HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020-92 - Authorizing the Filing of an Appeal of the Southern California Association of Governments Final Draft Regional Housing Needs Assessment Allocation for the City of Newport beach Sixth Cycle Housing Element (PA2018-225)RESOLUTION NO. 2020-92
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE
FILING OF AN APPEAL OF THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS FINAL DRAFT
REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
ALLOCATION FOR THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
SIXTH CYCLE HOUSING ELEMENT (PA2018-225)
WHEREAS, California Government Code Section 65580 et seq. requires that each
city and county plan for existing and future housing needs in accordance with the Regional
Housing Needs Assessment ("RHNA") process;
WHEREAS, the Southern California Association of Governments ("SCAG") is a joint
powers authority encompassing Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino
and Ventura counties that functions as a forum to address regional issues including
allocation of residential units among SCAG member cities and counties;
WHEREAS, the City of Newport Beach ("City") has worked diligently in partnership
with other SCAG members and stakeholders for the Sixth Cycle Housing Element covering
the planning period 2021 through 2029 ("Sixth Cycle"), reviewing draft methodologies and
providing comments and recommendations to achieve a RHNA allocation that is fair,
equitable, and in consideration of the unique circumstances and local planning factors
inherent in our community;
WHEREAS, SCAG allocated 4,834 residential units ("RHNA Allocation") to the City
for the Sixth Cycle which is extraordinary, inequitable and based on flawed methodologies
that do not fully consider constraints on the development of housing in the City as a result
of a number of factors including, but not limited to, the City's proximity to John Wayne Airport,
the coastline, fire and flood zones;
WHEREAS, California Government Code Section 65584.05 authorizes a local
government or the Department of Housing and Community Development ("HCD") to appeal
for a revision of the RHNA Allocation proposed for one or more local governments; and
WHEREAS, a revision to the City's RHNA Allocation is necessary to further the intent
of the statutorily mandated objectives listed in California Government Code Section
65584(d).
Resolution 2020-92
Page 2 of 4
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council resolves as follows:
Section 1: The City appeals the City's RHNA Allocation based upon the following
three (3) criteria as authorized in California Government Code Section 65584.05(b):
a. Local Planning Factors (Govt. Code § 65584.05(b)(1)). SCAG failed to adequately
consider the information submitted pursuant to Section 65584.04(b). The City has
several major unique constraints to the use of existing lands that severely limit or
totally restrict the ability to accommodate growth to the extent identified.
b. Methodology (Govt. Code § 65584.05(b)(2)). SCAG failed to determine the share
of the regional housing need in accordance with the information described in, and
the methodology established pursuant to Section 65584.04, and in a manner that
furthers, and does not undermine, the intent of the objectives listed in Section
65584(d). The methodology fails to consider growth projections consistent with
the SoCal Connect Plan, fails to equitably distribute residual units at a regional
level, and fails to consider regional employment factors. The Final Draft Allocation
for the City directly undermines Government Code Sections 65588(d)(1) and
65588(d)(2).
c. Changed Circumstances (Govt. Code § 65584.05(b)(3)). A significant and
unforeseen change in circumstances has occurred in the local jurisdiction or
jurisdictions that merits a revision of the information submitted pursuant to Section
65584.04(b). The COVID-19 pandemic has had a demonstrable impact on the
City's economy, as well as the economy of the region. The pandemic was
unforeseen during the development of RHNA methodology and will have lasting
impacts to the economy and housing market. Additionally, population growth
trends in California have recently been revised to reflect a substantially lower rate
of population growth in the region.
Section 2: The Community Development Director, or his designee, is directed to
file the appeal of the City's RHNA Allocation of the Sixth Cycle in substantial conformance
with the City of Newport Beach Appeal of the Sixth Cycle RHNA Allocation, which is attached
hereto and incorporated herein by reference, and take any additional actions necessary to
further the City's appeal of the RHNA Allocation.
Section 3: This appeal is consistent with, and not to the detriment of, the
development pattern in the applicable sustainable communities' strategy (SCAG's Connect
SoCal Plan) developed pursuant to California Government Code Section 65080(b)(2).
Resolution 2020-92
Page 3 of 4
Section 4: The City Council is a strong advocate of the development of housing,
including affordable housing, and of local control as the best means to protect the City, its
residents and business owners, and promote the goals and priorities of the community.
While the City is committed to contributing to its collective local, regional and state needs
for housing, the City has demonstrated that its RHNA Allocation is unrealistic, excessive and
based on faulty assumptions that can have grave consequences to the City and its residents.
Therefore, the City respectfully objects to the RHNA Allocation and methodology used.
Section 5: The recitals provided in this resolution are true and correct and are
incorporated into the operative part of this resolution.
Section 6: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this resolution
is, for any reason, held to be invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the
validity or constitutionality of the remaining portions of this resolution. The City Council
hereby declares that it would have passed this resolution, and each section, subsection,
sentence, clause or phrase hereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections,
subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid or unconstitutional.
Section 7: The City Council finds the adoption of this resolution is not subject to
the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") pursuant to Sections 15060(c)(2) (the
activity will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the
environment) and 15060(c)(3) (the activity is not a project as defined in Section 15378) of
the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3,
because it has no potential for resulting in physical change to the environment, directly or
indirectly.
Resolution 2020-92
Page 4 of 4
Section 8. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption by the
City Council, and the City Clerk shall certify the vote adopting the resolution.
ADOPTED this 13th day of October, 2020.
ATTEST:
�► , �a . �1Lliil
:•
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
C
Aaroh C. Harp
City Attorney
U1
L 42z -e
Will O'Neill
Mayor
N E We
NkN
ATTACHMENT: City of Newport Beach Appeal of the Sixth Cycle Draft Regional Housing
Needs Assessment (RHNA) Allocation
Mayor
Will O'Neill
Mayor Pro Tem
Brad Avery
Council Members
Joy Brenner
Diane Brooks Dixon
Marshall "Duffy" Duffield
Jeff Herdman
Kevin Muldoon
October 13, 2020
Mr. Kome Ajise, Executive Director
Southern California Association of Governments
900 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1700
Los Angeles, CA 90017
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
100 Civic Center Drive
Newport Beach, California 92660
949 644-3004 1 949 644-3039 FAX
newportbeachca.gov
Subject: City of Newport Beach Appeal of the Sixth Cycle Draft Regional Housing
Needs Assessment (RHNA) Allocation
Dear Mr. Ajise:
On behalf of our residents, and in accordance with applicable California Government
Code ("Government Code") Section 65584.05, the City of Newport Beach ("City") hereby
submits this appeal to the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) of the
Draft Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) Allocation ("Draft RHNA Allocation"),
received September 11, 2020, for the Sixth Housing Element Cycle (2021-2029) (referred
to herein as the Sixth Cycle).
A revision to the Draft RHNA Allocation is necessary to further the intent of the statutorily
mandated objectives listed in Government Code Section 65584(d). In addition, this appeal
is consistent with, and not to the detriment of, the development pattern in the applicable
Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCAG's Connect SoCal Plan) developed pursuant to
Government Code Section 65080(b)(2) as explained herein. This appeal is based on the
following grounds:
2
1) Local Planning Factors - SCAG failed to adequately consider the information
previously submitted by the City of Newport Beach that articulated a variety of local
factors that directly influence housing production.
a. Specifically, this information includes lands preserved or protected from
urban development under federal or state programs, or both, designed to
protect open space, farmland, environmental habitats, and natural
resources on a long-term basis, and
b. Availability of land suitable for urban development or for conversion to
residential use, the availability of underutilized land, and opportunities for
infill development and increased residential densities.
2) Methodology - SCAG failed to determine the share of the regional housing need
in accordance with the information described in and the methodology
established pursuant to Government Code Section 65584. 04, and in a manner that
furthers, and does not undermine, the intent of the objectives listed in Government
Code Section 65584(d); and
3) Changed Circumstances - A significant and unforeseen change in circumstances
has occurred that supports revisions to the information submitted pursuant to
Government Code Section 65584.04(b).
(The balance of this page left intentionally blank.)
Grounds for the City of Newport Beach Appeal
1(a) Local Planning SCAG failed to adequately consider the information
Factors submitted pursuant to Section 65584.04(4).
Lands Preserved or Protected from Urban Development Under Federal or State
Programs, or both, designed to protect open space, farmland, environmental habitats,
and natural resources on a long-term basis
The City has several major constraints on existing lands that severely limit or totally
restrict the City's ability to accommodate growth to the extent identified in the Draft RHNA
Allocation. SCAG provided the City with Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA)
Local Planning Factor Survey, dated April 29, 2019. This Survey is required by law for
SCAG to allow jurisdictions to identify local planning factors (formerly known as "AB 2158
Factors") prior to the development of a proposed RHNA methodology, per Government
Code Section 65584.04(b). Information collected from the survey is required to be
included as part of the proposed RHNA methodology.
The City submitted responses to the Local Planning Factors Survey, provided herein as
Attachment A. These responses indicate the planning factors that demonstrate severe
limitations in the City's ability to accommodate the Draft RHNA Allocation. Additionally,
the City also provided testimony before SCAG and submitted additional written
correspondence to SCAG during the RHNA Methodology process which articulated these
concerns (Attachment B).
The City of Newport Beach has a number of legitimate and justifiable claims to
demonstrate SCAG's failure to adequately consider prior information submitted. The
failure to adequately address these local factors further undermines Government Code
Section 65588(d).
The following factors, pursuant to Government Code Section 65584.04(e), are relevant
to determine the City of Newport Beach's ability to accommodate growth and were not
adjusted for in the Draft RHNA Allocation.
(a) Local Factor: Coastal Zone Limitations Not Considered in Methodology
Although SCAG is not permitted to limit its considerations of suitable housing sites to a
jurisdiction's existing zoning and land use policies, and the cities should consider other
opportunities for development such as the availability of underutilized land or infill
development with increased residential densities, SCAG should consider a city's ability
to rezone or increase densities for residential development when subject to jurisdiction of
other agencies and regulations, such as the California Coastal Commission and
Executive Order N-82-20, signed by Governor Newsom on October 7, 2020 that sets the
goal of conserving at least 30 percent of California's land and coastal waters by the year
2030. For Newport Beach, over 63 percent of the City, as shown in Exhibit A: Coastal
Zone Boundary, is within the Coastal Zone and subject to the oversight by the California
Coastal Commission.
