 units to an acre. Type II I wrap will provide approximately 75 will consider a varietyof
units per acre (Newport Crossing). Type V podium (One Uptown) can achieve approximately 85 units per development regulations
acre. Type III podium is about 100 units per acre. As you can see, densities at 40 units per acre (proposed and standards addressing
Coyote Canyon) and 45 units per acre (proposed Newport Center) simply do not exist in a realistic feasibility, development
14 City of Newport Beach
2021-2029 HOUSING ELEMENT
Public Review Draft Comments
Response to Comments
development. The reason is the cost of building a costly concrete garage in either a wrap or podium project incentives among other
typically requires the higher density (in excess of 55 units per acre) to achieve a viable economic development considerations.
given the high land prices in Newport Beach. Three storygarden apartment product (at 30 units per acre) which provide surface parking for its residents and is best suited to cities with an abundance of inexpensive land unlike Newport Beach, which is basically completely built out. Our suggestion is to take advantage of the high opportunity locations and create higher densities for the Airport Area, Newport Center, Coyote Canyon, and Banning Ranch.

Coyote Canyon is public land and, in our opinion, should serve one of the most pressing public issues, The Coyote Canyon area has
affordable housing. Density at 40 du per acre as stated above seems like an opportunity lostfor more environmental
residential units given it is public land, not immediately surrounded by single family homes. One of the considerations that limit use
Housing Element Update Advisory Committee members, Paul Fruchbom, suggested using part the landfill for of the entire site for
parking for the 22 developable acres. Wethink that suggestion is creative and should not be dismissed without residential uses. The plan
serious analysis of the possibility. Also note, the State Surplus Land Act (SB 1486 — 2019) requires local reflects the use of a net
agencies disposing or leasing surplus land to provide preferential treatment to affordable housing area representing only a
developers given the housing crisis in this State.
small portion of the landfill
property not subject to
extreme constraints.

Further, assumptions in the
plan are approximations
subject to change based
upon actual feasibility.
100% Senior Affordable Housing is a great way for cities to meet their state affordable housing requirements as The Housing Element
well as providing much needed housing for the local community. Creating a "Senior Overlay" zoning allowance provides for prioritization of
would include specific design and operational requirements such as higher density, reduced size of units, senior housing through
reduced parking, and senior oriented amenities. Senior Affordable projects are typically less than 100 units specific policy programs.
providing many opportunities throughout the cityto find an appropriate development location.

What was the methodology used to analyzethe potential ADU units? ADU's appearto be low hanging fruit to The methodology to utilize
assist insatisfyingthe city's RHNA requirement, and we are sure there are many opportunities that existthat ADUs is provided in a new
15 City of Newport Beach
2021-2029 HOUSING ELEMENT
Public Review Draft Comments
Response to Comments
were not counted. It was mentioned during the April 27th City Council Housing Element study session that the Appendix D, in support of
City's target for ADU's should be 1,000. We concur. We believe the high opportunity locations should all the City's desire to enhance
shoulder their share of the lower income affordable units. This results in a fair distribution and is good urban ADU construction to meet
planning, which lays the foundation for the cityto create land use and zoning policies that maintain local its RHNA need.
control.

As a user of Newport Golf Course ("NGC"), I stronglyobject to the above proposal for the following reasons: a.

Comment noted.

It is a badly needed recreation facility which would be severelydamaged by the proposed development. b. It would severely impact the surrounding area and home values.

I am opposed to the rezoning of the NB Golf Course for low income housing Per state requirements. The golf Comment noted.
course is open to the public, the only one I believe in NB and enjoyed by many NB residents as well as everyone else.

The golf course also provides a buffer from the airport and is under the flight path Which is another consideration.

Since the State is requiring the housing project it only makes sense to me for the State to provide unused State land or empty State buildings that can be refurbished To meet their own requirements, instead of "forcing" cities to rezone public City Land or private land for that matter.

How is this low income high density housing project going to impact our property values? Who do we see Comment noted.
about that?
Many of us in this NB neighborhood have worked hard for many years toacquire homes here and enjoy our quality of life here, again, who do we see about that potential impact to us? Note my opposition to Rezoning NB Golf Course.

I OPPOSE the housing project of the Newport Beach Golf Course. I OPPOSE any rezoning of this area. Remove Comment noted.
the project from the agenda. There is too much traffic alreadyon Irvine Ave. Increased traffic is not safe for pedestrians and cyclists. Environmentally it is not responsible to proceed with this residential proposition.

As I drive in and out of my neighborhood I see people enjoying the golf course. Singles, families and I have Comment noted.
seen an increase in young people playing golf at the golf course. Better to see young people on the golf course than on "the streets". I opposethe golf course housing project, I oppose any rezoning of this area. Please take 16 City of Newport Beach
2021-2029 HOUSING ELEMENT
Public Review Draft Comments
Response to Comments
the housing item off the table at this location. Bayview Heights/Santa Ana Heights Neighborhood is a Newport Beach "gem". There is nothing like my neighborhood anywhere else in Newport Beach. Please don't destroy it.

We love all neighborhood as is, and Santa Ana Heights has alreadyspiked with flowing traffic and crowds of Comment noted.
people. We need to keep the Newport Beach Golf Course, it's part of where we live and we treasure our community as is.

Meeting with our neighbors we couldn't find anyone who agrees with the rezoning, and we oppose this plan 100%. Please take the housing item off the table at this location.

I am writing to express myconcern for the rezoning proposal of the Newport Beach Golf Course for residential Comment noted.
housing. As a long time member of this community it is upsetting to see the cities of Newport Beach and Costa Mesa more focused on profit ratherthan the best interest of the community. This additional housing project would not only take away one of the few recreational areas we have left in the community but also create a traffic nightmare in the area. We have already seen pedestrians struckand killed in the cross walks at Irvine/Mesa as well as Irvine/University. How do you expect we could properly manage the traffic flow with this additional housing project?
I strongly encourage you to oppose this awful idea to rezone a beautiful open space at the golf course into Comment noted.
more high density housing that will only further clog and pollute a busy area around the airport. I further would encourageyou to oppose nitwit ideas and mandates coming from Sacramentothat only serve to destroyour once beautiful and safe city. Crime and drug addicts currently littering our once safe neighborhoods is a clear example of failed policies coming from Sacramento. Please do what's right for the constituents of your city and maintain what we have left.

Residents seem totreasuretheir quality of life in Newport Beach. This includes a quiet airport, unobstructed Comment noted.
views, and unclogged roadways. While this is not always possible, I believe that the city takes the necessary steps to ensure all the voices are heard and important input is considered. Understanding the pieces of this puzzle (building stock, roadways, utilities below grade, community risk, et al) at the ground level may prove to be beneficial if you chose to consider my thoughts.

While I often hear about the city being "built -out" I do not entirely subscribe to the belief. The district/area that has the least sophisticated development if the Airport Area of the city. This area is surrounded on three sides by adjacent jurisdictions and heavily impacted by decisions of the other local governments. Additionally, 17 City of Newport Beach
2021-2029 HOUSING ELEMENT
Public Review Draft Comments
Response to Comments
the school district in this section of Newport Beach is the Santa Ana Unified School district. I'm sure this is unknown tothe many new residents destined to move here who recognize that these cities are significantly different in many ways. Some have suggested that a change in district boundaries to address the issue, and while this may feel good to proffer, I don't see that happening anytime soon. It is safe to say that the Airport Area differs in many respects from the remainder of Newport Beach.

Because of this a different vision statement maybe needed in this specific community to seriously address the new development that is likely to occur in that area in the future. When I look at the General Plan vision statement, I fail to see how that can be realistically represented in the Airport Area. This area will seethe Lion's share of the RHNAlow/moderate units and be more intensively developed. This is something that wiII take well considered vision and political leadership not before seen in Newport Beach to be done properly given the forces that will be aligned against new construction.

We area damantlyopposed tothe rezoning of the Newport Beach Golf Course to high density, low-income Comment noted.
housing.

A high density low-income project negatively impacts every single homeowner in the area, while offering absolutely zero benefits to us and the community as a whole. We hope the City Council will seriously re- consider and ultimately deny the rezoning of the golf course.

I strongly oppose building on one of the few open spaces left. I personally feel as do many others the the Comment noted.
government keeps taking taking taking! Homeless population is out of control, druggies are all over the play and now this! Dothe right thing before we the people have to get more involved! As a resident and someone who grew up in the area, the Newport Beach Golf Course is part of the community, Comment noted.
a place where my parents and I grew up playing, and it would be terrible to see housing built. I stronglyoppose the rezoning efforts and hope City Council rethinks this change.

I am a resident of Newport Beach at Orchid Hill PI. I'm writing to you to express my opposition with the golf Comment noted.
course housing project, opposing any rezoning of this area, and asking you to take the housing item off the table at this location.

PLEASE stopthe discussions about building high density low income housing at the golf course off Irvine Ave/ Comment noted.

Mesa Dr. That idea is pure insanity. The neighborhood simply cannot handle the additional population and ensuing traffic. Alreadywe are exploding thanks to Costa Mesa'sallowing multiple units being built on what 18 City of Newport Beach
2021-2029 HOUSING ELEMENT
Public Review Draft Comments
Response to Comments
we're once single family home lots. In the 23 years living at my condo a few blocks away from proposed development, the development has resulted in 4x as many dwellings on a SINGLE BLOCK. Multiply that x2 easily for number of people/cars in a single block and you have insanity. The lack of parking, speeding, deteriorating roads... not to mention the smell of marijuana that permeates the neighborhood 24/7 has really already stretched the neighborhood beyond the limit.

I beseechthe Cityor Newport Beach to PLEASE find another site for this development. If you are going to change zoning, the other side of the 73 is a much more appropriate location for high density housing.

Section 1: Introduction
State law requires and the
While we understand the role of the Housing Element is to "identify ways in which housing needs of current City's overarching General
and future residents can be met" (page 1-2), those needs should not supersedethe private property rights of Plan goal is to identify
existing residents and businesses. We seek clarification of this item in the Introduction, considering the fact opportunities to address
that several pending and prior housing projects have improperly impacted existing property rights, including existing and future housing
parking and property rights afforded under Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs). need in the community.

Section 3: Housing Constraints& Resources
Constraints and resources
It is our understanding that the City of Newport Beach was allocated a total of 4,845 units, per Section 2 - include evaluation of a
Profile. As identified on page 3-2, some constraints for the City establishing opportunity sites include "the variety of potential
availability and cost of land for residential development." We believe an additional constraint excluded from constraints relatedto
the list are CC&Rs. These documents often provide the governing rules for master planned areas, including governmental policy, site
lands in the Airport Area. Since the City has no authority over CC&Rs those "Nongovernmental Constraints" conditions and otherfactors
should be included in this section.
that may influence the
Further, the City should respect the private property rights of existing business owners (and residents) and- at a provisions of housing.
minimum - acknowledge that collective rights in business parks are a constraint in the Housing Element Update. For example, no individual residential property is being targetedfor conversion from one use to The sites identification
another, but areas that are considered "common area" business parks where owners bought into a share of the process considered many of
interest aretargeted for new uses. The Cityshould respect CC&Rsas theystand or require proposed projects to these considerations
prove that modification of the CC&Rs accurately allows a new/specific use. The City should require this as a through consultation w/ the
19 City of Newport Beach
2021-2029 HOUSING ELEMENT
Public Review Draft Comments
Response to Comments
condition of approval for development entitlements priorto construction. Without this, the Housing Element HEUAC and consultation
will not properly consider existing property rights and this omission will expose the Cityto unnecessary with property owners.
entitlement challenges and delays.

