HGD appreciates the hard work and dedication provided in the preparation of the City's housing element and looks forward to receiving the County's adopted housing element.
If you have any questions or need additional technical assistance, please contact me at Mclinda.CavCcPhcd.ca.aov-
Sincerely,
Melinda Coy
Proactive Housing Accountability Chief
07-29-24
17-179
Docusign Envelope ID: D230CFDF-16B8-4BA9-8474-FD422DD812F7 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2024-019
Paae 6 of 11
EXHIBIT B
Amendment
REVISION 1: Amend the Subsection entitled "Growth Management Measures" beginning on Page 3.28 within Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources. and Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing as follows -
Growth Management Measures
Growth management measures are techniques used by a government to regulate the rate, amount, and type of development. Growth management measures allow cities to grow responsibly and orderly, however, if overly restricted can produce constraints to the development of housing, including accessible and affordable housing.
On November 7, 2000, the Newport Beach electorate approved Measure S. whit ,�.: amended the Newport Beach City Charter by adding Sect! an 423. Charter Section 42 requires voter approval of certain major amendments oft he Newport Beach General Plan, unless state or federal law precludes a vote of the electorate on the arnendment_ In the case of Charter Section 423, in g2a ral. 34 maiar amendment to the General Plan+4s defined as&01@4nod ariaw pFspaw' one that significantly increases allowed density or intensity fW64 e0R6ideF90 _,.. r ff _PRFG 90 "•• *Q 4090 v increasine'_r-"4@h� - 4over 100
peak hour trips (traffic), or over 40.000 square feet af- floor area (intensity), or over 100 dwelling units (density) when compared to the General Plan prior to aonroval. These thresholds are calculated- as the sure-�f the amendment itself andefm eighty uercent (80%) of the increases resulting from other amendments affecting the same neighborhood a that were adapted within the preceding ten j 101 years a*aI4
When the electorate approved Measure 5,
electorate encourageds the City Council to adopt implementing guidelines that are consistent with thek& purpose and intent of Measure S; however. the Guidelines for Implementing Charter Section 423 do not provide guidance as to when a state or federal law precludes a Vote on a rnaioramendment of the General Plan.
Procedure
The City Council determines if are proposed aamendment requires voter approval pursuant to Charter 5ection 423, based on the fallowing conditions:
■ The Amendment modifies the allowed use(s) of the property or area that is the subject of the Amendment such that the proposed use(s}generateW more than one hundred 100 morning or evening peak hour trips than are generated by the allowed use(s) before the Amendment; or
07-29-24
17-180
Docusign Envelope ID: D230CFDF-16B8-4BA9-8474-FD422DD812F7 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2024-019
Paae 7 of 11
• The Amendment authorizes an increase in floor area for the property or area that is the subject of the Amendment that exceeds forty thousand (40,000) square Peet when compared to the General Plan before approval of the Amendment; or • The Amendment authorizes an increase in the number of dwelling units for the property or area that is the subject of the Amendment that exceeds one hundred (100) dwelling units when compared to the General Plan before approval of the Amendment; or ■ The increase in morning or evening peak hour trips, floor area or dwelling units resulting from the Amendment when added to eighty percent (80%) of the increases in morning or evening peak hour trips, floor area or dwelling units resulting from Prior Amendments, within the preceding ten (10) years (see definition in Section 2JJ exceeds one or more of the voter approval thresholds in Section 423 as specified in Subsection 1, 2 or 3.
If the City Council determines a General Plan Land Use Element Amendment requiFes voter approvals after approving the Amendment, the City Council then adopts a resolution calling an election on the Amendment. The City Council schedules the election at the next regular municipal election, as specified by the City Charter. The City Attorney then prepares an impartial analysis of the Amendment, which contains information about the Amendment, any related project or land use approval, and the environmental analysis conducted that will helpthe electorate make an informed decision. Inthe absence of an ordinance or Charter provision that establishes a procedure for submittal of arguments or rebuttals relative to City measures, the City Council will adopt a resolution that authorizes the filing of arguments and rebuttals in accordance with the general procedures specified in the Elections Code.