4
A major goal of the California Coastal Act and the City's adopted Local Coastal Program
is to assure the priority for coastal -dependent and coastal -related development over other
development in the Coastal Zone, which is a constraint on residential development,
particularly in areas on or near the shoreline.
i
1
City of Newport Beach
Coastal Zone
Exhibit A
Coastal Zone Boundary
In 1972, California voters passed Proposition 20, the Coastal Zone Conservation Act.
The purposes of the Coastal Zone Conservation Act are to protect public access to the
coast, promote visitor -serving uses and limit residential development and speculation
along the coast. The Coastal Act was subsequently adopted in 1976 and the California
Coastal Commission ("Coastal Commission") was formed to administer the Coastal Act.
The Coastal Act is an umbrella legislation designed to encourage local governments to
create Local Coastal Programs (LCPs) to govern decisions that determine the short- and
long-term conservation and use of coastal resources. The City of Newport Beach's LCP
is considered the legislative equivalent of the City's General Plan for areas within the
Coastal Zone. Local Coastal Programs are obligated by statute to be consistent with the
policies of the Coastal Act and protect public access and coastal resources.
The Coastal Land Use Plan contains restrictions applicable to twelve (12) sensitive
habitat areas that limit potential residential development areas and that control and
5
regulate locations on new buildings and structures to ensure preservation of unique
natural resources and to minimize alteration of natural land forms along bluffs and cliffs.
It should be noted that residential development is not considered a coastal -dependent
use according to the Coastal Commission, and re -use of properties that result in the
reduction of coastal -dependent commercial uses are discouraged. New development is
also required to avoid hazardous areas and minimize risks to life and property from
coastal and other hazards. The shoreline height limit further restricts heights within the
Coastal Zone to a maximum of 35 feet, and only when impacts to public coastal views
are not created.
Therefore, the extraordinarily high Draft RHNA Allocation for Newport Beach would
necessitate pursuing new, significantly high-density, multi -family housing within the
Coastal Zone and would require Coastal Commission approval of a comprehensive
amendment of the City's certified Local Coastal Program. Such an amendment would
include rezoning to allow higher density residential uses in commercial and visitor -serving
zones, increasing height, floor area ratio, and density allowances, and reductions in off-
street parking standards that would directly undermine the Coastal Act's requirements for
coastal access, coastal views, and protection of visitor -serving uses.
While SCAG is permitted to consider Newport Beach's ability to change its zoning, it
cannot require members to violate other laws to do so.
As identified in the City's adopted and certified 2014-2021 Housing Element, the City
identified Banning Ranch as the only remaining vacant site available to accommodate
future growth. On July 23, 2012, the City adopted a Master Development Plan for the site
that included 1,375 dwelling units, including an affordable housing component.
Unfortunately, on September 7, 2016, the California Coastal Commission denied a
coastal development permit for the project due to its potential impact to environmentally
sensitive habitat areas and coastal resources. As a result of this Coastal Commission
action, the Newport Beach City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2017-17 on December
12, 2017, which repealed all approvals for the Banning Ranch project.
The Banning Ranch project is a clear example of outside agency constraints and how the
additional Coastal Commission jurisdiction severely limits the City's ability to increase
densities and rezone land to accommodate the Draft RHNA Allocation. The City spent
four (4) years reviewing the application and approving the project for up to 1,375
residential units, only to have the California Coastal Commission spend another four (4)
years of review and ultimate denial of the project.
(b) Local Factor: Sea Level Rise and Storm Inundation
Newport Beach is exposed to a variety of coastal hazards including beach erosion, bluff
erosion, and coastal flooding due to sea level rise (SLR) and storm inundation. As a
coastal community with the one of the largest pleasure craft harbors in the United States,
the City has a significant amount of land directly adjacent to surface water that is directly
affected by sea level rise and storm inundation. This exposure has unique risks to the
6
City of Newport Beach and has profound implications when analyzing the realistic growth
potential of these lands.
The effects of SLR on coastal processes, such as shoreline erosion, storm -related
flooding and bluff erosion, have been evaluated using a Coastal Storm Modeling System
(CoSMoS), a software tool and multi -agency effort led by the United States Geological
Survey (USGS), to make detailed predictions of coastal flooding and erosion based on
existing and future climate scenarios for Southern California. The modeling system
incorporates state-of-the-art physical process models to enable prediction of currents,
wave height, wave runup, and total water levels. The mapping results from CoSMoS
provide predictions of shoreline erosion (storm and non -storm), coastal flooding during
extreme events, and bluff erosion for the City in community -level coastal planning and
decision-making.
As shown in Exhibit B: 100 -Year Storm Hazards, a significant portion of the City's
coastal adjacent land appropriate for development is at risk of tidal flooding. Land along
the coast is vulnerable to shoreline retreat, which is predicted to accelerate with Sea Level
Rise. Long-term shoreline retreat coupled with storm -induced beach erosion has the
potential to cause permanent damage to buildings and infrastructure in these hazard
zones. Beach loss threatens structures and also has the potential to impact the diverse
range of coastal assets dependent on the sandy beaches of Newport Beach. The public
access, recreational opportunities, habitat, visual, and cultural assets that contribute to
the City's vibrant beach town culture are all valuable to the locals that live in Newport
Beach and its visitors.
(The balance of this page left intentionally blank.)
7
Sea Level Rise and Storm Flood Hazards
......'••"•. Coastal Zona Baundary
City of Newport Beach Boundary
_ 100 -yr Storm Flood Hazards - 4.9 ft SLR
8.396 ora"
land
Present Day Sea Level
i
Exhibit B
100 -Year Storm Hazards
On November 7, 2018, the California Coastal Commission released an update to the Sea
Level Rise Policy Guidance. The Coastal Commission provides direct guidance on how
the City of Newport Beach addresses future land use in consideration of sea level rise.
According to the California Coastal Commission Sea Level Rise Policy Guidance', local
jurisdictions can "Minimize Coastal Hazards through Planning and Development
Standards" through the following measures applicable to Newport Beach:
• "Design adaptation strategies according to local conditions and existing
development patterns, in accordance with the Coastal Act." (Page 37)
• "Avoid significant coastal hazard risks to new development where feasible." (Page
39)
• "Minimize hazard risk to new development over the life of the authorized
development." (Page 39)
• "Minimize coastal hazard risks and resource impacts when making redevelopment
decisions. " (Page 39)
' California Coastal Commission Sea Level Rise Policy Guidance, 2018 Science Update
I
"Account for the social and economic needs of the people of the state include
environmental justice, assure priority for coastal -dependent and coastal -related
develop over other development" (Page 30)
The Coastal Commission has also prepared a Draft Coastal Adaptation Planning
Guidance: Residential Development (dated March 2018), which will serve as the Coastal
Commission's policy guidance on sea level rise adaptation for residential development to
help facilitate planning for resilient shorelines while protecting coastal resources in LCPs.
Section 6(B) Model Policy Language (Avoid Siting New Development and/or Perpetuating
Redevelopment in Hazard Areas) included in the guidance confirms the Coastal
Commission's stance on new development and likely denial of any land use changes in
hazardous areas, such as lands subject to future sea level rise and flooding. Policy B.9
(Restrict Land Division in Hazardous Areas) serves to prohibit land divisions in areas
vulnerable to coastal hazards.
Furthermore, on September 21, 2018, the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) issued a final determination revising Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) for the
City that expanded the designation of areas most prone to flooding or affected by waves
from the coastline (Exhibit C: FEMA Flood Zones). This determination created a new
flood zone in the City called Coastal High Hazard Area, which is considered one of the
highest risk depicted on FIRMs. Specifically, Zone VE is designated where wave hazards
are expected to be particularly strong and have the potential to cause dramatic structural
damage. To address the added wave hazard, more stringent building practices are
required in Zone VE, such as elevating a home on pilings so that waves can pass beneath
it, or a prohibition to building on fill, which can be easily washed away by waves. These
practices are intended to improve the chance of a home safely weathering a storm but
add significant construction costs.
Although the Housing Element planning period is from 2021-2029, the City of Newport
Beach must consider long-term consequences of growth and development in the Coastal
Zone. Therefore, the selection of sites must consider these constraints not just for the
eight (8) -year RHNA housing cycle, but for the 75- to 100 -year lifecycle of a residential
development project. It would be irresponsible, and in conflict with State guidance, for
Newport Beach to not consider the long-term impacts of coastal hazards when planning
for future residential development. Much of the land in the Coastal Zone is considered
built out and no vacant land is available for development. Therefore, future housing unit
growth must consider the implications of these coastal hazards and will directly limit the
type and extent of development that can occur in the future.
E
FEMA - FLood Zones '' - -'' I ••�• i
�••� 1e 1 Zone Boundary
ti
���C^Y of Newpw,Beoeh Bamtlry c � _
- flmtl Zone: A`and VE • • • ••
Exhibit C
FEMA Flood Zones
(c) Local Factor: Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP
The City's Airport Area is identified as one of the City's greatest opportunities in the
community to create new residential neighborhoods through the replacement of existing
uses and new construction on underutilized parking lots. However, lands located within
the Airport Planning Area for the John Wayne Airport and subject to the development
restrictions of the John Wayne Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) limit the ability
to develop residential units. Any amendment to the City's General Plan or zoning,
including the rezoning for residential use, requires review by the Orange County Airport
Land Use Commission (ALUC).
Residential development in the Airport Area is restricted due to the noise impacts of John
Wayne Airport. Much of the southwestern portion of the Airport Area is in the John Wayne
Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) 65 dBA CNEL (Community Noise Equivalent
Level) contour, which is unsuitable for residential and other "noise -sensitive" uses. As
shown in Exhibit D: John Wayne Airport CNEL Contours, approximately 391 acres of
land adjacent to John Wayne Airport have restrictions for residential development.