While we do not disagreethat housing could be added to certain areas of the Airport Area -adequate resident - based services and amenities must also be included with those developments. The Business Parks that cover the majority of the Airport Area were not originally intended to be residential areas and are therefore lacking in many of the standard amenities and services one would expect to find in a residential neighborhood (grocery stores, parks, restaurants, banks, child-care facilities, etc.)The Cityshould investthe time now to determine where these amenities, parks and services should be, or the Citywill be functionally promoting increased densification without properly planning for how this new housing density can alsobe high -quality, "livable communities."
This exact conflict is referenced in Policy Action 4E: Airport Area Policy Exceptions for Affordable Housing in Section 4.

Section 4: Housing Plan
The overlay policy will be
Any proposed overlay (as described on page 4-4) should include direct engagement by business owners and subsequently updated. Any
tenants in the Airport Area. This is a unique, commercial and business focused area that if not properly planned rezoning action will provide
for could force businesses to relocate and have unintended consequences including but not limited to revenue entitlements in addition to
consequences for the City. Further, if businesses leave, the marketabilityof the Airport Area could diminish and those already provided to
create unfavorable market and quality of life conditions for this important area within the City. current property owners.

On page 4-3 the Update states: "Housing Goal#8- Effective and responsive housing programs and policies." Unfortunately, we could find no programs or policies that address the conversion of existing Class A Other policies in the Policy
commercial office space into residential units. This is an area that should be carefully investigated further by Program respond to
the City, as while it may be a potentially unique way to create housing and meet needs immediately where requirements subject to
buildings and utilities have already been developed, it has a direct material impact on existing commercial state housing law.
property rights and the current infrastructure does not support residential development.

Policy Action 3A: Objective Design Standards (page4-10) and Policy Action 4B: Streamlined Project Review (page 4-16) should not create a by -right housing process that ignores impacts to adjacent businesses, existing 20 City of Newport Beach
2021-2029 HOUSING ELEMENT
Public Review Draft Comments
Response to Comments
CC&Rs, Planned Development Standards, or Integrated Conceptual Development Plans. These limitations should be noted in the document or be required to be addressed in the planning process.

Appendix B: Sites Analysis
Appendix B has been
After reviewing Figure B-1 Airport Area Environs - Sites Inventory, several Olen buildings were included as significantly updated to
"Consideration Parcels" for housing. Because the Housing Element Update remains in Draft form at this time, modify sites and locations.
we are not in a position to condone any such conversion of existing high performing commercial business parks Property owners not
into residential, which potentially strips owners of valuable and protected property rights. To be clear, Olen interested in participating
does not currently support conversion of existing commercial business parks to residential uses absent strict have been removed from
protections of the existing rights of commercial property owners and specifically does not consent to consideration.
conversion to residential of any of its Newport Beach portfolio.

We appreciate the opportunity comment on the Housing Element Update, but remain concerned that the private property rights of existing businesses will be adversely impacted by the City's expansion of housing units unless additional considerations are evaluated by the City. We are also concerned that the City is inadequately planning for the types of parks, amenities and services that would create good quality of life for these new neighborhoods, and for the City's business and residents as a whole. This concept of livable communities should be a central focus of the current planning process in addition to the question of where to potentially place new housing units. This letter shall not be construed as a full recitation of all of Olen's positions related to this matter and shall not act as a waiver of any claims.

Please note I oppose this change to a housing project [Golf Course].

Comment noted.

The Housing Element should be harmonized with the LCP and Environmental Elements BEFORE SUBMISSION A program EIR will be
TO BE CERTIFIED. The fact that Banning Ranch is mentioned as a housing option after the Coastal Commission prepared in conjunction
denied building and development options is either an attempt to "allocate housing to a back hole that has not with the Housing Element
potential, but looks good" and an attempt to undermine the Coastal Commission and set into play afight update.
between twostate agencies. The Cityof Newport Beach should be honest and communicate clearly its intention. A past survey of residents clearlygave the city a clear dictate to preserve Banning Ranch and facilitate its acquisition for open space and public access.

Banning Ranch should not be listed as a housing option.

Comment noted.
21 City of Newport Beach
2021-2029 HOUSING ELEMENT
Public Review Draft Comments
Response to Comments
This element does not do enough to level the playing field to allow residents to add an additional story to Comment noted.
facilitate families living together. One of the challenges of the cost of housing is that families are being separated and longtime residents areforced to sell to access equity, while adding another story could allow more residents to provide housing for aging parents (on the ground floor) or house adult children with their families on upper floors. Currently many remodels and new construction in West Newport are able to achieve 3 story construction using expensive variances, lawyers and political influence. The city has created an exclusive club that contributes to the housing shortage. The fastest wayto more housing is to allow residents more freedom for
"Mother/daughter" type construction. These would not be condos, but units with the ability of twofamilies living together. Eventually, this can lead to duplex or triplex rentals, but that process can be paced out by economics and zoning plans overtime.

Homelessness is a mental health issue— any document produces by the cityshould recognize mental health as Comment noted.
an issue. The main problem for those homeless wondering the streets of Newport Beach, they have addition and mental health issues that cannot be resolved without local mental health services. The city would be better served at add mental health counselors in the police department to go on calls relatedto those wondering the streets with mental health and addition issues. We could offer free housing, and the homeless issue would persist, because low cost housing is not the primary cause of the homeless populations wondering our neighborhoods, camping on public spaces and causing health and safety issues.

Public transportation impacts housing prices. If we invested in mobility of having people easily move between The Circulation Element of
Newport Beach and Riverside and make 24/hr per day access within 30 minutes then housing prices would not the General Plan is being
be an issue. What drives the unfair housing issue is the time it takes to commute between work and home and updated concurrently with
between home and public resources like the beach. Housing must be reconciled with a county and state the Housing Element,
transportation plan.
addressing transportation -
related issues.

Outreach has been lacking becausethe outreach has been unfairly biased to The Housing Element and the A summaryof all outreach
General Plan is more than the Housing Element— it must be a harmonized plan and the city needs to conduct efforts is included in
more outreachfor the other elements of the General Plan Update.

Appendix C of the Housing
Element.
22 City of Newport Beach
2021-2029 HOUSING ELEMENT
Public Review Draft Comments
Response to Comments
The parcel identified as ID 47 in the Housing Element Study is correct (APN 445-131-31, 2.58 acres). Two Appendix B has been
additional parcels owned by KCN A Management, LLC should be included as well. The two additional parcels updated to consider a
are APN 445-131-30 totaling 23.74 acres and APN 445-122-19 totaling 16.67 acres. Both of these additional variety of site
parcels have a combined usable development area of approximately 11 acres. All three parcels would provide a considerations related to
development area of approximately 13.6 acres providing the opportunity for 700 housing units based on a the distribution of
standard 50:1 ratio. In addition, the draft study indicates that all parcels in the specified area of our properties affordability throughout the
are to be rezoned as Low and Very Low housing categories. While we agree that some affordable housing City.
should be provided in this area, we do not believe that the area should be exclusively Low and Very Low housing categories. Agood balance of both market rate and affordable housing would be best suited for the Airport Area.

The Newport Beach Golf Course is a part of our community, a place where my family and friends get together Comment noted.
for events, and it would be absolutely terrible for you to build housing on a cornerstone area of my community.

I STRONGLY oppose the rezoning efforts and hope the City council rethinks the impact this will have on its citizens.

This is not acceptable to build homes that will impact our neighborhood and community. The problems that Comment noted.
comes with crowding to many people in an area, the quality of people your wanting to attract will cause the same problems with parking and theft that is currently across Irvine Ave on Mesa Dr. the homes on riverside drive and Redlands have had issue after issue with people of poor character, theft, disorderly conduct and there street is covered in cars that do not live in the neighborhood.

We love our hidden community, it is safe, family oriented and a hidden gem. We do not want this to change.

We truly hope you can understand.

I oppose the golf course housing project, oppose any rezoning of this area, and would askthat you take the Comment noted.
housing item off the table at this location.

I respectfully request that you NOT approve any rezoning of the Newport Beach Golf Course area as outlined in Comment noted.
the Draft of the General Plan Housing Element Update (PA2017-141), presented during the Study Session on 4/27/2021.

As you know, the Golf Course area is currently zoned SP-7, "Open Space and Recreational District". I and many of my Neighbors in Bayview/Santa Ana Heights want to preserve the open space and the Golf Course area for 23 City of Newport Beach
2021-2029 HOUSING ELEMENT
Public Review Draft Comments
Response to Comments
recreation and use as previously & currently designated. I believe many other residents in Newport Beach and the surrounding area enjoy using the Golf Course and do not want to see it or any portion thereof changed out for a Housing project.

This project would have a Negative impact on our Bayview/ Santa Ana Heights Neighborhood. In regard to traffic in the area, Irvine Ave. is already incredibly congested at various hours of the day and adding more volume will only make it worse and we will see an increase in accidents.

Please vote no on rezoning the Newport Beach Golf Course to a high density, low-income housing zone.

Comment noted.

As long as the golf course chooses to remain open to the public for golf, they should be permittedto keep their 18 holes. I am not a golfer, but I enjoy seeing people enjoy their sport. While I recognizethat low cost housing is in great need, this location is hardly a great location for low cost housing. It places it in the middle of a community, with few closejob opportunities/career paths that don't require a commute. Things like local grocery, diverse public transportation, and local medical should all be considerations for a high density low cost housing complex. I don't see that kind of infrastructure in this area. Meanwhile you will be removing one of the few public golf courses Newport Beach can lay claim too.

This is a notice of strong objection to the proposed Newport Housing Element zoning changes for the Newport Comment noted.

Golf Club LLC ("Unique ID Parcels 23 to 26). The effects of this proposal will negatively impact the areas immediately adjacent to the proposed development densification by overloading the Mesa Drive/ Birch and Irvine Avenue roadways. Morning and evening peak wait times at intersections currently approach 5 minutes and queue from Irvine Avenue to Orchard Drive. A number of years agothe circulation element was modified along with the County's Master Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH)to eliminate the University Drive Extension to Jamboree Road and to remove the Mesa Drive connection on assurances that development and densities would not be increased. This proposal would violate those assurances and previous planning efforts.

Additionally, during the creation of the specific area plan for the Santa Ana Heights neighborhood and the LAFCO discussions for its annexation to the City of Newport Beach, the City agreed to retain and preserve the residential rural equestrian zoning (and character) of the neighboring areas in exchange for some limited commercial rezoning along Birch and Irvine Avenues. The proposal under consideration conflicts with those previous planning efforts and commitments from the City, the County (and the previous Redevelopment Agency).
24 City of Newport Beach
2021-2029 HOUSING ELEMENT
Public Review Draft Comments
Response to Comments
I am writing to oppose the rezoning of the Newport Beach golf course into high density housing. We don't need Comment noted.
any more traffic, noise, or people flooding the back Bay Area by Mesa drive. What we could use is some walkable retail shopping or commercial not dedicated to plastic surgery. Given this is also in the wake of Buck Johns paying off politicians to buy cheap land in Newport, I would hope extra diligence is being put into how land is being sold/zoned/used with an emphasis on benefitting existing residents.