It is important to understand that Charter Section 423 only applies to General Plan amendments.
Individual housing development projects that do not require a General Plan amendment are already accommodated within the General Plan and zoning framework. They would not be subject to Charter Section 423 and would never require a vote of the electorate.
If a housing development project requires a General Plan amendment, any unit and peak hour traffic increases added to the project through bonus units awarded by the Density Bonus process are not counted toward Charter Section 423 thresholds and a determination whether a vote is required.
Ultimately projects that require a vote of the electorate pursuant to Charter Section 423 may require additional costs and be subject to delays due to the election process that may yield uncertain election results.
To implement the Housing Element, the City must move forward with adding housing units that would qualify as a major amendment for purposes of Charter Section 423, which raises theguestiarH4whether a vote under CharterSsection 423 is precluded by state or federal law. In recent legislation, such as Senate Bill 1333, the legislature has specifically found that the lack of affordable housing is a matter of statewide concern and that state housing laws related) to land use, planning and zoning apoly to charter cities.
Similarly, the court in Anderson v. City of San Jose 12019) 42 CaLAP P.Sth 683, found that that the lack of affordable housing is a matter of statewide concern.
07-29-24
17-181
Docusign Envelope ID: D230CFDF-16B8-4BA9-8474-FD422DD812F7 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2024-019
Paae 8 of 11
To comply with state laws, the City must have a general plan, which serves as the Ion¢ -range Plan for future physical development in the community. (Government Code 4 650N. et sea.) one of the mandatory elements of a general plan is a housing element, which must be updated by the City every eight (8) years and identify sites sufficient to meet the City's share of the Recional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA} allocation. (Government Code §§ 65302, 65588, 65863.1 In determining the RHNA allocation, the council of governments does not take into consideration any zoning or other local land use restrictions, such as Charter Section 423, but is directed by state law to "consider the potential for increased residential development under alternative zoning ordinances and land use restrictions.'' (Government Code 4 65584.04fe1( 18).) Furthermore. the City has a continuing obligation to always ensure that adequate sites exist to accommodate lower -income housing development, not lust at the beginning of the eight (81-year Recional Housing Needs Allocation cycle. (Government Code § 65863.1 Inthis RHNA cycle, the City has been allocated 4,845 new housing units. To comply with state law, the City must not only plan for these units, but the City must also take action to establish the appropriate zoning designations and development standards to allow the private market to develop these units. After developing a plan for these units, the City must submit the Housing Element to the Department of Housing and Community Development for them to find that the Housing Element is in compliance with state law.
But haying the California Department of Housing and Community Development find the Citv's Housing Element is compliant with state law is only one step of many. The City is then required to implement the Housing Element. Under Government Code Section 65585 (i)(II(A). implementation is not optional, and the California Department of Housing and Community Development is charged with ensuring the City is implementing the Housing Element and taking action to revoke its finding that the Housing Element complies with state law if the City fails to implement the Housing Element. In addition to the loss of local zoning control, permitting authority. and fines of up to 5600.004 per month for not having a compliant Housing Element state law provides that the Attorney General may appoint an agent to take all necessary actions to bring the City into compliance with state law. (Government Code 4 65585(11.1 (Because providing residential housing opportunity sites to accommodate the City's RHNA allocation is mandated by state law and the City is required to implement the Housing Element. a Charter Section 423 vote is precluded, and the City will move forward with implementing the Housing Element without a Charter Section 423 vote.