Additionally, there are building restrictions and height limitations imposed by the Airport
Land Use Commission. According to the Airport Environs Land Use Plan for John Wayne
10
Airport2, there are portions of Newport Beach that restrict or limit the development of any
residential development. See Exhibit E: Airport Safety Zones.
John Wayne Airport
CNEL Contours °^°'�• ��' °
°�wb•. 01, ]010
Exhibit D
John Wayne Airport CNEL Contours
2
Airport Environs Land Use Plan for John Wayne Airport, amended April 17, 2008.
Airr�nr4 1 ( ,Nb
Office of the Mayor
12
Requisite analysis for the Sixth Cycle housing elements will require review of adequacy
of sites based upon known environmental factors, including noise and safety impacts.
The limitation of the use of these sites further limit the ability for the City of Newport Beach
to accommodate future residential growth.
The City anticipates the ALUC and the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans)
Division of Aeronautics will oppose future rezoning efforts for increased residential
development in the Airport Area based on recent experience with residential development
projects designed consistent with the noise and safety requirements of the AELUP. In
reviewing these recent projects, both ALUC and Caltrans found the projects to be
inconsistent due to their proximity to John Wayne Airport and potential for complaints from
future residents and safety impacts outside the identified safety zones.
(d) Local Factor: Lands Protected and/or Precluded From Development Activity
i. Protected Natural Lands
A majority of the City's remaining open space land is designated and protected as
environmentally sensitive habitat areas and cannot be utilized for residential
development. These areas are identified in Exhibit F. Natural Community
Conservation Planning (NCCP) and Environmental Study Areas.
G
I
v �
• t
Potential Development Constraints
�••�•� Cmvvl tnw Ea.Mary
l!
����vYol Ne.pwrhxA Bwdary
N-1 C—
uiy Camarwbn PImKgMtt716 G.Yo.�.nl SrWy Arem
. x.n .i N� or ruwymt ewcn
�4 MP 0
Exhibit F
Natural Community Conservation Planning (NCCP) and Environmental Study Areas
13
In July 1996, the City became a signatory agency in the Orange County Central -Coastal
Subregion Natural Community Conservation Plan/Habitat Conservation Plan
(NCCP/HCP). The plan covers nearly 38,000 acres in coastal southern California and is
a collaboration of federal and state resource agencies, local governments, special
districts, and private property owners. The NCCP uses a multi -species habitat
conservation approach rather than a species-specific approach resulting in the
preservation of some of the most valuable native habitats, while freeing other properties
for development. As a signatory agency, the City is responsible for enforcing mitigation
measures and other policies identified in the NCCP/Habitat Conservation Plan
Implementation Agreement for properties located within the City limits that are part of the
NCCP Sub -regional Plan.
Furthermore, Section 30107.5 of the Coastal Act defines "environmentally sensitive area"
as "any area in which plant or animal life or their habitats are either rare or especially
valuable because of their special nature or role in an ecosystem and which could be easily
disturbed or degraded by human activities and developments." Section 30240 of the
Coastal Act requires that environmentally sensitive habitat areas (ESHAs) be protected
against any significant disruption of habitat values. Only uses dependent on those
resources are allowed within ESHAs and adjacent development must be sited and
designed to prevent impacts that would significantly degrade the ESHA and must be
compatible with the continuance of the ESHA.
Several of the natural communities that occur in Newport Beach are designated rare by
the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) and are easily disturbed or
degraded by human activity and therefore are presumed to meet the definition of
Environmental Sensitive Habitat Area (ESHA) under the Coastal Act.
ii. High Fire Severity Hazard Zones
Lands with high severity risk of fire and fuel modification areas further limit available land
to develop residential units, in particular, higher density residential development. The
areas identified in Exhibit G: High Fire Severity Zones are highly prone to wildfire.
(The balance of this page left intentionally blank.)
14
0
j1� • �. Y rjt.l �..
Potential Development Constraints - '' •. j
�••� uaua mw ea,.aarr , r .
�.. of a w.oan morn ea„aaarr `.}
W' Mph fin SewrnY Zanm aW foal AleAl4�eM Aram ......
6�'r
Exhibit G
High Fire Severity Zones
Additionally, these high fire severity zones are not compatible with development due to
severe limitations of slope and natural features. As shown in Exhibit H: Photo of Very
High Fire Severity Zone, these areas are characterized by natural slopes in excess of
those that would contribute to feasible development. The considerable cost to modify
landforms to provide access and provide infrastructure are significant factors contributing
to the infeasibility of development within this area.
Exhibit H
Photo of Very High Fire Severity Zone
15
iii. Seismic Hazard Zones
Strong ground shaking can result in liquefaction. Liquefaction, a geologic process that
causes ground failure, typically occurs in loose, saturated sediments primarily of sandy
composition. Areas of the City susceptible to liquefaction and related ground failure (i.e.
seismically induced settlement) include areas along the coastline, such as Balboa
Peninsula, in and around the Newport Bay and Upper Newport Bay, in the lower reaches
of major streams in Newport Beach, and in the floodplain of the Santa Ana River. It is
likely that residential or commercial development will never occur in many of the other
liquefiable areas, such as Upper Newport Bay, the Newport Coast beaches, and the
bottoms of stream channels. However, other structures (such as bridges, roadways,
major utility lines, and park improvements) that occupy these areas are vulnerable to
damage from liquefaction if mitigation measures have not been included in their design.
(e) Summary of Land Use Constraints
When the City of Newport Beach compiles all lands exhibiting constraints that severely
limit or restrict residential development within its jurisdiction, a considerable amount of
land is not available to accommodate the Draft RHNA Allocation of 4,834 units for the
2021-2029 planning period. Exhibit l: Summary of Development Constraints
illustrates the lands subject to these constraints.
The current methodology does not permit the consideration of hazards and a criterion for
identifying the availability of land to accommodate growth. There is precedent that
permits the consideration of constraints in determining available land. In the Draft
Methodologies for the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), a 10 percent
adjustment factor is permitted to accommodate the consideration of hazards into the
determination of RHNA Allocations. The SCAG methodology does not, but should permit
this factor as it results in an overstated Draft RHNA Allocation for the City of Newport
Beach.
(The balance of this page left intentionally blank.)
Mr
Potential Development Constraints ` \
CBy of N-1 Booth B—de
Jdn Wa A,-, A— 165 ded— � p
-fovea zee A• end VE
®Sea level Rbe and Sham haaordl a,9leer $1R .64TM
Very It eh Fre 5eredry 2— a•d Boel M d f-- Areor "^ ��_ c �•f 3 „3 q� ,;
Newrel --y Cm.e.velbn RIo,.�weMCCRI B Em.l.emmwdd Swdy Arwr F f 'jr
Seurvc Hozaid Zone lllyvofehbnSLwd4RAe polenddl
Exhibit I
Summary of Development Constraints
Table A provides a statistical summary of the acreage subject to identified constraints,
demonstrating the significant amount of land. Of the 29,361 legal parcels in the City of
Newport Beach, approximately 50 percent of these parcels are subject to the constraints
illustrated in this section.
Table A
Statistical Summary of Land Use Constraints
Land Use Constraint
Acreage
Key Constraint Factors
Sea Level Rise & Storm
R.
Coastal Hazard Avoidance
v
479
I
z
391
Noise Compatibility
NCCP Conservation Areas
2,734
Protected Lands Preclusions
High Fire Severity Zone
3,227
Fire Hazards/Insurance
Seismic Hazard
Potential Development Constraints ` \
CBy of N-1 Booth B—de
Jdn Wa A,-, A— 165 ded— � p
-fovea zee A• end VE
®Sea level Rbe and Sham haaordl a,9leer $1R .64TM
Very It eh Fre 5eredry 2— a•d Boel M d f-- Areor "^ ��_ c �•f 3 „3 q� ,;
Newrel --y Cm.e.velbn RIo,.�weMCCRI B Em.l.emmwdd Swdy Arwr F f 'jr
Seurvc Hozaid Zone lllyvofehbnSLwd4RAe polenddl
Exhibit I
Summary of Development Constraints
Table A provides a statistical summary of the acreage subject to identified constraints,
demonstrating the significant amount of land. Of the 29,361 legal parcels in the City of
Newport Beach, approximately 50 percent of these parcels are subject to the constraints
illustrated in this section.
Table A
Statistical Summary of Land Use Constraints
Land Use Constraint
Acreage
Key Constraint Factors
Sea Level Rise & Storm
1,226
Coastal Hazard Avoidance
Flood Zone
479
Flood Hazards/Insurance
Airport Restrictions
391
Noise Compatibility
NCCP Conservation Areas
2,734
Protected Lands Preclusions
High Fire Severity Zone
3,227
Fire Hazards/Insurance
Seismic Hazard
4,107
Seismic Hazards Preclusions
TOTAL
8,418 ACRES*
*Note: Total acreage represents land area affected by one or more constraint layer; therefore,
affected land area is only counted once.
17
1(b) Local Planning SCAG failed to adequately consider the information
Factors submitted pursuant to Section 65584.04(b).
Availability of Land Suitable for Urban Development or for Conversion to
Residential Use, the Availability of Underutilized Land, and Opportunities for Infill
Development and Increased Residential Densities
In consideration of all local factors that limit the use of land to accommodate the City's
Draft RHNA Allocation, future growth must be accommodated on lands not subject to
identified constraints as identified in Exhibit l: Summary of Development Constraints.
These include all residential and non -residentially designated land including:
➢ Residential
➢ Commercial/Retail
Mixed -Use
➢ Industrial
(a) Severe Limitations of Available Vacant Land
The City has little appropriate, available vacant land to accommodate future growth
anticipated in the Draft RHNA Allocation. The only remaining land considered vacant are
lands within the City's Sphere of Influence and cannot be considered when identifying
adequate sites for residential development unless they are anticipated to be incorporated
in the planning period.
Recently enacted AB 1397 modified Sections 65580, 65583 and 65583.2 of the
Government Code. Generally, jurisdictions must demonstrate the following:
Land Inventory Sites Must Be "Available" and May Only Include Non -Vacant Sites
with Realistic Development Potential (Government Code Section 65583).