Accessory Dwelling Units
A new Appendix D has been
We are concerned about the City's calculation of ADU production and the lack of support for the numbers that provided supporting the
have been included in the Drafts thus far. With the direction of the City Council to increase the ADU numbers assumptions for increasing
even further, to potentially 1000 units, we have even greater concerns that such production is unrealistic.

ADU potential. Additionally,
However, we are encouraged by the fact that City Staff intends to survey the community and studythis further. programs supporting ADU
We hope that the City's ultimate determination regarding ADU production will be supported by reliable construction and
evidence and specific incentives to ensure a realistic probability that the Citywill meet its ADU production. monitoring of progress have
Additionally, the City's ADU program should include some form of regular data collection, evaluation, and site been included.
inventory update. For example, the City should evaluate annually the number of ADUs produced and the rental rates at which they are available to the general population, if at all. Based on a review of data, the Cityshould reevaluate its ADU predictions and in the event of a shortfall in production, revise its ADU program and incentives to boost production or ultimately identify additional sites toaccommodate the shortfall. The City should also consider incentives that encourage residents toagree to affordability covenants for their ADUs.

With the City's aggressive approachtoADU production, the specific details of its ADU program as well as its robust and regular evaluation of ADU production are essential.

No Net Loss Requirements
The assumption for a RHNA
Government Code section65863 ensures that jurisdictions accommodate their RHNAthroughout the planning buffer has been increased
period. To accomplish this, HCD recommends that a jurisdiction create a buffer in the housing element per Council directive.
inventory of at least 15 to 30 percent more capacitythan required. The City Council's direction to reduce the buffer of sites in its inventory to 5% is alarming, especially considering the potential need for a citywide vote to rezone newly identified sites within 180 days of approval of any development that results in a shortfall in the City's site inventory. This is also problematic considering that nearly 50%of the City's RHNA is allocated to housing for households with very low and low incomes. Unless the City is donating land or providing significant 25 City of Newport Beach
2021-2029 HOUSING ELEMENT
Public Review Draft Comments
Response to Comments
funding toward affordable housing, it is unlikely that the market will support the development of housing complexes where 50% or more of the units are affordable to very -low- and low-income families. Further, the Cityis planning on the percentages of units affordable to low- and very -low-income households to be 45% in the airport area, 65% in West Newport Mesa, 30%in both Dover-Westcliffand Newport Center, 35% in Coyote Canyon, and 20 % in Banning Ranch. However, the Cityis planning on adopting an inclusionary zoning ordinance requiring only 15% of the units be affordable to very -low-, low-, and moderate -income. With the development of just a few of the housing element sites, the City may quickly run out of inventory to cover its RHNAwith only a 5%buffer. We encourage the Cityto reconsider its 5% buffer and adopt a buffer in line with staffs recommendation in Table B-1 on page SS3-4 of the Staff Report for the April 27 Study Session.

Site Inventory
Banning Ranch and Coyote
Banning Ranch: We are concerned with the City's reliance on Banning Ranch as a suitable sitefor the Canyon are two of the six
development of housing, including affordable housing, during the 6th Cycle. As the City's Draft recognizes, opportunity areas in
Banning Ranch was identified in prior planning periods and the City previously approved a development at that addition to existing
location, however, the development was denied by the California Coastal Commission. I n its findings, the entitlements and AD
California Coastal Commission indicated that approximately 19.7 acres were suitable for development, of assumptions. Constraints
which only 11 of those acres could be developed for residential housing structures. Considering this history, and other factors have been
without additional programs or supporting information determining the development potential of 46 acres at considered and will be
this site, it is unrealisticfor the Cityto consider more than the 11 acres developable within the planning period. considered as part of the
Coyote Canyon: Considering the landfill in the vicinity of this location and the correspondence the City received implementation of the
from State and Federal Fish & Wildlife agencies opposing development at the site, we are concerned about the rezone programs described
viability of the site for housing development during the planning period without additional programs or in the Policy Program.
supporting information to show the reliability of the site's development potential during the planning period.

We also agree with comments made during the Study Session that locating 100% affordable developments at the site raises environmentaIjustice concerns.

Via Lido Plaza: We support the City's decision to include all sites in its inventory where property owners have affirmatively expressed interest in redeveloping their property for residential use and in being included in the site inventory, especially if a property owner has indicated a willingness to include affordable units in any 26 City of Newport Beach
2021-2029 HOUSING ELEMENT
Public Review Draft Comments
Response to Comments
development. Including such sites will help the City meet the increased require me ntthatjurisdictions demonstrate realistic development potential for nonvaca nt sites.

Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
AB 686 considerations have
With HCD's release of its Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing: Guidance for All Public Entities and for Housing been included in Sections 3
Elements (April 2021 Update), we encourage the City to reviewthe HCD's Guidance and revise its analysis and and 4, as well as Appendix B
programs as they relate to the duty to affirmatively further fair housing. While we address a few concerns of the Housing Element
specifically, the Guidance is an exceptional resource that the City should thoroughly review and follow when revising its Draft Housing Element. We also encouragethe City to take advantage of HCD's AFFH Data and Mapping Resources to incorporate additional data into its analysis.

Outreach and Key Stakeholders
Outreach efforts through
We encourage the City to ensure that its outreach includes a diverse group of organizations and individuals, the process have been
particularlywith its assessment of fair housing and in its selection of sites and development of programs that transparent and seek to
affirmatively further fair housing. Some key stakeholders the City should reach out to include: community- engage a diverse audience.
based and other organizations that represent protected class members, public housing authorities, housing and A summaryof efforts is
community development providers, lower income community members and households that include persons provided in Appendix C of
in protected classes, fair housing agencies, independent living centers, regional centers, homeless services the Housing Element.
agencies, churches and community service organizations that serve ethnic and linguistic minorities, etc.6 While we applaud the sometimes thankless and often tiresome work that the Housing Element Update Advisory Committee has committed to the Draft Housing Element over the last eight months, we are concerned that there has been a lack of diverse stakeholders included in the City's outreach efforts. Among the stakeholders listed above, the Cityshould make particular efforts to engage renters, members of protected classes, individuals that rely on affordable housing, and local workers, who may not be Newport Beach residents, but would choose to live closerto their employment if affordable housing were available.

Additional Analysis
AB 686 requirements have
The City's "analysis must address patterns at a regional and local level and trends in been included in Section 4
patterns over time." The City is also "expected to use local data and knowledge to analyze local fair housing of the Housing Element.
issues, including information obtained through community participation or consultation, such as narrative descriptions of people's lived experiences." Other relevant factors the Cityshould analyze include barriers in 27 City of Newport Beach
2021-2029 HOUSING ELEMENT
Public Review Draft Comments
Response to Comments
zoning and land use, such as "[p]redominance of single family uses and larger lot sizes in racially concentrated areas of affluence" or "[v]oter initiatives that restrict multifamily developments, rezoning to higher densities, height limits or similar measures that limit housing choices," etc. The Drafts hould also include an analysis of racially concentrated areas of affluence when analyzing patterns and trends of segregation and integration.

Site Inventoryand AFFH
AB 686 requirements have
While we applaud the City's efforts to redistribute affordable housing throughout its focus areas and reduce been included and
the concentration of affordable housing in the airport area, we are concerned that limiting affordable housing considered in Secitons 3 and
to the focus areas still creates or exacerbates patterns of segregation. Even though the City as a whole is 4, as well asAppendix B of
predominately White and affluent, especially when compared with the region and state, simplyviewing Figures the Housing Element.
3-7, 3-8, and 3-9 still demonstrates that the City is focusing its affordable housing in areas of the Citywith higher percentages of Hispanic/Latinx, Non -White, and Low/Moderate Income populations than may exist elsewhere in the City. When evaluating its Site Inventory, the City needs to "discuss how the sites are identified in a manner that better integrates the community," explain how the identified sites impact "existing patterns of segregation and number of units relative to the magnitude of the RH NA by income group," and evaluate "whetherthe RHNAby income group is concentrated in areas of the community." Goals, Policies, and Actions
AB 686 requirements have
As part of the AFFH component of the Draft Housing Element, the City needs to identify and prioritize been included in Sections 3
contributing factors to fair housing issues then identify goals, policies and a schedule of actions with specific and 4 of the Housing
timelines, discrete steps, and measurable outcomes that will have a beneficial impact during the planning Element.
period. "Goals and policies must be created with the intention to have a significant impact, well beyond a continuation of past actions, and to provide direction and guidance for meaningful action." The City's Policy Action 4A fails to meet the requirements of the necessary program to affirmatively further fair housing. Essentially, the City's program is to collaborate with other organizations and to review fair housing complaints simply to referthem to the appropriate government agency and to collaborate with other stakeholders to address potential constraints to fair housing, which may include analysis of barriers, review of historic policies, and "specific actions" that contribute to an inclusive community. First, the analysis of barriers to housing and a review of historic policies and restrictions that prevented protected classes from locating in Newport Beach should already have been done and included in the Housing Element as a part of the City's 28 City of Newport Beach
2021-2029 HOUSING ELEMENT
Public Review Draft Comments
Response to Comments
required analysis of Fair Housing. Essentially, the City has set a goal to do the analysis in the future that is should have already incorporated into its Draft Housing Element. And while the City states that it may take "specific actions," to foster inclusivity, there are no details about these "specific actions." "Programs in the element must have specific commitments to deliverables, measurable metrics or objectives, definitive deadlines, dates, or benchmarks for implementation. Deliverables should occur early in the planning period to ensure actual housing outcomes. For example, programs to 'explore' or 'consider' on an 'ongoing' basis are inadequate to demonstrate a beneficial impact in the planning period." The City's AFFH Policy Action is exactly what HCD has deemed to be inadequate. We encouragethe Cityto rework its fair housing analysis, identify barriers to fair housing, and develop specific programs and policy actions in line with HCD's guidanceto affirmatively further fair housing and actuallyachieve beneficial impacts during the planning period.

Site Inventory
Appendix B has been
Based on the April 27, 2021 City Council Study Session, we understand that the City is taking additional time to revised to include a variety
review and revise its Draft, including the Site Inventory to increasethe reliance on ADU production, which we of these considerations.
interpret to mean a decrease in the list of sites identified or in the density of those sites. As we have requested before, when the Cityupdates its Site Inventory, we would appreciate receiving a copy for review. Some concerns that we have previously identified and encourage City Staff to consider when revising the Site Inventory include:
• Ensurethat the Site Inventory correctly identifies whether a site was previously identified in the 5th Cycle;
• Specifically identify the sites to be rezoned in any rezoning policy action; • Ensurethat the appropriate densities, orgreater, and appropriate percentages of affordability, or greater, are designated to sites in accordance with housing element laws; • Provide the required analysis for sites less than 0.5 acres or greaterthan 10 acres todemonstrate that sites of that size were successfully developed during the prior planning period; • Develop a policy action to identify City -owned nonvacant sites as surplus land, in accordance with the Surplus Land Act, during the planning period; and
• Identify the current uses of nonvacant sites and how such uses do not constitute an impediment to additional residential development during the planning period. 29 City of Newport Beach
2021-2029 HOUSING ELEMENT
Public Review Draft Comments
Response to Comments
We continue to be encouraged by the City's diligent efforts to comply with state housing element laws and Comment noted.
meaningfully contemplate the housing needs of its community and how to meet the needs. While we are concerned with some of the recent direction City Staff has received related to the Draft Housing Element, as described above, we await the City's thorough review and investigation of those matters to determine the realistic development potential during the planning period ofADUs and identified sites. We are also excited by the new HCD Guidance and Data and Mapping Resources to assist the Cityin complying with its duty to affirmatively further fair housing. We look forward to continuing to work withthe City through this process and if we can provide any additional assistance, please do not hesitate to contact us.