07-29-24
17-182
Docusign Envelope ID: D230CFDF-16B8-4BA9-8474-FD422DD812F7 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2024-019
Paae9of11
rh.. ,.,J P...-.1 o 6'r.,rin 140616:Fie rl,.M @A; 1IkQ 440 jQQF§ Vow, +l;@ r:i., will i�lt:-.t,... ,.I....F:.... 07-29-24
17-183
Docusign Envelope ID: D230CFDF-16B8-4BA9-8474-FD422DD812F7 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2024-019
Paae 10 of 11
REVISION 2: Amend the Subsection entitled "Implementation Actions" beginning on Page 4-2 within Section 4. Housing Plan as follows:
Implementation Actions
Adequate Site #o Accommodate 2021-2029 RHNA
The City of Newport Beach has a total Regional Housing (deeds Assessment (RHNA) allocation of 4,845 units. State law requires the City of Newport Beach to identify adequate sites to accommodate its fair share allocation for the Leh Cycle Housing Element. This City has identified a variety of candidate sites through extensive analysis in collaboration with the community and stakeholders through Newport Together's "Listen and Leam" process, multiple meetings of the City's Housing Element update Advisory Committee (Committee), participation by interested residents at a variety of public meetings, workshops. and consultation with property owners. The City of Newport Beach has identified an adequate amount of land that was determined by the Committee as "Feasible" or "Potentially Feasible" for future development, only a portion of these candidate sites will be necessary to accommodate the City's RHNA planning obligation. These sites have undergone a rigorous process to evaluate site features, development potential, developer/owner interest and other factors to deem them appropriate for housing during the 2021-2029 Planning Period.
As part of the analysis of adequate sites, the City has comprehensively reviewed opportunity sites citywide and #are -has 4k-RFi "dentified eight primary areas of opportunity:
• Airport Area Environs . ❑over/Westcliff
• West Newport Mesa + Newport Center
• Banning Ranch + 5th Cycle Housing Element Sites
• Coyote Canyon + Accessory Dwelling Units
Since the City has identified several opportunity sites in the 51h Cycle Housing Element that will be utilized in the b`h Cycle Housing Element, additional policy considerations are stated in this Policy Program.
These opportunities sites are described in map and tabular format in Appendix B of this Housing Element.
Each of the opportunity areas described in this Housing Element have been assigned a targeted acreage, and a targeted number of new housing units (see following implementing Policy Action statements).
Collectively, these targets must meet the unmet RHNA need as required by s-State law. It is expected there may be deviations from the targets with future implementing zoning actions. New opportunity sites may be identified, and other sites may be deemed oww44leunsuitable. or densities may be modified, all based on new information received over time. The City may adopt future zoning strategies that are more or less than the identified targets in this Housing Element provided the total unmet RHNA need by income category is accommodated within state -defined deadlines. If future zoning strategies deviate from the targets expressed in this Housing Element but still meet the requirement to identify adequate sites to accommodate unmet RHNA need, no amendment to the Housing Element would be required and deviations of any magnitude may be considered subject to the City Council's review and approval in consultation with the Community.
07-29-24
17-184
Docusign Envelope ID: D230CFDF-16B8-4BA9-8474-FD422DD812F7 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2024-019
Paae 11 of 11
L .......... 1.... '1!1] ] ......Ir
espse+�Y�s+-rv,_ �dA- 1..
EQ4�"a'{sl'+',vwv1+�--s1'7�ei+sr6v�A
c..........L.QF 2Q;14 I,..ri n•n Mwllai. ,.. .. i,.r (`hn r•n• Cnrri wr. A']] . 4 9 i 4n.,6 n nlnn.:nn Ia
For alI Rezone Policy Actions 1A to 1F, Pursuant to Government Code 65583.2, subdivisions (h) & (i), which rezone sites to accommodate the City's shortfall in satisfying the RHNA, the City commits 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 house holds.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 densityof 20 units per acre; and
■ at least 50 percent of the lower -income need must be accommodated on sites designated
• for residential use onlyor on sites zonedfor mixed uses that accommodate all of the very low and low-income housing need, if those sites:
o allow 140 percent residential use, and
o require residential use occupy 5U percent of the total floor area of a mixed - use project.
07-29-24
17-185
Jim Mosher inquired about what would happen at the end of Phase 2 if the DA was not amended and if the City has a mechanism for refunding overcharges, and questioned the current assessment that determined the current refund size.