Sites in the Land Inventory Must Have Demonstrated Potential for Development
(Government Code Section 65583(a)(3))
This provision in State law requires the City to explicitly demonstrate the availability of
vacant lands to accommodate future housing growth need.
Banning Ranch is the only remaining vacant site available to accommodate future growth
(see Exhibit J: Housing Sites Precluded from Future Development - Banning
Ranch). However, as previously discussed, the City's efforts in approving the
development of 1,375 dwelling units on the site, including a portion dedicated to
affordable housing, was ultimately overturned by the California Coastal Commission in
2016 due to the potential impacts to environmentally sensitive habitat areas and coastal
18
resources. Development of the site is further complicated by the fact that a large portion
of the site is in County of Orange's jurisdiction, although in City's Sphere of Influence
It should also be noted that recent guidance from the California Department of Housing
and Community Development (HCD), pursuant to AB 1397 on the use of adequate sites,
limits the identification of sites that are not located within the incorporated boundaries of
a jurisdiction. Therefore, any sites intended to accommodate future growth must
demonstrate they are either within corporate boundaries or anticipated to be incorporated
into the City's boundaries during the planning period. Due to the Coastal Commission's
prior denial of a viable residential project, the entitlement and incorporation of the
approximately 400 acre Banning Ranch property is unlikely during the planning period.
OS(RV)
Exhibit J
Housing Sites Precluded from Future Development - Banning Ranch
19
The only other vacant land available for the 2014-2021 Housing Element to accommodate
growth was a residentially zoned parcel located at 3928 East Coast Highway, as shown
in Exhibit K: Housing Sites Precluded from Development — 3928 East Coast
Highway. This site is currently under construction and will not be available to
accommodate future growth during the Sixth Cycle.
Exhibit K
Housing Sites Precluded from Development— 3928 East Coast Highway
(b) Existing Non -Vacant Residential Land
There are approximately 6,000 acres of residential land not subject to the constraints
listed in Table A. As shown in Exhibit L: Summary of Residential Land, the majority
of existing residential land consists of currently developed properties. There is no vacant
residential land currently available to provide additional opportunities for residential
development. Therefore, future residential development would have to be
accommodated on infill, reuse and redevelopment of these existing residential properties.
20
tl.rt!I
PIN
ri
rF ° -
41
ev rw 1 (`Y
j
•' tom„ t� -
-pal-Plan,
f Lcye�d Use
Exhibit L
Summary of Residential Land
(c) Existinq Commercial/Retail Lands
There are approximately 922 acres of commercial/retail land not subject to the constraints
listed in Table A. As shown in Exhibit M: Summary of Commercial/Retail Land, much
of the existing commercial and retail land in the City is built out and highly utilized.
One of the factors included within the methodology to determine future RHNA allocations
is employment generation. Employment generation is based on the existing job base and
the forecast potential for new job creation. Therefore, future employment growth is
dependent upon the preservation and expansion of existing inventory of land suitable for
employment -generating activities. The significant size of RHNA allocations will force the
City to re -designate land for residential development. This effectively limits the City's
ability to create jobs, thus reducing the employment demand factor in the RHNA
methodology.
z ,
Li
Y
{I T
-tr---'F:4I'.Irl
\ll
PAGIFfC 0CEA N
General Plan `\ l
Commercial Retail / Office Land Use -
922 acres 1,
(d) Existing Industrial Lands
kid
Ir
21
Exhibit M
Summary of Commercial/Retail Land
There are approximately 41 acres of industrial land not subject to the constraints listed in
Table A. As shown in Exhibit N: Summary of Industrial Land, much of this land is
located adjacent to Hoag Hospital where market conditions, including land costs and
market demand for the expansion of medical and supportive uses, do not support the use
of this land for residential use. Most of the remainder of this land is used for small scale
service uses that should remain available for residents of the City.
22
b .
... ro.'^:JRl4l7b rOadS"«vneliry,l-s �I, ��
PACIFIC OCEAN-
General Plan
Industrial Land Use
41 acres
Exhibit N
Summary of Industrial Land
(e) Unavailability of Existinq Commercial/Retail and Industrial Land for Housina Use.
The HCD Sites Inventory Guidebook requires the City to analyze property as either vacant
or non -vacant. As noted above, there is next to no vacant land in the City; therefore, the
City will need to meet its RHNA with non -vacant land. The HCD Guidebook states that
when a City plans to accommodate more than 50 percent of the lower-income RHNA on
non -vacant land, substantial evidence must be provided proving that the existing uses of
the land will be discontinued during the planning period.
In the Draft RHNA allocation to the City, SCAG does not appear to have made an effort
to determine if there is sufficient non -vacant land in the City that can satisfy the substantial
evidence standard. The City will list as many sites as practicable, but in order to meet its
RHNA, the City will need at least 161 acres of land, assuming a density of 30 units per
acre. That means property owners of 161 acres of land in the City must conclude that a
conversion of some, or all, of their land to a residential use is more advantageous than
the land's current commercial use. But the reality is there is very little land in the City that
contains obsolete commercial or industrial improvements or is underutilized due to high
23
property values and rents. As a highly attractive location for businesses and thus jobs
(as SCAG acknowledges), inefficiently used commercial/industrial land is in very low
supply in Newport Beach.
Because the City has little vacant land, and little commercial/industrial land with obsolete
improvements or which is underutilized, the City will have tremendous difficulty in meeting
the Draft RHNA that was assigned to the City without regard to whether or not enough
physical locations for residential uses are economically feasible. Before assigning the
City its Draft RHNA, SCAG should have included a reasonable level of analysis, or at
least made direct inquiries, as to the availability of land upon which the City would be able
to plan its RHNA.
If Newport Beach cannot facilitate enough landowners to make their land available for
housing through various incentives, as described in HCD Guidebook, the City will have
very limited alternatives Therefore, inherent consequences of non-compliance will be
forced upon the City if it fails to comply with a RHNA, when current land resources do not
allow the City to comply. State law should therefore not punish the inability of the City to
comply with a mandate due to the lack of land resources.
(fl Comparative Analysis of Density Needed to Accommodate RHNA Growth
Analysis
As described in Table B, the City must transition up to 161 acres of existing, developed,
high value land to accommodate future growth need. Therefore, the City must
demonstrate that 4,834 units must be accommodated by transitioning existing
development over the eight (8) -year planning period. It is unreasonable to assume the
City will be able to justify this extent of sites, pursuant to the analysis required under AB
1397.
24
Table B
Comparison of Densities Versus RHNA Growth Allocation
Ilse
RHM Mllocatkm
Acreage Heeded to
A Growth
30 Dwelling
Units/Acre
4,834 units
161.0 acres
60 Dwelling
Units/Acre
4,834 units
80.5 acres
100 Dwelling
Units/Acre
4,834 units
48.3 acres
150 Dwelling
Units/Acre
4,834 units
32.2 acres
200 Dwelling
Units/Acre
4,834 units
24.1 acres
(g) Density Considerations and Resiliency Planning
The unique land use conditions in Newport Beach have historically affected the ability for
the City to effectively respond and recoverfrom a variety of natural and man-made events.
These include flood, fire, sea level rise, and public health. The City has conducted
extensive analysis of threats and the proper mitigation of these threats through resiliency
planning to identify, mitigate and respond to them.
In response to the recent COVID-19 pandemic, the City must consider contingency
planning to ensure the health, safety, welfare and economic integrity of our residents,
which can be addressed through appropriate land use considerations, such as density
and land uses. To provide for local resiliency and effective response to future pandemics
and the need for social distancing, considerations related to development design and
open space will be critical factors in future contingency planning.
As social distancing should allow for residents, children and pets the ability to recreate,
exercise and provide a level of social interaction and movement, the provision of
adequate open spaces through parks, open space and urban spaces will have an effect
on urban densities. Coupled with the need to accommodate 4,834 dwelling units within
infill development, this will pose considerable challenges in designing development that
meets appropriate criteria.
25
2 Methodology SCAG failed to determine the share of the regional housing
need in accordance with the information described in, and the
methodology established pursuant to Section 65584.04, and in
a manner that furthers, and does not undermine, the intent of
the objectives listed in Section 65584(d).
(a) The Methodology Fails to Consider Growth Projections Consistent with the
SoCal Connect Plan
SCAG failed to adequately consider local household growth factors and utilized growth
projections inconsistent with the Connect SoCal Plan.
Utilization of projected household growth consistent with the Regional Transportation
Plan (RTP)/Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) (Connect SoCal) is consistent with
State law. However, the Draft RHNA Allocation would not be consistent with the
development patterns projected in the Connect SoCal Plan. These forecasts are to be
developed in conjunction with local input. As demonstrated in previous correspondence,
the City of Newport Beach believes the profound inconsistency in forecasting growth
demonstrates the failure of the methodology to consider local factors and future growth
projections.
According to SCAG's Connect SoCal Plan, Technical Reports - Demographics and
Growth Forecast3, the City of Newport Beach's household growth is forecast to reach
41,800 in 2045. Comparatively, the 2018 American Community Survey 5 -Year Estimates
show that the City of Newport Beach currently has 37,870 households.
As shown in Table C below, forecasts for households through 2045 are expected to be
41,800 according to the Connect SoCal Plan. If this is amortized over the forecast period
(2016-2045), it equates to approximately 100 households per year of growth.
The City of Newport Beach's Draft RHNA Allocation is 4,834 units for the period of 2021
to 2029. If this is amortized over the planning period (2021-2029), it equates to
approximately 604 households per year growth.
This demonstrates the unrealistic assumption that the City of Newport Beach would
exceed its total 2045 forecast of household growth within 6.5 years of the 2021-2029
Housing Element planning period. More directly, the City of Newport Beach would reach
the household estimate for 2045 approximately 17.5 years early.
3 Connect SoCal (2020 - 2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy)
Technical Reports - Demographics and Growth Forecast, Table 14.