As a resident who has lived here for the past decade, this golf course is part of the community, and it would be terrible to lose that! l l I strongly urge you to reconsider zoning and truly consider the affect it will have on our beloved community.

I am adamantly opposed to any rezoning as residential land. The golf course is a beautiful natural quiet area Comment noted.
and adding residential buildings will destroyany sense of peace and will add hundreds of automobiles, pollution and noise to this quiet east side location. Property values will plummet, traffic will increase 100-fold and noise will substantially increase. The Golf course is the only reason I purchased in this area. Please do not continue this horrible project of rezoning the golf course.

I highly oppose this decision [to build high density housing on a portion of the golf course]. We believe that this Comment noted.
is a very poor decision and will greatlyaffect the community by removing something that is constantly used by our residents as well as visitors from around the world. It will also cause an increase in trafficthat is alreadyan issue in this area. Please reconsiderthis decision as it will be a detrimental move to our city.

I adamantlyoppose the rezoning of the golf course for low income housing. That is a terrible place to put high Comment noted.
density housing directly under the flight path and we do not need moretraffic. The golf course should not get smaller because thousands of golfers enjoy both the front and back 9 every week. That is really the only affordable public golf course in Newport Beach, andyou want to downsize it? Gentlemen, this message is to express myopposition to any plan to convert the Newport Beach Tennis Club Comment noted.
property into any kind of "low, moderate, or above -moderate income" housing units. Doing sowould become an environmental disastertothe surrounding community in my opinion. Bear in mind there aretwo schools within walking distance of this site, the closest being a grammar school. The added traffic resulting from additional housing would greatly increase the likelihood of tragic pedestrian accidents involving children. 30 City of Newport Beach
2021-2029 HOUSING ELEMENT
Public Review Draft Comments
Response to Comments
I have lived in my home in Newport Beach for overt hirty years and have seen careful planning and good Comment noted.
progress made in the city. In my opinion, converting the the Newport Beach Tennis Club property into additional housing is a very bad idea and detrimental to the surrounding community. I believe there are more appropriate sites on the list and therefore I would like to see the tennis club property removed from the list permanently.

Thank you very much for serving our local community of which I have been a resident of for nearly 60 years.

Comment noted.

Regarding APN: 440-281-02
1 highly objection to the aforementioned Parcel and its re -zoning to provide over 250 high density residences to the Eastbluff area —Highertraffic plus a high carbon footprint vs recreation and health? Additionally to hide this behind the veil of 125 low income housing is intolerable.

Please don't tell me that the citywill receive and increase in property tax — With good management from your team the city has more than enough money. But more importantly to take away recreation which is so badly needed in just wrong! Ifyou haven't notice the second biggest contributing factor to deaths from COVI D is obesity or high BMI. This property serves many times more people each year than the proposed 125 low income units will ever provide. Besides the membership the property serves several tennis tournaments and provides hundreds of children swimming lessons and races each year! If you would like to discuss further do not hesitate to contact me —and I do look forward to seeing each of in person to reinforce my concerns about this project!
Thank you again for your service and with your good leadership we can make this city even better. I am hereto help if needed!
As a 30-year resident of Newport Beach I urge you to reject the efforts being proposed to replace the NB Comment noted.

Tennis Club with housing units.

NB Tennis Club has been a fixture in our community and serves as a gathering spot for residents toexercise and enjoy each other's camaraderie.

The population density in Newport is already too great and the traffic and crowds is excessive.

Please protect NB Tennis Club!
31 City of Newport Beach
2021-2029 HOUSING ELEMENT
Public Review Draft Comments
Response to Comments
As you can see from below, we've been fighting the re -districting of Newport Beach Tennis Club for years, Comment noted.
always assured that a general plan amendment and a long process with multiple hurdles would be required to change NBTCto a residential site. It looks like more and more of those hurdles arefalling and the threat is real.

I STRONGLY oppose both the destruction of the tennis club and the building of condos. As to the former it's a longstanding recreational landmark and a very active, well -used club. As to the latter if we wanted to live somewhere dominated by condos and a bunch of cookie cutter housing developments with a horrible traffic flow we would move to Irvine. PLEASE stop the "development" that is ruining the character and individuality of Newport Beach. I understandthere is a mandate from the stateto identify areas for affordable housing but taking away one of the longest standing and supported recreational areas in a city that is exploding with condos and traffic cannot be the right answer.

I wanted to takethis time to offer my opinion on the upcoming decisions facing you regarding site selections Comment noted.
for the 2021-2029 Housing Element addressing future low/very low, moderate and above moderate income housing specifically involving APN:440-281-02... the Newport Beach Tennis Club.

I am completely against including this property in the designated Cityof Newport Beach 2021-2029 Housing Element for the following reasons:

1. Traffic.... Not onlywill ingress and egress of the proposed development not likely be easilysolved but Eastbluff Drive will be severely overtaxed causing major traffic issues along with increased traffic accidents also resulting in increased danger to bicyclists who use this route.

2. Infrastructure....ln addition to impacting the roadways, the local shopping centerwill not be able to handle either the increased volume nor supply adequate parking. The Ralph's grocerystore is one of the smaller footprints in their chain and likely could in no way handle the increased volume from the additional dwelling units. This area truly is built out relative to the amenities it was designed for.

3. Recreation.....Adding more dwelling units in this neighborhood removes more acres of recreation this city cannot afford. We can only look at our country's increased obesity rate to understand reducing land devoted to recreation only contributes to this national emergency.... please don't add to this problem.

4. Tennis Community..... The only other tennis club in the city (Palisades Tennis Club) would be completely unable to absorb the 500+ members Newport Beach Tennis club has which would lead to citizens leaving the sport or flooding city courts well beyond their capacity.

I urge you to NOT include APN: 440-281-02 in the City of Newport Beach 2021-2029 Housing Element and select a more suitable site.
32 City of Newport Beach
2021-2029 HOUSING ELEMENT
Public Review Draft Comments
Response to Comments
Asa homeowner with a property inclose proximity to Planning Site #145 -currently the Newport Beach Tennis Comment noted.

Club - I would like to express my strong opinion that apartment development on this site is ill-considered.

There has been copious apartment development in Newport Beach and surrounding cities over the past 5 years. Plenty of inventory has been added that strains an already overburdened traffic, amenity and educational infrastructure. Carpeting the neighborhoods of NB, Costa Mesa and Irvine with apartment dwellings will ultimately seriously undermine the quality of life that was the very reason most of us moved here in the first place. We do not want to create another West Los Angeles.

Please remove Site #145 for the city's "Site Analysis List".

It has come to my attentionthat the Newport Beach Tennis Club (APN: 440-281-02) site being considered for Comment noted.
re -zoning to accommodate future low income housing.

Please remove this site from your Site Analysis List- the location is in the heart of Newport Beach and would significantly alter home values and the look/feel of our city.

It has come to my attention that the Newport Beach Tennis Club (APN: 440-281-02) site being consideredfor Comment noted.
re -zoning to accommodate future low income housing.

Please remove this site from your Site Analysis List - the location is in the heart of Newport Beach and would significantly alter home values and the look/feel of our city.

Please keep our beloved tennis club zoned recreational ! ! it is a quality of LIFE issue for multi generational Comment noted.
families H look elsewhere for more housing sites H
Comment noted.

I have lived at for 46 years since 1975! Our house is DI RECTLYacross the street from the tennis club. My sons went to Lincoln and Corona del Mar schools and have grown up here. The possibility of having a 379 unit development across the street and in this area is abhorrent and difficult to envision.

I have been active in various neighborhood and city affairs and have seen many changes in this area. I cannot believe the city is even considering the development of the building 379 units in this area! Along with thousands of others, I earnestly implore the planning committee to remove this property from the 2021-2019 Housing Element now, to prevent any housing accommodations to be considered now or in the future.

If this property is to be razed there are other developments that could be considered. Something that would benefit the people who live in Newport Beach and this close-knit area. 33 City of Newport Beach
2021-2029 HOUSING ELEMENT
Public Review Draft Comments
Response to Comments
The thought of at least 600 plus more cars on East Bluff Drive, Jamboree, etc. along with other factors, is outside the realm of credibility and not worthy of any of you able to make this critically important decision.

I, along with many others will follow this issue closely and do whatever we canto prevent it. 34 City of Newport Beach
2021-2029 HOUSING ELEMENT
Background and Purpose
ADU Purpose
Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units (JADUs) are additional independent living facilities, for one or more persons, which are located on the same parcel as a single -unit or multi- unit residential dwelling. The concept of ADUs has existed for decades but has recently come to the forefront of the California housing discussion due to legislation passed starting in 2018. This legislation, discussed in more detail in the following section, makes it easier to develop ADUs by increasing the development zones where ADUs can be built, broadening the definition of an ADU, and removing previous restrictions such as requiring replacement parking.

In areas such as Newport Beach where land values are high and there is a large amount of single -unit detached housing, ADUs present a potentially more naturally affordable housing option for renters. ADUs are often smaller in size than typical apartments or rental housing, ranging from 300 to 600 square feet in size. They are also attractive to property owners who can gain rental income.

The City of Newport Beach (City) believes that ADUs present a viable option as part of the overall strategy to develop housing at all income levels during the 2021-2029 61" Cycle Housing Element planning period.

Appendix D describes:
• Recent ADU legislation and regional actions;
• Local factors that may increase ADU development over the next eight years; and • Actions Newport Beach will take through housing programs to incentivizing ADU development.

Background on Legislation and Statutory Requirements
Currently in Newport Beach, ADUs and JADUs are primarily regulated through Section 20.48.200 (Accessory Dwelling Units) of Title 20 (Planning and Zoning) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code (NBMC). Within the Coastal Zone, ADUs and JADUs are primarily regulated through Section 21.48.200 (Accessory Dwelling Units) of Title 21 (Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan) of the NBMC.

ADU legislation is addressed in Government Code Section 65852.150; it establishes that ADUs are valuable and viable form of housing which can support the varying needs of California residents. In recent years, ADU legislation has been revised to increase opportunity and improved effectiveness in creating more housing in California. Recent changes in law have increased the feasibility and streamlined the ADU process to encourage development; below is a summary of recent legislation that has amended ADU law.

SB 106.9
SB 1069 made legislative changes to address barriers to the development of ADUs and expanded capacity for ADU development. The bill reduces parking requirements per unit, restricts local agencies' ability to require ADU applicants to install new or separate utility connects or impose related fees, and requires local governments to ministerially approve applications for one ADU within single -unit residential so long as it meets specific requirements.

Appendix D: Accessory Dwelling Units (September 2022 Final Housing Element) D-1

City of Newport Beach
2021-2029 HOUSING ELEMENT
Z
AB 2299
AB 2299 requires local governments to ministerially approve ADUs if the proposed unit meets all parking requirements, maximum allowable size of an attached unit and specific setback requirements.