The applicant clarified that they have not been overcharged and that excess fee credits are available for the park construction costs.
Assistant City Attorney Summerhill clarified that the unused park fee credits could be applied towards Phase 2, as allowed by DA.
Chair Rosene closed the public hearing.
No comments were received from the Commissioners.
Motion made by Commissioner Langford and seconded by Commissioner Barto to approve the staff recommendation.
AYES:
Barto, Ellmore, Langford, Lowrey, Rosene, and Salene
NOES:
None
ABSTAIN:
None
ABSENT:
Harris
ITEM NO. 4 AMENDMENT TO THE 6TH CYCLE HOUSING ELEMENT (PA2022-0245) Site Location: Citywide
Summary:
A narrowly focused amendment to the City's adopted and certified 61h Cycle Housing Element that would revise portions of Section 3 (Housing Constraints, Resources, and Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing) and Section 4 (Housing Plan) to change the narrative and implementing actions to remove the requirement for a vote of the electorate pursuant to Charter Section 423.
Recommended Actions:
1. Conduct a public hearing;
2. Find that all significant environmental concerns for the City's Housing Element and its implantation have been addressed in a previously certified environmental document (Housing Element Implementation Program Environmental Impact Report [PEIR] — State Clearinghouse Number 2023060699); and
3. Adopt Resolution No. PC2024-019 recommending the City Council's adoption of the Amendment.
Planning Manager Zdeba used a presentation to review the Housing Element's background, the July 23, 2024, City Council actions and direction received, the narrowly focused amendment for the Housing Element, results of the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) review, and next steps.
17-186
In reply to Commissioner Ellmore's question, Assistant City Attorney Summerhill stated that the City Council had already determined that no vote is required, and it is unlikely the Council would change direction on the matter. She noted the Planning Commission's recommendation on this matter is largely a procedural step that is required by the code. She noted that the 6th Cycle Housing Element has been adopted and certified and the one defining feature is whether a vote would be required.
There were no ex parte communications among the Commissioners.
Chair Rosene opened the public hearing.
Jim Mosher stated that, although he is an appointed member of the City's General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC), he would only be expressing his personal opposition to this change to the Housing Element. He expressed his belief that the Council has been deceitful about the Housing Element Plan and thought the voters have a right to weigh in on it.
Chair Rosene closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Lowrey expressed concern for overriding a public vote within the City Charter and did not see the overriding factors from the State.
In response, Assistant City Attorney Summerhill noted a lawsuit has been filed against the City on this matter and that Commissioner Lowrey's concern would be resolved as part of the litigation.
Additionally, she clarified that the amendment for consideration is to eliminate the specific policy action requirement set forth in the Housing Element. Commissioner Lowrey expressed his discomfort with the amendment.
Motion made by Chair Rosene and seconded by Secretary Salene to approve the staff recommendation.
AYES: Barto, Ellmore, Langford, Rosene, and Salene
NOES: Lowrey
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Harris
VIII. STAFF AND COMMISSIONER ITEMS
ITEM NO. 5 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION - None
ITEM NO. 6 REPORT BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR OR REQUEST FOR
MATTERS WHICH A PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBER WOULD LIKE PLACED
ON A FUTURE AGENDA
Deputy Community Development Director Murillo noted that the September 19 Planning Commission meeting is canceled, and the next meeting will be on October 3 to address two variances and one conditional use permit for a restaurant with a parking waiver.
ITEM NO. 7 REQUESTS FOR EXCUSED ABSENCES
Secretary Salene requested an excused absence for October 3.
IX. ADJOURNMENT — With no further business, Chair Rosene adjourned the meeting at 6:46 p.m. 17-187
Attachment J
Planning Commission Staff Report
(This document is available at the following link due to bulk:
https://ecros.newportbeachca.gov/WEB/DocView.aspx?id=3054184&dbid=0&repo=CNB) 17-178