Table C
Comparison of Household Growth Rates
Connect SoCal vs. RHNA
Connect
Connect
Average Per
RHNA
RHNA
Average Per
SoCal
SoCal
year growth
Estimate
Forecast
year growth
Forecast
Forecast
rate
Total
Year
rate
Growth
Year
2016-2045
Growth
2021-2029
Need
2,900 1
2045 1
100 HH/ r
4,834
2029
604 HH/ r
Source: Connect SoCal Plan; 2021-2029 Final Draft RHNA Allocations.
The City of Newport Beach contends that the household formation defined in the Draft
RHNA Allocation far exceeds any reasonable projection for growth during the 2021-2029
Housing Element planning period. SCAG's own 2045 growth forecast, stated in the
Connect SoCal Plan is inconsistent and directly undermines the validity of the
assumptions in the Draft RHNA Allocation.
The discrepancy demonstrates the Draft RHNA Allocation undermines Government Code
Section 65584(d)(1) by failing to provide the distribution of units in an equitable manner.
This is demonstrated by the household growth rate increased by a factor of 504 percent
above Connect SoCal forecasts. The City of Newport Beach contends that a realistic
estimate of future growth need should be directly tied to realistic projections of household
formation, consistent with SCAG's own projections in the Connect SoCal Plan.
(b) The Methodology of redistributing units from residual need calculation fails to
be equitably distributed at a regional level, undermining objectives listed in
Govt. Code Section 65584(d).
On November 7, 2019, the Regional Council approved a substitute motion removing the
household growth factor and significantly modifying the Draft RHNA Allocation
methodology to shift approximately 44,000 units of residual RHNA Allocation from lower -
resourced jurisdictions (Anaheim, La Habra, Orange, Santa Ana and Stanton) to other
higher -resourced jurisdictions in Orange County. As a result, Newport Beach and other
Orange County communities not designated as lower -resourced must accommodate the
residual need. This effectively increases the City's obligations not based on the City's
demonstrated local needs, but based upon the residual need left by these jurisdictions.
This has artificially allocated 1,506 units of growth need to Newport Beach, even when
SCAG's own growth forecasts do not support this growth.
Further, the County of Orange is burdened with the redistribution of this residual need,
when numerous other factors support the redistribution of the residual needs to areas not
necessarily in the County. These factors include:
27
• Failure to consider regional employment factors — The methodology to
redistribute housing growth is absent of regional factors in determining future
growth. The methodology arbitrarily defines the county line rather than the regional
influence of jobs to determine redistribution of units. This does not consider the
influence of Los Angeles, Riverside, San Bernardino and San Diego counties when
considering the proper distribution of these reallocated units.
• Arbitrary reassignment of all need to Orange County jurisdictions only -
Newport Beach and other Orange County communities not designated as lower -
resourced must accommodate the residual need. This effectively increases the
City's obligations not based on the City's demonstrated local needs, but based
upon the residual need left by these jurisdictions. This has artificially allocated
1,506 units of growth need to Newport Beach, even when SCAG's own growth
forecasts do not support this growth. Furthermore, the reassignment fails to
consider adjacent communities not designated as lower -resourced that are located
outside the boundaries of Orange County.
(c) The Final Draft RHNA Allocation for Newport Beach Directly Undermines
Government Code Sections 65588(d)(1) and 65588(d)(2)
Government Code Section 65588(d) defines five (5) specific objectives the RHNA
allocation plan shall further. In particular, Section 65588(d)(1) objective of "Increasing the
housing supply and the mix of housing types, tenure, and affordability in all cities and
counties within the region in an equitable manner, which shall result in each jurisdiction
receiving an allocation of units for low- and very low income households" is dependent on
the availability of suitable land to various location within the City.
As discussed previously in this appeal letter, the City is very limited in appropriate and
available vacant land and must accommodate almost all future growth need on infill
parcels. Therefore, significant impact will occur to the City's non-residential land uses as
these sites must be used to accommodate the growth identified in the Draft RHNA
Allocation. Even at residential densities far above historical averages, the amount of land
necessary to accommodate residential growth at the levels identified in the Draft RHNA
Allocation would require the City to sacrifice a significant percentage of job -creating uses,
retail and industrial land. Furthermore, the majority of this land will not be justifiable as
adequate sites pursuant to the strict requirements for adequate sites of AB 1397.
Requisite analysis to determine if these sites are viable is stated on the State Department
of Housing and Community Development's "Building Blocks" website4. Considerations
include:
L Existing Uses — "The housing element must demonstrate non -vacant and/or
underutilized sites in the inventory that can be realistically developed with residential
uses or more -intensive residential uses at densities appropriate to accommodate the
4 https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/buiIding-blocks/site-inventory-analysis/analysis-of-
sites-and-zoning.shtmWrealistic
28
regional housing need (by income) within the planning period... The condition or age
of existing uses and the potential for such uses to be discontinued and replaced with
housing (within the planning period) are important factors in determining "realistic"
development potential...'
It is the burden of the City of Newport Beach to demonstrate the realistic development
potential of infill sites by income category. The ability to identify adequate acreage to
rezone and permit new residential development on land that is "...realistically developed
with residential uses or more -intensive residential uses at densities appropriate to
accommodate the regional housing need (by income) within the planning period.... will
be an insurmountable task that will be primarily influenced by current market conditions,
the viability and health of existing non-residential uses, and the likelihood of existing
investments to transition to new residential uses. Many of these existing non-residential
lands are limited by constraints imposed by lease provisions, financing provisions and
other encumbrances tied to the land that can negate the possibility of transition due to
these circumstances.
ii. Development Trends — "The inventory analysis should describe recent development
and/or redevelopment trends in the community. The housing element should also
include a description of the local government's track record and specific role in
encouraging and facilitating redevelopment, adaptive reuse, or recycling to residential
or more -intense residential uses. If the local government does not have any examples
of recent recycling or redevelopment, the housing element should describe current or
planned efforts (via new programs) to encourage and facilitate this type of
development (e.g. providing incentives to encourage lot consolidation or assemblage
to facilitate increased residential -development capacity).
Development trends cannot be considered solely at the regional or state level. All
development in Newport Beach is affected by the local market. Due to local market
conditions, value of the land and construction costs, infill development transitioning to
affordable housing is heavily influenced by existing development activity. The general
costs to bring affordable residential development to the market does not generate the
residual values to justify the transition of existing developed land. Newport Beach
currently cannot demonstrate a consistent track record of transitioning viable existing
commercial development into residential development projects.
Development activity in Newport Beach is also significantly influenced by the variety of
approvals required by external agencies. These approvals in many cases can limit, or
completely halt future development activity. The City of Newport Beach is therefore
influenced by the decision of external agencies in the approval of projects. In particular
the California Coastal Commission, Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), ALUC, and
Caltrans, all have local jurisdiction for a large percentage of lands in the City. These
agencies can preempt local decisions and deny the use of lands. This is demonstrated
by the recent Coastal Commission denial of the Banning Ranch project, which was to
provide significant opportunity to accommodate residential growth.
29
iii. Market Conditions — "Housing market conditions also play a vital role in determining
the feasibility or realistic potential of non -vacant sites and/or underutilized sites for
residential development. The housing element should evaluate the impact of local
market conditions on redevelopment or reuse strategies. For example, high land and
construction costs, combined with a limited supply of available and developable land
may indicate conditions 'ripe' for more -intensive, compact and infill development or
redevelopment and reuse."
As required by statute, the City of Newport Beach must "...evaluate the impact of local
market conditions on redevelopment or reuse strategies...". Local market conditions
include some of the highest land costs in the United States and they play a significant
role in the feasibility of transitioning existing viable commercial uses to residential use.
Financing costs are also subject to market forces and they affect the feasibility of projects.
The combination of high construction costs, high land values, increased financing costs,
and the scarcity of vacant land are all factors that are included in development pro -formas
to justify whether to proceed with redevelopment. In addition, existing
commercial/industrial leases or loans place severe limitations on the ability to redevelop
existing commercial/industrial sites. Therefore, all these market factors significantly affect
the ability to structure the complex, multi -tranche financing necessary to accommodate
affordable housing. In the end, all of these factors result in almost insurmountable
conditions.
The Final Draft RHNA Allocation fails to consider the implications of existing law
governing Housing Elements. Specifically, the requirements of State law that Newport
Beach will be subject to in determining the adequacy of housing sites to accommodate
future housing growth directly conflict with the ability of the City to accommodate the
current Draft RHNA Allocation. This creates a scenario where the City cannot
accommodate the level of RHNA growth need based on the inability to justify these sites
pursuant to statutory provisions.
In review of the Government Code's Housing Element for compliance with State law, the
following factors severely limit the sites that can be considered for future growth:
iv. Realistic Development Capacity - Realistic development capacity calculation
accounts for minimum density requirements, land use controls, site improvements,
and typical densities of existing or approved projects at similar income levels, and
access to current, or planned, water, sewer, and dry utilities (Government Code
Sections 65583.2(c)(1) and (2)).
The City of Newport Beach must demonstrate realistic development capacity for
approximately a large percentage of existing viable land with existing stable land uses in
the City. This is infeasible as the City would essentially have to consider a large portion
of existing job -generating uses to transition to residential uses and must prove these sites
are a viable to transition during the planning period.
30
v. Realistic Capacity of Non -Vacant Sites - The realistic capacity methodology
analyzes the extent the existing use may impede additional residential development,
the jurisdiction's past experience converting existing uses to higher density residential
development, current market demand for the existing use, analysis of existing leases
or other contracts that would perpetuate the existing use or prevent additional
residential development, development trends, market conditions, and incentives or
standards that encourage development (Government Code Section 65583.2(g)(1).
Existing uses are a major impediment to the development of future residential use in
Newport Beach to the extent identified in the Draft RHNA Allocation. This would require
the City to analyze all private lease agreements and contracts to determine site feasibility.