Additionally, the bill states that any existing ADU ordinances do not meet the bill's requirements is null and void and that the jurisdiction must approve accessory dwelling units based on Government Code Section 65852.2 until the jurisdiction adopts a compliant ordinance. ' R 9Af)R
AB 2406 creates more flexibility by authorizing local governments to permit junior accessory dwelling units (JADU) through an ordinance. The bill defines JADUs to be a unit that cannot exceed 500 square feet and must be completely contained within the space of an existing residential structure. In addition, the bill requires specified components for a local JADU ordinance.

AB 3182
AB 1382 further addresses barriers to the development and use of ADUs and JADUs in local jurisdictions.

The legislation streamlines approvals of ADU and JADUs using ministerial approval processes, including a requirement that complete applications for a compliant ADU/JADU which have not been acted upon within 60 days are deemed approved.

A6 dd, A5 681, SB 13
AB 68, 881 and SB 13 prohibits a number development standards and design regulations a local government may impose in ADU/JADUs, decreased the allowable time for an ADU review and permitting process, reduces the allowable associated fees for ADUs and provided additional regulatory clarifications and guidelines pursuant to Government Code Sections 65852.2, 65852.22.

Q Ic
AB 587 permits an ADU to be sold or conveyed as a deed restricted affordable unit separately from the primary dwelling residence. Additional, regulations are outlined in Government Code Section 65852.26, including the provision that the primary and accessory unit must be built by a qualified nonprofit.

AB 670
AB 670 states that all covenants or provisions that unreasonably restrict or prohibit the development of ADU/JADUs on a lot zoned for single -unit residential use is void and unenforceable.

AB 671
AB 671 requires jurisdictions to include a plan and programs in the Housing Element which incentivizes and promotes the development of ADUs for very low, low- and moderate -income households.

HCD/SCAG Policies and Programs
In August 2020, the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) and the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) completed an analysis of accessory dwelling unit affordability to establish approved assumptions for use in the sites analysis for the 2021-2029 Housing Element Cycle. The analysis surveyed rents for ADUs through different online real estate platforms between April and June 2020 and focused on specific geographic regions to determine differences in Appendix D: Accessory Dwelling Units (September 2022 Final Housing Element) D-2

City of Newport Beach
2021-2029 HOUSING ELEMENT
x.Si
�:..
affordability. The final affordability assumptions resulting from SCAG and HCD's analysis for jurisdictions within Orange County are as follows:'
• Extremely Low — 15.0%
• Very Low — 10.0%
• Low — 43.0
• Moderate — 30.0%
• Above Moderate — 2.0%
The City of Newport Beach applied the above approved affordability breakdown to the anticipated ADU development within the 6t' Cycle planning period.

Opportunities for ADUs in Newport Beach
Influences Supporting Affordable Housing in Newport Beach Opportunities to develop affordable housing on vacant land in the City are extremely limited with only three parcels qualifying based on the SCAG Housing Element Parcel Tool (HELPR) (see Figure 1). The City, however, has substantial opportunity to develop affordable housing through ADUs based on the following key factors:
• High land values in the City incentivize ADU development - Because of the high land values in Newport Beach and the propensity to have viable, financially performing properties, infill opportunities on existing residential sites via ADU development represents the greatest opportunity for affordable housing construction and to integrate such development within established neighborhoods. According to SCAG's HELPR, there are numerous parcels that could qualify for by -right detached ADUs, with little to no restrictions. In addition, every single -unit in the City has the potential to convert existing space, including garage area, into an ADU or JADU by -right, resulting in approximately 19,000 eligible properties (see Figure D-2). Therefore, the City contends this provides the most significant opportunity to generate affordable housing in the community.
• Site availability for ADUs is significant - Almost 8,000 existing parcels have the physical space to accommodate detached ADUs and provide for ample opportunity to add to the housing stock.

Whereas the City may lose economic potential, jobs and tax base with infill redevelopment of existing commercial uses, encouraging ADU development on existing residential properties does not deteriorate economic, job and tax base considerations. Rather, it will likely enhance availability of diverse housing opportunities, promote economic stability and further the City's tax base.
• Positive Historical Trends in ADU Development - The City's history of ADU/JADU development within multifamily developments demonstrates opportunity to develop attached ADUs as an affordable component of larger housing projects. These positive trends are directly correlated with the City's current efforts to provide supportive policies, outreach and information dissemination to its residents. The City has experienced year over year increase in ADU activity 1 SCAG Regional Accessory Dwelling Unit Affordability Analysis, 2020 Appendix D: Accessory Dwelling Units (September 2022 Final Housing Element) D-3

City of Newport Beach
2021-2029 HOUSING ELEMENT
in the City and will continue to see these trends increase and exponentially expand throughout the 2021-2029 planning period through intensified public outreach and development incentives. • Demonstrated Commitment to ADU Development through Policies/Programs —The City Council has recently adopted policies that support ADU development and has developed an ADU Ordinance that strongly encourages ADU development. In addition, that City will adopt additional ADU policies the further support ADU development citywide. Providing strong support through policies, community outreach and monitoring of ADU construction. • Council Policy K-4 (Reducing the Barriers to the Creation of Housing) — On March 9, 2021, the City Council adopted Council Policy K-4, which includes a stated goal of increasing the production of ADUs and JADUs. The policy recognizes that further encouraging development of ADUs beyond State law minimums is an important strategy to accommodate future growth. To further encourage and incentive the development of ADUs, the policy set forth the following directives:

1. Interpret ambiguities in code provisions regulating ADUs in a manner that accommodates and maximizes production.

2. Direct staff and the Planning Commission to review and recommend code changes that reduce regulatory barriers, streamline the approval process, and expand potential capacity of ADUs beyond minimum State law requirements

3. Publicize incentives for construction of ADUs with a systematic approach utilizing all forms of media and outreach.

4. Prepare and maintain a user-friendly website committed to information related to codes, processes, and incentives pertaining to the development of ADUs and JADUs in the City.

5. Develop and administer a program that includes waiving all permit and City fees for property owners of unpermitted units when they agree to bring units into compliance with current building and fire codes to ensure the safety of occupants and structures.

6. Develop permit -ready standard plans to permit new ADU construction to minimize design costs, expedite permit processing, and provide development certainty for property owners. • Temporary 2-Year Fee Waiver Program for ADU and JADU Development — On April 27, 2021, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2021-37 waiving City building plan check, building construction permit, and other related City fees required for plan check, permits, inspections, re - inspections and other related activities, for the design and construction of ADUs and JADUs on existing residential developments and the legalization of exiting unpermitted ADUs and JADUs.

Appendix D: Accessory Dwelling Units (September 2022 Final Housing Element) D-4

City of Newport Beach - _
._
2021-2029 HOUSING ELEMENT
Figure D-1: Vacant Land Availability
ect aAu _
City or County(Urli—ir aiatedi s cF —
Newport Beach
Show Population and Housing Stats
Standard Filters
r Vacant parcels of appropriate size ai O
0 4 Lowervaluedcommercial/retail Q <
P 7 Public -owned land (D
r 4 Inside priority growth area, outside constraint area Q Number of Selected Parcels
3 Download Parcels (CSV) Download Parcels (SHP)
3 km
Download Land Use Layer File (LYRX; m.
ry ne
Costa Mesa
s
air\ r Ha—
�ZN M
art.

San Joaquin
Hills
of Irvi ,
Cove
Beach, Cooney of
Appendix D: Accessory Dwelling Units (September 2022 Final Housing Element) D-5

S
City of Newport Beach

HOUSING ELEMENT
Figure D-2: ADU Eligible Lots
Single -Family
Zoning Areas
Planned Communities 7,480
Go nve nti a nal Zoning 11,350
16, Overall Total 18,830
Vf i
Single -Family Residenlial Zoned Lois
Eligible for Accessory Dwelling Unit Conversion
Planned Commu5ims - Singe -Family Equivalent Lots
C—ninnal Zoning - R-A; R-1; R-18WO; R-1-1200; R-1-100DO; SP-7(Singl.-F—ily Lots) o
Figure D-3: ADU Opportunity Areas Map

COSTA U MINC
MESA
14 t, CSC 22
UNINC.
25 53
❑ Assumed ADU Units
N
A0 0.5 imi
Appendix D: Accessory Dwelling Units (September 2022 Final Housing Element) F
M.

City of Newport Beach
2021-2029 HOUSING ELEMENT
i ocai ADU Trends and 2021 2029 Projections
There are several indicators of strong growth in ADU development since 2018 within Newport Beach.

Table D-1 shows the City's number of ADUs that were issued building permits (permitted) since 2018.

Initial interest in development of ADUs in the City, like other cities in the State, was slow due lack of public awareness of the new opportunities and complexity of the laws. Additionally, the City's initial ADU regulations adopted in 2018 were intended to comply with State law be as restrictive as possible.

However, in 2019, the City amended its ADU regulations to comply with updates in State law but also included additional design flexibility for ADUs and adopted incentives. Due in large part to increased education of property owners, City Council support of ADU development, and additional local policies promoting the development of ADUs, the City of Newport Beach is experiencing exponential growth in ADU interest and development. The largest increase came in 2021 when the City issued building permits for 40 ADUs with an additional 29 ADU permits pending. This represents a 1325% increase in total permits issued from 2018 through 2021.

Table D-1: Newport Beach ADU Development (2018-2021)

ADU STATUS
2018
2019
2020
20211
Total
Permitted
4 5
8 48
57 140 ADUs permits have been issued as of October 28, 2021, which prorated monthly represents 48 for the year.

Final year totals anticipated to be higher given there are an additional 29 permits are pending. 60 50
40 30
20 10
0 Figure D-4: Permit Issuance in Newport Beach
City of Newport Beach
2018 2019 2020 2021
--*--Permits Issued
This exponential growth is not unique to the City of Newport Beach, but is similarly occurring in all other cities throughout the State. Table D-2 below illustrates the number of ADUs permitted from 2018-2020 in the various council of governments within the Southern California Council of Governments region. The data is based on HCD Annual Progress Report (APR) analysis and only includes data from the available reported years of 2018-2020. Similar to what is being experienced in Newport Beach, it is anticipated that Appendix D: Accessory Dwelling Units (September 2022 Final Housing Element) D-7

City of Newport Beach
2021-2029 WOt.15ING ELEMENT
reported ADU permits for 2021 will have exponentially grown due to the increased public awareness and outreach efforts of the various jurisdictions.

Table D-2: ADU Development in SCAG COGs (2018-2020)
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0 ADU STATUS
2018
2019
2020
Gateway Cities Council of
129
368
619
Governments (GCCOG)
Orange County Council of
282
419
827
Governments (OCCOG)
Westside Cities Council of
72 96
96 Governments (WSCCOG)
San Gabriel Valley Council of
199
395
509
Governments (SGVCOG)
Ventura Council of
126
109
224
Governments (VCOG)
Source: SCAG ADU APR Permit Reporting Data Analysis
Figure D-5: Council of Governments in the SCAG Region
Council Of Governments in SCAG Region
2018 2019 2020
tGCCOG tOCCOG tWSCCOG --*—SGVCOG tVCOG
Newport Beach 2021-2029 ADU Projections
Based on the data in Table D-1, the citywide availability of land for ADU development and the existing and future policies supporting more aggressive ADU development, Newport Beach is reasonably and justifiably projecting future growth beyond the safe harbor methodology provide in HCD's published guidance.