This is both impractical and infeasible. Additionally, market factors must consider the
actual ability of the site to transition during the planning period. Many of the infill sites
must be accommodated on existing commercial/industrial lands, which have long-term
financing provisions with severe penalties if these provisions are compromised. Even
with incentives, by -right development and other regulatory relief, a site could not
redevelop due to these restrictions.
vi. "Substantial Evidence" Requirement - If non -vacant sites accommodate 50 percent
or more of the lower-income need, the housing element must describe "substantial
evidence" that the existing use does not constitute an impediment for additional
residential use on the site. Absent substantial evidence, the existing use is deemed
an impediment to additional residential development during the planning period
(Government Code Section 65583.2(g)(2)).
As the City of Newport Beach has an extremely limited inventory of vacant lands available
to accommodate growth, all future development will occur on sites identified as non -
vacant sites. The substantial evidence requirement will be difficult, if not impossible to
achieve. If more than 50 percent of the lower-income need is accommodated on sites
currently in use, before the site could be identified as one available for housing, Newport
Beach must overcome the presumption by showing: 1) past experience with converting
the existing type of use to higher density residential development, 2) the current market
demand for the current use will not impede redevelopment, and 3) existing leases or
contracts would not legally prevent redevelopment of the site. Each of these criteria could
not be currently met by the City.
3 Changed A significant and unforeseen change in circumstances has
Circumstances occurred in the local jurisdiction or jurisdictions that merits
a revision of the information submitted pursuant to Section
65584.04(b).
The COVID-19 pandemic has had a demonstrable impact on Newport Beach's
economy. The pandemic was unforeseen during the development of regional RHNA
methodology and will have lasting impacts to Newport Beach's economy and housing
market. Additionally, population growth trends in California have recently been revised
to reflect a substantially lower rate of population growth in the region.
31
Prior to COVID-19, Newport Beach enjoyed a robust and diversified economy. With
the restrictions imposed and ongoing during the pandemic, these restrictions have
significantly impacted all aspects of Newport Beach's economy. With many job
opportunities supportive to the tourist and hospitality industries now gone, it is
estimated it will take years to return to pre-COVID levels. Because this was an
unforeseen circumstance, the impacts to the economy of the City and consequently to
the housing market are profound and should be a consideration when evaluating
realistic development potential over the eight (8) -year RHNA planning period.
The State of California is experiencing population growth rates at historically low levels.
Recent downward revisions by the Department of Finance illustrate the rate of
population growth throughout California is slowing at a faster rate than previously
anticipated. In the last three (3) years, the state has experienced the lowest population
growth rates on record since 1900. Population growth is directly tied to household
formation. The flattening of the population growth curve is contrary to the rate of growth
identified in the Draft RHNA Allocation. Furthermore, according to Freddie Mac's
February 2020 report, The Housing Supply Shortage: State of the States, their
research indicates that "...California has a shortage of 820,000 housing units. But
history suggests that California's shortage may be overestimated if interstate migration
is considered."5
Summary of Contributing Factors Justifying Modifications to the City of Newport
Beach's Draft RHNA Allocation
Based on the evidence provided herein, the Draft RHNA Allocation undermines
Government Code Section 65584(d) by failing to support the goals identified therein.
Further, the substantial growth need allocated to the City of Newport Beach, when
applying current statutory requirements, will preclude the City from complying with law
and be unfairly affected by the failure to enact these laws. The Draft RHNA Allocation
and methodology used to develop it needs to be revised so that it fulfils the objectives
identified in the Government Code.
The City of Newport Beach has compiled all development -contributing factors to
summarize the severe limitations of the City to accommodate the Final RHNA
Allocation. As shown in Exhibit h Summary of Development Constraints, the City
is severely limited in the availability of land to accommodate the unprecedented
increase in growth from the Sixth RHNA cycle.
Remaining land available to accommodate growth will be limited to infill development
on parcels with existing development, including existing residential zoned land and
non-residential land that must be rezoned to accommodate residential development.
Exhibits J through M demonstrate the only sites that can be used to accommodate
residential growth in the future.
5 Freddie Mac, "The Housing Supply Shortage: State of the States" February 2020, Page 6.
32
The future growth of residential development will require the execution of the
substantial evidence clause in State housing law to demonstrate the viability of infill
sites. This evidence may include:
• Age of Existing Structures
• Developer Interest
• Past Experience in Developing Infill Property
• Existing Lease Provisions
• Environmental and Infrastructure Constraints
The City will not be able to justify the use of these infill sites in the Housing Element to
accommodate the level of need shown in the Draft RHNA Allocation.
(The balance of this page left intentionally blank.)
33
CONCLUSION
The City of Newport Beach is committed to accommodating the existing and future
needs of its residents. While the City is committed to contributing to the collective local,
regional and State needs for housing, the City has demonstrated that the Draft RHNA
Allocation is unrealistic, excessive and based on faulty assumptions that can have
grave consequences to the City and its residents. Therefore, the City, respectfully
objects to the Final Draft RHNA Allocation and methodology used and requests the
RHNA Allocation be revised so that it fulfils the objectives identified in the Government
Code.
Pursuant to Government Code Section 65584.05(b), the City of Newport Beach states
the following revisions to the Final Draft RHNA Allocation are necessary to further the
intent of the objectives stated in Government Code Section 65584(d). Table D
illustrates these recommended modifications.
Table D
Summary of RHNA Reductions
Government Code Requirements
RHNA
Reduction
Section 65584(d)(1) - Increasing the housing supply and the mix of
-902
housing types, tenure, and affordability in all cities and counties within the
region in an equitable manner, which shall result in each jurisdiction
receiving an allocation of units for low- and very low-income households.
Reason- The Draft RHNA Allocation undermines this objective as it
does not assign housing unit growth need in an equitable manner. The
allocation is a marked increase in allocations from prior RHNA planning
cycles and a disproportionately higher amount of lower income need to
the community, based upon a flawed methodology that is inconsistent
with regional growth forecasts at the regional, state and federal level.
Section 65584(d)(2) - Promoting infill development and socioeconomic
-1506
equity, the protection of environmental and agricultural resources, the
encouragement of efficient development patterns, and the achievement of
the region's greenhouse gas reductions targets provided by the State Air
Resources Board pursuant to Section 65080.
Reason- The Draft RHNA Allocation undermines this objective as it does
not properly consider lands that are designated for the protection of
natural resources, protected lands precluded from development and lands
subject to high fire severity. Furthermore, the use of these lands is not
supportive of the efficient utilization of land to encourage and support
efficient development patterns.
TOTAL
-2,408
34
Table E summarizes the City of Newport Beach's recommended RHNA allocation by
income category:
Table E
Summary of Recommended RHNA Allocations for Newport Beach
Income Category
SCAG September 3, 2020
Final Draft
RHNA Allocation
Newport Beach
Recommended RHNA
Allocation
Very Low
1,453Units
729 Units
Low
928 Units
466 Units
Moderate
1,048 Units
526 Units
Above Moderate
1,405 Units
705 Units
TOTAL
4,834 Units
2,426 Units
Respectfully Submitted,
Will O'Neill, Mayor
City of Newport Beach
cc: City Council Members, City of Newport Beach
Grace K. Leung, City Manager
Aaron C. Harp, City Attorney
Seimone Jurjis, Community Development Director
Attachments:
A - Local Planning Factors Survey
B - RHNA Methodology Correspondence
Attachment A
Local Planning Factors Survey
Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) Local Planning Factor Survev
The RHNA process requires that SCAG survey its jurisdictions on local planning factors (formerly known
as "AB 2158 factors") prior to the development of a proposed RHNA methodology, per Government
Code 65584.04 (b). Information collected from this survey will be included as part of the proposed RHNA
methodology,
Between October 2017 and October 2018, SCAG included these factors as part of the local input survey
and surveyed a binary yes/no as to whether these factors impacted jurisdictions. If your jurisdiction
answered this part of the survey, your reply has been pre -populated in the table. Please review each
factor and provide any information that may be relevant to the RHNA methodology. You may attach
additional information to the survey. Please keep in mind that recent housing -related legislation has
updated some of the factors listed, which were not included in the prior survey.
Per Government Code Section 65584.04 (g), there are several criteria that cannot be used to determine
or reduce a jurisdiction's RHNA allocation:
(1) Any ordinance, policy, voter -approved measure, or standard of a city or county that directly or
indirectly limits the number of residential building permits issued by the jurisdiction
(2) Underproduction of housing units as measured by the last RHNA cycle allocation
(3) Stable population numbers as measured by the last RHNA cycle allocation
The planning factors in the table below are abbreviated. For the full language used, please refer to
Government Code Section 65584.04 (e) or the attached reference list.
Please review and submit the survey by 5 p.m. April 30, 2019 to housing@scag.ca.gov.
nla
cu
M.
E - 4.E
nim
EM,;
Eow
=3
an
0
-C
E
g,ER
0 0
a)
g
g-.
-C N
-2H.
0
Zd
M
S.—
CN
C
g
-AM
ra
EE
U5 --
CD
(N a)
EZ
6E
8
jE
is
E -98R
E-9
M5
t
zz;
8 E-
E-
Ea
kE '-
c�
of -E6 -
o 0
I
E,
-
a
u
CU
0
w
E
<
7n 0
cu
-0
0
.r- W
�
V,
=;
m
0
0
0
E"0
(U
0
..a. " dA
cu
V,
4-
-0
cu
Ln
w
0
. —0
0
( )
U =
0
-
0
Ln
u
o
0
0
+1
u
m
0.
-a fl ro
0
-
4�
U
-0
0
W -CU
w
S
Ln
>-
M
bz r 0
u
4--
-a
E
CL
C o
0
u
(u
-le
u
(U
>
LU m
M>
—j
Ln
0
<
w
-Z3
m« o
N N J N
O N l0
C m O
cU� NomN NU
E E'N°B'LQ m mZ
0
� 0- a
0 .
o° 0 m N E v
N;aEm c
0-- C7
L` a N =.2 a LL Q
o c o N y ow
��na fa NW
Z 0-0
Nov aZi E m
d O) y N y N an d
C
m c y o o O Q
�Ec4 2`16
C cdaU mm
Q= L
N •, O N m
N«w E' CLL
8 d t
_
O y
C .O O W B 0 U
�Oa UoZmU a`im
NL. Z EUj
U C d N—
J.; m N
'O y�q «
i0 N N w a:JO
0.- Z -0 N N`N
E N p l0 azN
C
N m
Em
O E
N U O C O.O
C
l0 y J .L E a 'O_ 1 m W
:om° U6N.mc Natio
U N- N
L U C y E_> ,� 0« `O
-6
-0
C m N 0 p L a 0
�EE._c?5U` �Nw
�.0 aZ m vo,Uat my
m4)
�aZm~2 oUcy
wod.'NE
01a°d
E y�'u0i0y3Eai«v0
o ` vac rn
5 m�`y Er BOE
E M O � c $
. a`".Oo aN `o O.Um
m` N a
W a OlmYO
L U L_ th NO m
UL'O OCT>O Elam m
W' `0 3 d
a=
o y m
W C c E- E Z � U
O. p N N OI C Z O J ".
.y N a o m> o y `c D r0
U :p N O D U d N U O D
_N
ami«m`'c aOy0m m
N O C@ N N N `
N m H U C
O«- Ol
me LaEN Nca3,wm >,
c w m o E d a m v E m
'NZ1U>0m:Mo N UEj
�D2'CL
U Ua a
N E0d
N« 20 L) E oO-E >
z N m
N` y N m�m 2m2
UU
M E c N N
U'- N o«v o
o a.o
E
C
'
'Nua
aa�0
'NfQ«o
Qo�>•0
.>EO
Q
Z
Qcm0Vdai��w•QNmdoE
Uoa
ZQ
ZN
0
'0
++
}�
(O
CL E
•i
3
t
0
a
o m
ao
o
o
o
CL)to
a
N
a) a
=
v
o •E
o
E
Q
y
4-
C _V
(a '�'
o
to
Q
+
N +L
0`
*'
0tA
°�
CL
Q
3 °
r-
cu
r-
4-
CU
0 0
aJ
v
(U v
•V
L
'� H
'Q N
0
U
o
0
0
N 3
= L
t
Q
V)
E
o
°'
cv =
o=
v
m
v a'
v
3
U
o
ma
E
to +J
Q V
r
(6
- 9 Z5 E E ,- N o Qi
Ba c O Q p C L
t „°v _
@d °m 2" ;"d C f- C �� "Q
m =q uE 22?.0 U ���CU
C) LOo (D C co
o
.6.
l _ o n 9 a - ; CU C 4•- 4- o Q o
Q.€' O O m E ..0-'a5
E n s n' u n $' N (D Q) O ..Q O 0 3 •3 C
Nr "o "=c -a 0 tm � a� N U
sed r` sr m M 0 3 cCD
c V
3 o 0 > Z ` yam+ Q o
(Q =3 a) C O U C Uco cu
Z wF o c
��3 -E. 3d rva tm ai (� t 7 r U
70
g�a) 0 NEEEEo)O Cd8 20 'a o
ryca
0 -1 LQ
U
VOOEc > 4- 4-
21 -0 -0 0 O Q
tcu
C13 L'0 t0
N E vm 8 �' L Q L o C 'Q m� 'o fo
E d. $ m` ' °' ., s o c i U Q M m of +' o 0 -ad cu L C
b» m CO LC amv
2_$Oco
Es �" ;3 ?ta V. ^..3 vJ L > Q Q Ci Qi
so�m L Aa0�t a
o_ o - N t iri
rM! .G,E N C Q M C'7 >,�
y d w a G c .}+ L o v, .Q
L> (D "" ��v Q to N C E C (D ��+C C
E_ �. L� E Q') C N
"gZ c�c 6a �- C � o C O
E E c
=a� oaov
.Ed uE_ ME 3v� �. E..=.� LU. .0 Q o Li Q
M. m'� E�� E0� N .� 0 Q E c.:
o N U
z -S-°° m o U o L ci
o=° v , y my U`°£n
0
EE--oN L C o Q
E& d 2-- IM
2
u3 N 'o >C 'o
L o Q
msz msodm _�" ME
•O O c C C C O (D
TO p O
a8, *g;2 1 off€ _I O'er U U U N o O aCV U o U N
y ct <mm N° E v m o m m a C m a o C)> m> 0
QZt aan. 1— aa�c� oa o Z
0
OLO Q LLn
o m m
t +, 4-1
-1
L v
o O v
.c c
c = an
O N i' )
VO +, t C 3 7
coo g O O 0
X. O
Mw (UL L
N = Eto
N N
o u ° s 0 Y
oc +� c o 0
N c 'Su 4' L cu 3
0 o Z v E Z m m
a
D
.§
0 $
CD o .o
-
3§2R
a
70
3,$
A
Em -0
7C)
@
0
�w�3
E
0
° £ - ?
7
D»
�
�Rm
�
@
o
Q
c
2:
6 2 q
.
2.
§
§ o Q =
M
3� cE=
9- o 0 7
$ 7
U) 3=
E E £ o
o
@ m
_0
>
CL
.
7 E
:a)
. .
2 7 0 §
&
2
> £ cn
2:
k 7
o
.0
cu % '® 0)
c O
� @
/ § o 2
c
'.o
DU 2 £ o
.
2
� c .§ •C
@ 3 �
kr2>,
2'
\ p }; 2
M02=
.
� a
.
— a E
> (.
? ® m I °
_ ? @ m�.
§
c
�.g I
a,
/UR§2
2 U(
0/
/ 3
� m
Qj
/
33
22
w \
>
t t
o U
)
tw ƒ 2
= c
% 2 /
\ ®
k /
e = 2
/ o
CU o U
/ /
0
4>
§ 2 °
> c
/ o
®
G
§
E;
�
§§
. f �
t
f w
� /
GJ
/
$ CL
w
z
� / W
/
@�
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) Survey
Jurisdiction
Newport Beach
County
Orange
Survey Respondent Name
Jaime Murillo and Melinda Whelan
Survey Respondent Title
Planner
SCAG is surveying cities and counties on information related to affirmatively further fair housing' as
part of its development of the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) proposed methodology.
Information related to AFFH may be obtained from local analysis for housing choice, housing
elements, and other sources. Using your jurisdiction's Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing
Choice, Assessment of Fair Housing, and/or local housing element, please answer the questions
below about local issues, strategies and actions regarding AFFH and submit your answers no later
than April 30, 2019 to housing@scae.ca.gov.
Data Sources
1a. Does your jurisdiction have an Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice or an Assessment
Cr ,.:_ 1 i_.._•.
Jr Fair nvusing due to U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) requirements?
Yes X
No
2. When did you jurisdiction last update the General Plan?
Year 1 2006 (Comprehensive Update)
3a. Does your General Plan have an environmental justice/social equity chapter or integrate
�nvironmentai Justice/social equity, per SB 1000?
Yes
No x
In process x
3b. If you answered yes or in process to question 3a, how does your General Pian inteerate or elan
to integrate environmental justice?
A) An environmental justice chapter
B) Throughout the General Plan in each
chapter
C) Both
Per Government Code 65584(e), affirmatively furthering fair housing is defined as "taking meaningful actions, in
addition to combating discrimination, that overcome patterns of segregation and foster inclusive communities free
from barriers that restrict access to opportunity based on protected characteristics. Specifically, affirmatively
furthering fair housing means taking meaningful actions that, taken together, address significant disparities in
housing needs and in access to opportunity, replacing segregated living patterns with truly integrated and
balanced living patterns, transforming racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty into areas of
opportunity, and fostering and maintaining compliance with civil rights and fair housing laws."
Fair Housing Issues
4. Describe demographic trends and patterns in your jurisdiction over the past ten years. Do any
groups experience disproportionate housing needs?
Please see the attached OC demographic growth from CDR. According to the 2010 Census, 16,162 persons in Newport Beach
were aged 65 years and older representing 19 percent of the City's population. The percentage of older persons in the City is
large compared to the region. In 2010, 11.6 percent of Orange County residents were 65years of age or older. Due to aging
"baby boomers," the 65 years and older age group has been, proportionately, the fastest growing segment of the total
population in the previous two decades. The number of seniors can be expected to increase as persons between the ages of
35 and 64 continue to
mature.
5. To what extent do the following factors impact your jurisdiction by contributing to segregated
housing patterns or racially or ethnically -concentrated areas of poverty?
Land use and zoning laws, such as minimum lot
New Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Ordinance adopted
sizes, limits on multi -unit properties, height
eliminating the age requirement of previous Ordinance per
limits, or minimum parking requirements
suggestion of Analysis to Impediments to Fair Housing.
Occupancy restrictions
Newport Beach does not have occupancy restrictions more stringent than the State.
The Zoning Code and adopted Planned Communities do not exclude anyone from
residing in any neighborhood based upon race, color, creed or national origin, sex,
gender affiliation, religious beliefs, age disability, or marital/familial status.
Residential real estate steerings
Unknown
Patterns of community opposition
Unknown
Economic pressures, such as increased rents or
Unknown
land and development costs
Major private investments
Unknown
Municipal or State services and amenities
Unknown
Foreclosure patterns
Unknown
Other
6. To what extent do the following acts as determinants for fair housing and compliance issues in
your jurisdiction?
Unresolved violations of fair housing or civil
None. The City contracts with the Fair Housing Foundation to provide fair housing services,including the
rights laws
investigation and resolution of housing discrimination complaints,
discnminalion auditing/Testing, and education and outreach, including the dissemination affair
housing information such as written material, workshops, and seminars. Landlordflenant counseling
services involves informing landlords and tenants of their rights and responsibilities under the
California Civil Code and mediating conflicts between tenants and landlords.
Patterns of community opposition
Unaware of any issues
Support or opposition from public officials
Unaware of any issues
Discrimination in the housing market
Unaware of any issues
Lack of fair housing education
None, contract maintained with Fair Housing
Foundation and ample training and workshops
provided to landlords and tenants.
Lack of resources for fair housing agencies and
No, contract maintained with Fair Housing
organizations
Foundation and ample training and workshops
provided to landlords and tenants.