Table D-3: 2021-2029 ADU Annual Average
Appendix D: Accessory Dwelling Units (September 2022 Final Housing Element) D-8

City of Newport Beach
2021-2029 HOUSING ELEMENT
Year
Conservative Approach
2018 - 2021 Prorated Annual
Average
19 Annual Average x 1.5
30 (rounded)
Planning Period Total
240
Table D-3 shows the City's ADU assumptions as described in Appendix B of the Housing Element. As noted, the City anticipates that growth in ADU development will continue to occur year over year; however, the City is assuming a conservative approach by anticipating a growth factor of approximately

1.5 times the past four-year average of 19 ADUs (approximately 30 ADUs per year anticipated), resulting in a total anticipated production of 240 ADUs for the 2021-2029 Planning Period. A 1.5 factor for growth is reasonable given the development trends illustrated in Tables D-1 and D-3, extensive local policy emphasis on ADU development, and proposed housing programs described in Section 4. In addition, the City is committed to enhanced monitoring to ensure actual production is on pace with projections.

The City of Newport Beach is well positioned, both from an availability of potential development areas within existing single -unit neighborhoods and from a political will standpoint, to realize a large increase in ADU development significantly exceeding the conservative estimate of 240 ADUs during the 2021-2029 planning period.

Housing Element Policy Frame wort
The City of Newport Beach has identified programs to maintain and encourage ADUs during the 2021- 2029 planning period. The matrix below identified existing policies contain in Section 4 of this document as well as policies the City will review for feasibility to implement in order to increase affordable housing.

Table D-3: ADU/JADU Policies and Policy Considerations
ADU Policy Type/Name
Description
Consideration
Housing Element Policies
Policy Action 1H: Accessory
Support and encourage
Explore feasibility of incentives for ADUs, including
Dwelling Unit Construction
the development of
developing educational campaigns and minimizing
ADUs in Newport Beach
development costs through permit ready plans.

Policy Action 11: Accessory
ADU development
To identify progress and make appropriate
Dwelling Units Monitoring
Tracking Program
program adjustments, the City will monitor ADU
Program
applications and approvals.

Policy Action 1J: Accessory
Legalizing unpermitted
Providing education, incentives and low -risk
Dwelling Units Amnesty
ADUs
avenues to encourage property owners to legalize
Program
unpermitted ADUs and bring them up to
necessary fire and life safety codes.

ADU Policies for Consideration
ADU Development
Permit Ready Program
Developing and offering of pre -approved ADU
Streamlining
building plans to help to reduce cost burden on
applicant side.

JADU Incentive Production
Junior ADU Program
Evaluate additional incentives for JADU
production above those currently offered.

Appendix D: Accessory Dwelling Units (September 2022 Final Housing Element) D-9

City of Newport Beach
2021-2029 HOUSING ELEMENT
ADU Policy Type/Name
Description
Consideration
Public Outreach and ADU
ADU Outreach Program
Formal development of public outreach and
Education Program
dissemination of materials for ADU and JADU
(both electronically and in print).

ADU/JADU Subsidy Program
Subsidy incentives to
Provide grants or low interest loans to interested
construct ADUs
property owners in exchange for deed restricted
ADU/JADUs.

Production/Incentives
Incentives to create long
Granting fee waivers, additional development
term affordability of
standards waivers, or square footage bonuses in

ADU/JADU
exchange for affordability covenants.

ADU and JADU Incentive
Various development
• Fee Waiver/Deferral
Programs
standards and
• Over the Counter Approvals
entitlement streamlining
• ADU One Stop Permit
actions
• Subsidies for Affordability
Summary of Newport Beach ADU Approach
Anticipated ADU Growth (Planning Period 2021-2029)
Newport Beach anticipates that the City will continue to see year after year growth in ADU development which matches or exceeds the growth in ADU activity shown from 2019 to 2020. The City has over 21,000 single -unit dwelling units, all of which are eligible to develop one ADU and one JADU. Additionally, multi- unit apartment complexes can also develop ADUs if the requirements of State law and the City's local ordinances are met.

While the City anticipates hundreds of ADUs to be developed within the 2021-2029 planning period based on increased production of ADUs year over year as demonstrated in Table D-2, for the purposes of the Housing Element, the City is conservatively estimating 240 ADUs.

In accordance with HCD/SCAG guidance on affordability assumptions within the Housing Element Update process, the City anticipates that 151 of these units will be affordable to residents within the very low and low-income categories, 84 will be affordable to residents within the moderate income category, and 48 will be affordable to residents within the above moderate -income category.

Supportive Policies and Programs
Newport Beach has proposed programs within the 2021-2029 Housing Element to take meaningful steps towards promoting and incentivizing ADU growth during the planning period. The City will explore incentives beyond what has been established to date, including the potential for permit -ready plans or a streamlined process if certain requirements are met. Table D-3 outlines a list of further ADU incentives that the City may explore during implementation of Policy Action 1H. The City also plans to continue its ADU amnesty program to bring existing non -conforming accessory units up to code so that the City can realize RHNA credit for these existing housing units within the community.

Appendix D: Accessory Dwelling Units (September 2022 Final Housing Element) D-10

City of Newport Beach
2021-2029 HOUSING ELEMENT
Monitoring Requirements
The City of Newport Beach is required to report all development within the City, including ADU development, to the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) annually through their Annual Progress Reports (APRs). As part of this reporting, the City must show adequate progress in meeting their identified ADU growth assumptions as described above.

To address HCD's ADU monitoring and reporting requirements, the City has included Program 11 within the Housing Plan (Section 4). This states that the City will conduct an assessment of ADU growth within two years of adoption of the Housing Element. If ADU assumptions are not keeping pace with the assumptions made within the Housing Element, the City will implement fall back actions to accommodate the shortfall, if necessary.

Appendix D: Accessory Dwelling Units (September 2022 Final Housing Element) D-11

i

EXHIBIT B
18-20

Revised
Document
Section
HCD Comments
Reference
A. Housing Needs, Resources, and Constraints

1. Affirmatively furtherfing] fair housing in accordance with Chapter 15 (commencing with Section 8899.50) of Division 1 of Title 2... shall include an assessment of fair housing inthe jurisdiction. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(10)(A)J
The element includes some data and information regarding affirmatively furthering fair housing (AFFH) but it must still add data, local knowledge, analysis, and other relevantfactors to address this statutory requirement, as follows:

Regional Patterns and Trends: For all categories of analysis Pg. 3-56
(segregation and integration.. racially and ethnically
concentrated areas of poverty and affluence, accessto
opportunity, and disproportionate housing needs, including displacement). the element addresses some requirements to analyze local patterns and treads. However,the element must also analyze regional patterns and trends for each category and subcategory of analysis. A regional analysis should compare conditions at the local level to the rest of the region.

This analysis could compare the locality at a county levelor other subregional geography.

Segregation and Integration: The element analyzes
Pg.3-66
segregation and integration on thebasis of race at the local level. However, this component of the analysis should also address segregation and integration by disability, familial status, and income. The analysis must also conclude with a summary of fair housing issues.

City of Newport Beach
HCD Review Matrix - October 12, 2021 Letter Page 1
18-21

Revised
Document
Section
HCD Comments
Reference
Access to Opportunity: The element addresses some of the Pg. 3-75 to 3-80, and
requirements for access toopportunity, discussing economic, Figure 3-7
environmental, and transportation opportunity. It should also address access to educational opportunity.

Figure 3-s
Figure 3-9
Disproportionate Housing Needs: Currently, the element
Pg 3-98
provides data and limited analysis for cost burden and
See new Figure in
overcrowding. The analysis of disproportionate housing
Section 3
needs should also address substandard housing.
homelessness, and displacement risk.

Local Data and Knowledge: In addition to the data sources Pg. 3-116
relied on in the current draft.. the element must support its analysis with local data and knowledge, including information obtained through community participation or consultation.

Site Inventory: The element contains an analysis of the site See added Figures:
inventory that does not fullyidentify whether sites improve or Figure 3-22
exacerbate conditions or whether the sites are isolated by income group. A full analysis should address the income Figure 3-23
categories of identified sites with respect to location, the Figure 3-24
number of sites and units by all income groups and how that Figure 3-25
effects the existing patterns for all components of the See narrative:
assessmentof fair housing (e.g.. segregation and integration, access to opportunity). The element should also discuss Pg. 3 110 115
whether the distribution of sites improves or exacerbates conditions, If sites exacerbate conditions, the element should City of Newport Beach
HCD Review Matrix - October 12, 2021 Letter Page 2
18-22

Revised
Document
Section
HCD Comments
Reference
identify further program actions that will be taken to mitigate this (e.g. anti -displacement strategies).

Contributing Factors: The element describes contributing factors Pg. 3-56
from the Orange County Analysis of Impediments (p. 3-60) but Pg. 3-116
should also tailor contributing factors unique to the City.

Contributing factors should be based on all the prior efforts and analyses (outreach, assessment of fair housing, and site inventory) and should be prioritized to demonstrate the most salient fair housing issues in Newport Beach, The analysis shall result in strategic approaches to inform and connect goals and actions to mitigate contributing factors to fair housing issues.

Strategies and Actions: Goals and actions must significantly Pg. 4-15
seek to overcome contributing factors to fair housing issues.

Currently. the element includes Policy Action4A (Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing), which commits the City to reviewing discrimination complaints, assisting in dispute resolution, and referring complaints to the proper authority, in collaboration with local and regional organizations, This is not adequate to satisfy the requirement for specific and meaningful actions. Program actions should be proactive, facilitate meaningful change, and respond directly to the contributing factors to fair housing that were identified. Furthermore, the element must include metrics and milestones for evaluating progress on programs, actions, and fair housing results. The element must add and revise programs based on a complete analysis and drawn from the City of Newport Beach
HCD Review Matrix - October 12, 2021 Letter Page 3
18-23

HCD Comments
identified and prioritize contributing factors to fair housing issues.

Revised
Document
Section
Reference

2. Include an analysis of population and employment trends and documentation of projections and a quantification of the locality's existing and projected needs for allincome levels, including extremely low-income households. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(1).) While the element quantifies the existing housing needs of Pg. 2-29 to 2-32 extremely low-income (ELI) households, it must still quantify projected ELI housing needs. The projected housing need for ELI households can be calculated by using available census data to determine the number of very low-income households that qualify as ELI households orpresume that 50 percent of very low-income households qualify as ELI households.

City of Newport Beach HCD Review Matrix - October 12, 2021 Letter Page 4 18-24

1. 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 a designated incomelevel, and an analysis of the relationship of zoning and public facilities and services to these sites. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(3)•)
The City has a regional housing need allocation (RHNA) of 4,845 housing units, of which 2,386 are for lower -income households. To address this need, the element relieson vacant and nonvacant sites across six Focus Areas throughout the City. To demonstrate the adequacy of these sites and strategies to accommodate the City's RHNA, the element most include complete analyses:

Progress in Meeting the RHNA: The element indicates (pp. B— New Table B-2
7-10) that five projects consisting of 120 affordable units and Projects in the
1,471 above moderate -income units are in the pipeline. but it Pipeline summary
provides no information about these projects except their names. The City's RHNA may be reduced by the number of
new units built since ,dune 30, 2021; however, the element must demonstrate the affordability of these units to the various income groups based on actual sales price, rent level or other mechanisms ensuring affordability (e.g., deed restrictions).

The element must also describe the approval status and basic features of these projects to demonstrate their anticipated availabilityin the planning period.

Realistic Capacity: The element provides various assumptions Section Pg. B-1
of buildout for sites included in the inventory's six Focus Areas, Additional narrative
assuming close to the maximum yield on each site and then in each focus area
applying a percentage to the Focus Area as a whole (e.g.,18 summary discussion
percent for the Airport Area Environs Focus Area). It must also See new section of
provide support for these assumptions. For example, the narrative Pg B- 15.
element should demonstrate what specific trends, factors, and Where we have
other evidence led to the assumptions, The estimate of the history/projects in
City of Newport Beach
HCD Review Matrix - October 12, 2e21 Letter Page 5
18-25

numberof units for each site may need to be adjusted based on the land use controls and site improvements, typical densities of existing or approved residential developments at a similar affordability level in that jurisdiction, and on the current or planned availability and accessibility of sufficient water, sewer, and City utilities.
the pipeline, we
have added a table
to the Focus Area
summaries. New
narrative for all
areas, extra for
Coyote Canyon and
Banning Ranch.

In addition, for sites where zoning allows 100 percent
We have adjusted
nonresidential uses, this analysismust adjust for the likelihood forthe likelihood of
of nonresidential development. For example, the element could residential
describe the underlying zoning, whether 100 percent
development as a
nonresidential developmentis allowed in these zones, and any whole. Excepting
relevant programs or policies the City is undertakingto facilitate Coyote Canyon and
residential development in nonresidential zones.

Banning Ranch,
redevelopment
percentages are
c50/o, which
accounts for mixed -
uses. Supportive
evidence found in
New Table B-9.

Attachment B-1
describes past
performance of
projects
Suitability of Nonvacant Sites: The element must include an Pg. B-3 to B-9
analysis demonstrating thepotential for redevelopment of Pg. B_17
nonvacant sites. To address this requirement, the element describes in general the existing use of each nonvacant site Narrative in Tables
(e.g., office building). This alone is not adequate or to B-8to s-Zs
demonstrate the potential for redevelopment in the planning City of Newport Beach
HCD Review Matrix - October 12, 2021 Letter Page 6
18-26

period. The analysis should consider factors including the extent Summary of non
to which existing uses may constitute an impediment to
vacant past history
additional residential development, the City's past experience in Table B-2
with converting existing uses to higher densityresidential Attachment B-1
development, the current market demand for the existing use, describes past
an analysis ofany existing leases or other contracts that would performance of
perpetuate the existing use or preventredevelopment of the site projects
for additional residential development, development trends, market conditions. and regulatory or other incentives or standards to encourage additional residential development on these sites. For example, the element could consider indicators such as age and condition of the existing structure, presence of expiring leases, expressed developer interest, low improvement to land value ratio, andother factors. The element should describe and support (through development trends) the
thresholds used to identify sites for redevelopment.

In addition. specific analysis and actions are necessary if the See analysis in Table
housing element relies upon nonvacant sites to accommodate B-8 to 8-18 and
more than 50 percent of the RHNA for lower- income
additional
households. For your information, the housing element must supportive narrative
demonstrate existing uses are not an impediment to additional on Pg. B-17, B-4, B-5,
residential development and will likely discontinue in the 8-21, 8-36, 8-41, B-
planning period. (Gov. Code, § 65583.2, subd. (g)(2).) Absent 55, 8-73, 8-77
findings (e.g., adoption resolution) based on substantial evidence, the existing uses willbe presumed to impede
additional residential development and will not be utilized toward Attachment B-1
describes past
demonstrating adequate sites to accommodate the RHNA.
performance of
projects
Small and Large Sites: While the narrative claims that sites We have adjusted smaller than 0.5 acres and larger than 10 acres were excluded the buildable from consideration for lower -income RHNA. the parcel listing acreage on the large City of Newport Beach HCD Review Matrix - October 12, 2021 Letter Pale 18-27

appears to include several such sites. The element must site and support
describe whether these parcels are expected to develop
with the
individually or consolidated with the other small parcels. For development history
parcels anticipated to be consolidated, the element must provided, as well as
demonstrate the potential for lot consolidation. For example, the written interest
analysis describing the City's role or track record in facilitating provided within the
small -lot consolidation: policies or incentives offered or letters to boisterthis
proposed to encourage and facilitate lot consolidation, comment.
conditions rendering parcels suitable and ready for
redevelopment, recent trends of lot consolidation, and
information on the owners of each aggregated site. For parcels anticipated to develop individually; the element must describe existing and proposed policies or incentives theCity will offer to facilitate development of small sites. This is important given the necessary economies of scale to facilitate development of housing affordable to lower -income households.

To demonstrate the viability of appropriate development in the PG. B-74 and B-77
Coyote Canyon and Banning Ranch Focus Areas.. the
element must include analysis demonstrating the feasibility of large parcel development of housing affordable to lower - income households. In Coyote Canyon. the primary site is 243.23 acres with 22 buildable acres, and Banning Ranch includes several hundred acres of land. The element must demonstrate the suitability and availability of these areas for residential development affordable to lower -income
households, particularly considering that typical affordable developments range in size from 50 to 150 units. The analysis could describe strategies such as opportunities for specific - plan development and further subdivisionor other methods to facilitate the development of housing affordable to lower - income households on large sites.

City of Newport Beach
HCD Review Matrix - October 12, 2021 Letter page 8

Banning Ranch: The element assumes 1,475 units in the
See narrative Pg. B-
Banning Ranch Focus Area, explaining without further detail 77 to B-80
that "the City understands that future opportunities maystill exist for housing development on the Banning Ranch' (p. B-56).

HCD understandsthis area might not be available for residential development in the planning period. The element must analyze potential environmental constraints and any other known conditions that may preclude or impact residential development during the planning period. Based on the outcomes of this analysis. the element should adjust assumptions and add or modify programs as appropriate.

Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs): The element assumes an Methodology added
average of 125 ADUs per year will be constructed during the to accommodate
planning period, for a total of 1,000 ADUs. The element's HCD's stated
analysis and programs do not support this assumption. Based acceptable count of
on HCD records and numbers reported in the element, the City 240 ADUs for the
is averaging about 5 ADU permits per year since 2018. To planning period.
include a realistic estimate of the potential for ADUs, the Supportive
element must reduce the number of ADUs assumed per year methodology is
and include policies and programs that incentivize the
provided in
production of ADUs. Depending on the analysis, the element Appendix D.
must commit to monitor ADU production throughout the course of the planningperiod and implement additional actions if not meeting target numbers anticipated in the housing element. In Table reflects
addition to monitoring production, this program should also A
revised Du counts
monitor affordability. Additional actions. if necessary, should be taken in a timely manner (e.g_, within 6 months). Finally, if necessary, the degree of additional actions should be in stride with the degree of the gap in production and affordability. For example, if actual production and affordability of ADUs is far from anticipated trends, then rezoning or something similar would be an appropriate action. If actual productionand City of Newport Beach
HCD Review Matrix - October 12, 2021 Letter Page 9
18-29

affordability is near anticipated trends, then measures like outreach and marketingmight be more appropriate.

Sites with Zoning for a Variety of Housing Types:

Zones described in
Single Room Occupancy (SRO) Units: The element does
Pg. 3-19
not demonstrate a zone(s) where SROs are an allowable
use. The analysis should clarify the City'sprocess for SROs and add or modify programs as appropriate.

Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs): For your information,
to accommodate
HCD's ADU team has identified several areas in which the HCD's stated
City's ADU ordinance appears to be out of compliance with acceptable count of
State ADU Law. HCD will reach out with findings and
240 ADL)s for the
guidanceunder separate cover.
planning period.

Supportive
methodology is
provided in
Appendix D.

Table B-1 reflects
revised ADU counts

2. 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 paragraph (1) of subdivision (c), and for persons with disabilities as identified in the analysis pursuant to paragraph (7), including land -use controls, building codes and their enforcement, site improvements, fees and other exactions required of developers, and local processing and permit procedures. The analysis shallalso demonstrate local efforts to remove governmental constraints that hinder the locality from meeting its share of the regional housing need in accordance with Government Code section 65584 and from meeting the need for housing for persons with disabilities, supportive housing, transitional housing, and emergency shelters identified pursuant to City of Newport Beach
HCD Review Matrix - October 12, 2021 Letter Page 10
18-30

paragraph (l). Transitional housing and supportive housing shall be considered a residential use of property, and shall be subject only to those restrictions that apply to other residential dwellings of the same type in the same zone.(Gov. Code; § 65583, subd. (a)(5)) Land -Use Controls: The element must identify and analyze all Pg. 3-16 (height)
relevant land -use controls as potential constraints on a variety Pg. 3-18 (parking)
of (rousing types, both independently andcumulatively with other land -use controls. The analysis should further address height
maximums in the Multiple Residential (RM) zone and the
various Mixed -Use (MU) zones. especially as they relate to the Height Overlay and describe if the height ovedayor heights allowing more than two stories will apply to the sites included in the inventory. Additionally, the element should analyze the requirement for two covered parking spaces per unit plus 0.5 spaces of guest parking for every dwelling in a multi- family development of four or more units. Programs to mitigate potential constraints should be added or modified as
appropriate.

Design Review: The element must describe and analyze any Pg. 3-38
design review guidelines and processes the City has, including Pg. 3-42 and Policy
approval procedures and decision -making criteria.. for their 3A
impact as potential constraints on housing supply and
affordability. Forexample. the analysis could describe required findings and discuss whether Objective standards and
guidelines improve development certainty and mitigate cost impacts.

The element must demonstrate this process is not a
constraint or it must include aprogram to address this
permitting requirement, as appropriate.

City of Newport Beach
HCD Review Matrix - October 12, 2021 Letter Page 11
18-31

Constraints to Housing for Persons with Disabilities: While the Pg. 3-22 to 3-24
element provides some details on residential care facilities and other group homes, the City did not provide an analysis of the impact on housing for lower -income households and persons with disabilities. The element details that residential care facilities serving six or fewer persons are permitted in all residential zones.

However, residential care facilities serving seven or more persons require a conditional use permit (CUP). The element should analyze the process as a potential constraint on housing for persons with disabilities and add or modifyprograms as appropriate to ensure zoning permits group homes objectively with approval certainty. For example, imposing standards such as compatibility with
surrounding uses would be considered a constraint.

Although local ordinances and policies are enacted to protect the health and safety of citizens and further the general welfare. it is useful to periodically reexamine local ordinances and policies to determine whether, under current conditions; they are
accomplishing their intended purpose or constituting a barrier to the maintenance, improvement or development of housing for all income levels. Such an examination may reveal that certain policies have a disproportionate or negative impact on the development of particular housing types or on housing developed for persons with disabilities. Ordinances, policies, or practices that have the effect of excluding protected populations such as persons with disabilities may also violate state and federal fair housinglaws that prohibit any land -use requirements that discriminate (or have the effect of discriminating) against affordable housing.

City Charter Section 423: The element describes the
Pg. 3-28 to 3-30
background and process of City Charter Section 423. which Pg. 4-3
subjects certain amendments to the City's general plan to voter approval. However, the analysis of Section 423's
potential as a constraint to housing development is limited. A City of Newport Beach
HCD Review Matrix - October 12, 2021 Letter Page 12
18-32

full analysis should demonstrate local efforts to remove governmental constraints that hinder the locality from meeting its share of theregional housing need and from meeting the need for housing for persons with disabilities, supportive housing, transitional housing, and emergency shelters. In addition, the element should indicate if any of the potential rezones to accommodate the RHNA will be subject to voter approval and include a program that outlines the steps, timing for voter approval and alternative actions with dates if milestones are not met.

3. An analysis of 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 subdivision (c) of Government Code section 65583.2, 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'sshare of the regional housing need in accordance with Government Code section 65584.

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. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(6).) The element must include analysis of the length of time between receiving approval fora housing development and submittal of an application for building permits that potentially hinder the construction of the Jurisdiction's share of the regional housing need.

City of Newport Beach
Pg. 3-38
HCD Review Matrix - October 12, 2021 Letter Page 13
18-33

4. Analyze any special housing needs such as elderly; persons with disabilities, includinga developmental disability; large families; farmworkers; families with female heads of households; and families and persons in need of emergency shelter. Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. a 7 .

Summary added
While the element quantifies the City's special needs populations, €or all special
it must also analyzetheir special housing needs. For a complete needs groups:
analysis of each population group, the element should discuss pg. 2-19
challenges faced by the population, the existing resources to meet pg. 2-22
those needs (availability senior housing units, number of large Pg. 2-23
units, number of deed restricted units, etc.), an assessment of any pg. 2-24
gaps in resources, and proposed policies, programs, and funding Pg. 2-25
to help address those gaps.

Pg. 2-27
Pg. 2-28
Pg, 2-29
Pg. 2-31
Pg. 2-32
Pg. 2-34
Pg. 2-35
City of Newport Beach
HCD Review Matrix - October 12, 2021 Letter Page 14
18-34

A. Housinq Programs

1. Include a program which sets forth a schedule of actions during the planning period, each with a timeline for implementation, which may recognize that certain programsare 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 elementthrough the administration of land use and development controls, the provision of regulatory concessions and incentives, and the utilization of appropriate federal andstate financing and subsidy programs when available.

The
program shall include anidentification of the agencies and officials responsible for the implementation of the various actions. Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. c .

To address the program requirements of Government Code
Summary of
quantified
section 65583, subdivision(c)(1-6). and to facilitate
objectives
implementation, programs should include: (1) a description of provided in Table
the City's specific role in implementation; (2) definitive

4.1 implementation timelines; (3) objectives. quantified where appropriate, and (4) identification of responsible agencies and officials. For example, Policy Action 1J (ADU Amnesty Program) should be revisedto include a quantified objective for the number of households expected to utilize the program.

Please note that several programs involve taking action to See revised
comply with state law, andas such should include timelines programs, as
that ensure a beneficial impact by committing to compliance appropriate.
within the first year of the planning period. Programs with Please note
actions that require an accelerated timeframe include Policy implementation
Action 3B (SB 35 Streamlining) and Policy Action 7A
timelines do not
(Supportive Housing i Low Barrier !Navigation Centers). absolve city from
compliance with
the law
immediately.

City of Newport Beach
HCD Review Matrix - October 12, 2021 Letter Page 15
18-35

Z. Identify actions that will be taken to make sites available during the planning period with appropriate zoning and development standards and with services and facilities to accommodate that portion of the city's or county's share of the regional housing need for each income level that could not be accommodated on sites identified in the inventory completed pursuant to paragraph (3) of subdivision (a) without rezoning, andto comply with the requirements of Government Code section 65584.09. Sites shall beidentified as needed to facilitate and encourage the development of a variety of types of 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. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(1).) As noted in Finding A3, the element does not include a
See Appendix Bedits d5
complete site analysis, therefore, the adequacy of sites and referenced above,
zoning were not established. Based on the resultsof a complete sites inventory and analysis, the City may need to add or revise programs to address a shortfall of sites or zoning available to encourage a variety of housing types. In addition; the element should be revised as follows:

Zoning to Accommodate a Shortfall of Site for Lower: Pursuant to See revise Policy
1G
Government Code 65583.2, subdivisions (h) & (i), Policy Actions 1A—IF, which rezone sites to accommodate the City's shortfall in satisfying the RHNA, must commit to the following:
permit owner -occupied and rental multifamily uses by - right for developments in which 20 percent or more of the units are affordable to lower -income households. By -right means local government review must not require a CUP,
planned unit development permit, or other discretionary review or approval.
• accommodate a minimum of 16 units per site;
+ require a minimum density of 20 units per acre; and
+ at least 50 percent of the lower -income need must be accommodated on sitesdesignated for residential use
only or on sites zoned for mixed uses that
City of Newport Beach
HC0 Review Matrix - October 12, 2021 Letter Page 16
18-36

accommodate all of the very low and low-income
housing need, if those sites:
allow 100 percent residential use, and
require residential use occupy 50 percent of the total floor area of a mixed -use roject.

In addition, if the rezoning of sites is subject to a voter approval Pg. 4-3
City Charter Section 423, the program must detail any
necessary steps timing for completion of those stepsand alternative measures with dates if milestones are not met.

Please be aware. if voter approval is required and subsequently rejected, the housing element may no longer comply with state law.

Sites Identified in Prior Planning Periods: The element Pg, 4-6
includes Policy Action 1 G {5` Cycle Housing Element Sites), which addresses the requirement for nonvacant
sites identified in a prior planning period to permit residential uses by -right for developments in which 20 percent of units are affordable to lower -income households. This program must also commit to zoning those sites to allow Newport Beach's default density of 30 dulac, pursuant to
Government Code 65583.2, subdivision(c) or at densities demonstrated to be appropriate for the development of
housing for lower -income households. Additionally, if any vacant sites in the inventory are being used to
accommodate the lower RHNA and have been identified in
two prior planning periods, the program must ensure that those sites meet the same requirements.

ADU Monitoring: The element includes Policy Action 11 (ADU See Revised Policy
ti
Monitoring Program), which commits the City to establishing an ADU monitoring program. This program should commit explicitly to monitoring ADU production by affordability, and to
City of Newport Peach
HCD Review Matrix - October 12, 2021 Letter Page 17
18-37

implementing additional actions if not meeting target numbers at affordability levels anticipated in the housing element.

Additional actions, if necessary, should be taken ina timely manner (e.g-, within 6 months).

2. 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.

The program shall remove constraints to, arid provide reasonable accommodations for housing designed for, intended for occupancy by, or with supportive services for, persons with disabilities. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. c (3).

As noted in Finding(s) A4 and A5, the element requires a See additions
added per findings
complete analysis of potentialgovernmental and
above.
nongovernmental constraints. Depending upon the results of that Policy changes to
analysis, the City may need to revise or add programs and 4A
address and remove or mitigate any identified constraints. 1G to 1j and Pg. 4-
3 3. Promote AFFH 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 bythe California Fair Employment and Housing Act (Part 2.8 (commencing with Section 12900) of Division 3 of Title 2), Section 65008, and any other state and federal fair housing and planning law. (Gov. Code, 65583, subd. c 5 .

As noted in Finding Al, the element must include a complete See AFFH Edits
Assessment of Fair Housing. and Policy Action 4A {AFFH} does Pg.3-55 to 3-117
not satisfy the requirements for specific and meaningful program actions. Based on the outcomes of that analysis, the element See Policy
must add or modify programs. Goals and actions must
amendments to
specifically respond to the analysis and to the identified and 4A.
prioritized contributing factors to fair housing issues and must be significant and meaningful enough to overcome identified patterns and trends. Actions must havespecific commitment, City of Newport Beach
HCD Review Matrix - October 12, 2021 Letter Page 18

metrics and milestones as appropriateand must address
housing mobility enhancement, new housing choices and
affordability in high opportunity areas, place -based strategies for community preservation and revitalization and displacement protection. For additional guidance onprogram requirements to AFFH, please see HCD's guidance at memos.shtml.

4. The housing program shall preserve for low-income household the assisted housing developments identified pursuant to paragraph (9) of subdivision (a). 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 paragraph (9) of subdivision (a), except where a community has other urgent needs for which alternative funding sources are not available. The program mayinclude strategies that involve local regulation and technical assistance. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(6).) The element includes Policy Action 2C (Preservation of At -risk Pg 3-99 to 3-103
Units). The element identifies 19 units at -risk of converting to See Policy
market -rate uses in the planning period. Therefore the element 2C
must include a program(s) with specific and proactive actions to 5A
preserve the at -risk units such as developing a plan or strategy 5B
for quickly moving forward in the case units are noticed to 5C
convert to market -rate uses in the planning period. and ensure 5E
tenants receive proper notifications.

C. Public Participation
Local governments shall make a diligent effort to achieve public participation of all economic segments of the community in the development of the housing element, and theelement shall describe this effort. (Gov. Code, 65583, subd. (c)(8). )
While the element profiles the strategies undertaken to achieve Pg. C-4 to C-5
public participation, it mustalso describe how the City reached Intro Pg. 1-4 to t-
all economic segments of the population in conductingoutreach 5 related to its survey and workshops. particularly lower -income households; this should also consider language access. The City of Newport Beach
HCD Review Matrix - October 12, 2021 Letter �a¢e 19
18-39

element should also clarify whether and how any
nongovernmental organizations and other parties were notified.

Public participation in the development, adoption and
implementation of the housing element is essential to effective housing planning. Throughout the mousing element process, the City should continue to engage the community, including organizations that represent lower -income and special needs households; by malting information regularly available and considering and incorporating comments where appropriate.

City of Newport Beach
HCD Review Matrix - October 12, 2021 Letter Page 20
18-40

EXHIBIT C
18-41

Revised
Document
Section
HCD Comments Response Reference
A. Housing Needs, Resources, and Constraints

1. Affirmatively furtherfing] fair housing in accordance with Chapter 15 (commencing with Section 8899.50) of Division 1 of Title 2... shall include an assessment of fair housing in the jurisdiction (Gov. Code. § 65583. subd. (c)(10)(A))
Regional Patterns and Trends: The element is revised to include regional analyses for some categories of analysis.

However, the element still does not analyze regional patterns and trends for al/ categories and subcategories of analysis. In particular, the element should be revised to include a full regional analysis for access to educational, economic, and environmental opportunity; substandard housing;
homelessness: and displacement risk_ For example, for some topics the element provides a map of surrounding jurisdictions but does not analyze them or make conclusions, for other topics it does not address the regional component at all. A complete regional analysis should compare conditions at the local level to the rest of the region. This analysis could compare the locality at a county level or other subregional geography.

City of Newport Beach
The following information Section 3.C.3
was added to the fair
housing section:
• Opportunity indicators
for education and
economic opportunity
(Pg, 3-79 — 80)
• Regional analysis of
education and
economic opportunity
(Pg. 3-80 - 82)
• Analysis of
homelessness (Pg. 3-
88)
• Analysis of
substandard housing
(Pg. 3-102 — 103)
• Additional regional
HCD Review Matrix —January 14, 2022 Letter