Fair Housing Strategies and Actions
7. What are your public outreach stratppipc tn rparh diendilmni-man l --war r..;4.; 1
Partnership with advocacy/non-profit
organizations
Not appliwble(NIA). Newport Beach does nal have identified disadvantaged communities per C,IEPA Disadvantaged Cp ,nit
Partnership with schools
N/A
Partnership with health institutions
N/A
Variety of venues to hold community meetings
N/A
Door-to-door interaction
N/A
Increased mobile phone app engagement
N/A
Other
Participate in regional efforts - homeless task force, low-income seniors meals on wheels.
8. What steps has your jurisdiction undertaken to overcome historical patterns of segregation or
I UI I IUVC ualflcra w eyudt no using opportunity
Contract with Fair Housing Foundation to provide guidance and training to landlords,
tenants and residents regarding California Fair Housing Laws. Adopted Analysis to
Impediments to Fair Housing.
9. What steps has your jurisdiction undertaken to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the displacement of
low income households?
• Housing Program 4.1.1 -Annually contact owners of affold.ble units as part of the City's annual monitoring of affordable housing agreements to obtain information regarding their plans for continuing
affordability on their properties, inform them of financial resources available, and to encourage the extension of the affordability agreements for the developments beyond the contract years.
• The City of Newport Beach is registered as a Qualified Preservation Entity with HCD since 2012. When notification is received, City staff will evaluate the potential use of monies to preserve the affordable
units.
The following activities demonstrate continuous successful efforts to preserve low income units:
• Seaview Lutheran Plaza Project — Seaview Lutheran Plaza was awarded $1.6 million to assist with the rehabilitation of an existing 100 -unit apartment building that is affordable to low-income seniors located
at 2800 Pacific View Drive. On July 26, 2016, the City and Seaview Lutheran entered into an affordable housing grant agreement for $800,000 of the award for upgrades to existing bathrooms. The design and
permits were approved late 2016 and construction was underway throughout 2017. By spring 2018 all 100 units were complete. The grant agreement extended the affordability requirement through 2069.
• An agreement with Community Development Partners granting $1,975,000 to assist with the acquisition, rehabilitation and conversion of an existing 12 -unit apartment building located at 6001 Coast
Boulevard for affordable housing — 6 for low-income veterans and 6 with a priority for low-income seniors and veterans (Newport Veterans Project). In June 2017, the project closed on construction financing.
Building permits were issued and construction began in July 2017. The lease -up of the units were completed in 2018.
• Senior Home Repair Program - An agreement with Habitat for Humanity Orange County (Habitat OC) granting up to $600,000 for critical home repair for low-income seniors. This enables low-income seniors
to remain in their homes, otherwise would be displaced as they can not afford the repairs that are considered critical. There has been $194,000 spent with eight projects completed and one in the process at
the end of 2018. These projects include repairing and weatherizing roofing, bringing landscaping up to code, repairing stairs and railings, and replacing furnaces and windows, emergency plumbing.
=mo
n
gill
I
Hill
11111111
i
Attachment B
RHNA Methodology Correspondence
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
100 Civic Center Drive
Newport Beach, California 92660
949 644-3004 1949 644-3039 FAX
newportbeachca.gov
March 3, 2020
Mayor
Will O'Neill
Mayor Pro Tem
Brad Avery Kome Ajise, Executive Director
Council Members Southern California Association of Governments
Joy Brenner 900 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1700
Diane Brooks Dixon Los Angeles, CA 90017
Marshall "Duffy" Duffield
Jeff Herdman
Kevin Muldoon RE: March 5, 2020, Community, Economic and Human
Development (CEHD) Policy Committee and Regional
Council Meetings Related to Regional Housing Needs
Assessment (RHNA) Allocation Methodology
Dear Mr. Ajise:
The City of Newport Beach (City) appreciates the opportunity to
provide written comments regarding the Regional Housing Needs
Assessment (RHNA) methodology being considered for the 6th RHNA
cycle. Like many other jurisdictions and stakeholders, the City has
been heavily engaged and has participated in the numerous meetings
held by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG)
regarding the development of the Draft RHNA allocation methodology.
Through much of the development process, SCAG staff has listened
to recommendations and input provided by various jurisdictions,
housing experts, and housing advocates to develop a fair and
equitable RHNA methodology. The months of effort and public input
resulted in a methodology recommended by SCAG staff and
supported by the RHNA Subcommittee, as well as the Community,
Economic and Human Development (CEHD) Committee. This
recommended methodology incorporated a reasonable factor of
household growth (50%) and appropriately responded to changes in
State law to factor in job accessibility (25%) and proximity to transit
(25%) within the existing need portion of the allocations. However, to
our dismay, with very little warning and no reasonable opportunity for
any detailed analysis and thoughtful public input, the Regional Council
inappropriately approved a substitute motion on November 7, 2019,
removing the household growth factor and significantly modifying the
Draft RHNA methodology to shift approximately 75,000 additional
housing units into Orange County. Therefore, the City of Newport
Beach respectfully requests that SCAG consider the following
comments and incorporate the City of Cerritos proposal dated
February 4, 2020, which recommends that household growth
forecasts be reintroduced back into the calculations for the
existing need as follows:
• household growth (33.3°/x);
• job accessibility (33.3%); and
• population within high quality transit areas (33.3%).
1. Reinstate household growth as a factor of existing need
As stated in previous comment letters, local input and projected household
growth is part of the very foundation of SCAG's planning efforts and furthermore
is required by State law.
State law requires that the determination of regional housing need:
"... shall be based upon population projections produced by the Department
of Finance and regional population forecasts used in preparing regional
transportation plans, in consultation with each council of governments.
[65584.01(b)]
Incorporating local input of projected household growth would ensure greater
consistency between RHNA and the Regional Transportation Plan
(RTP)/Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) (Connect SoCal) as required by
State law. However, the draft RHNA allocation would not be consistent with the
development patterns projected in the Connect SoCal Plan. For Newport Beach,
approximately 2,900 households are projected to be formed through 2045, yet
the current draft RHNA allocation assigns 4,832 new units to be constructed in
the City in the next eight-year planning period.
Any RHNA methodology that does not consider local conditions, as expressed
in local General Plans, would ignore more than a half -century of State and
Federal planning policy requiring comprehensive planning. Local General Plans
and their development policies and assumptions must reflect a wide range of
issues. Newport Beach is an attractive city for residents and visitors alike, but
subject to various legal and geographic constraints. Though relatively small
compared to sprawling_ ed room communities, Newport Beach:
(1) neighbors an international airport;
(2) oversees the largest recreational boating harbor west of the Mississippi
River;
(3) contains substantial Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas, as well as
wetlands;
(4) borders state lands that have been recently described as high-risk fire
zones;
(5) is home to a number of State parks and beaches; and
(6) has a vacant landfill bordering a tolled highway system.
The above list is not comprehensive, but paints a complex picture of the
challenges that are overlooked with the elimination of local input.
Furthermore, these environmental concerns are all governed by comprehensive
state and federal laws and regulations with differing objectives that will constrain
the City's ability to comply with state housing laws and achieve RHNA
allocations. For example, in 2008, the City approved the Banning Ranch project,
which would have allowed for the development of 1,375 residential units,
including an Affordable Housing Implementation Plan, and 252 acres of
permanent open space. However, the California Coastal Commission denied
the project and the property remains fenced off. This places Newport Beach —
and cities like it — in a perilous position of trying to comply with the housing
allocations when other State and Federal agencies have competing
programmatic agendas.
Finally, as SCAG staff has correctly noted in every RHNA staff report, State law
required SCAG to conduct a survey of "local planning factors" to identify local
conditions and explain how each of the factors are incorporated into the
proposed methodology. A simple mathematical calculation of local housing
allocations based only on jurisdictions' proximity to jobs or population within
transit -rich areas without consideration for local development constraints would
render the local planning factors survey completely meaningless and would be
contrary to State law.
Incorporating the request from the City of Cerritos to reintroduce a component
of household growth forecasts back into the calculations for the existing need at
a reduced rate of 33.3%, instead of the SCAG staff's original recommended
methodology of 50%, is a compromise that the City of Newport Beach fully
supports. This would constitute a minor revision to the RHNA methodology that
remains substantially consistent with HCD's January 13, 2020, review of the
methodology. As supported in the SCAG staff -recommended RHNA
methodology staff report for the November 7, 2019, Regional Council meeting,
the reintroduction of household growth into the existing need would further the
five objectives of state housing law.
2. Redistributed units from residual need calculation should be redistributed
region wide as opposed to remaining within county
Orange County has five jurisdictions defined as the "extremely disadvantaged
communities" (DACs), meaning they have over 50% of their population located in
very low resource areas. As a result of their DAC designations, the draft RHNA
allocation methodology caps their RHNA allocation to the jurisdiction's projected
2045 household growth to limit growth in very low resource jurisdictions. Despite
the DAC jurisdictions proximity to transit and jobs, the "residual" share of their
existing need above projected household growth is then redistributed to other
Orange County cities. It is recommended that redistribution occur across the
SCAG region for the following reasons:
Each of the five DACs have jobs accessible via 30 -minute commute that are
located outside boundaries of Orange County. Therefore, county boundaries
should not be a factor in redistribution.
The existing need projection for the region is stated to be the result of low
vacancies, high overcrowding rates, and high cost burdens across the State.
As such, each jurisdiction in the region, not just the counties, must do its part
to address the housing crisis.
3. SCAG should continue objections to Department of Housing and
Community Development's (HCD) faulty regional determination of 1,341,827
housing units
The City of Newport Beach supports Orange County Council of Government's
(OCCOG's) February 18, 2020, request to SCAG to continue to oppose the
regional deamination provided by the HCD. SCAG should continue to assert that
HCD did not follow statute when allocating the regional determination:
"7f the total regional population forecast for the projection year, developed by
the council of governments and used for the preparation of the regional
transportation plan, is within a range of 1.5 percent of the total regional
population forecast for the projection year by the Department of Finance, then
the population forecast developed by the council of governments shall be the
basis from which the department determines the existing and projected need
for housing in the region.... " ..." [Gov. Code § 65584.01(a)]
This sets a dangerous precedent not only for SCAG, but also for other
metropolitan planning organizations across the State to have their projections
cast aside capriciously in pursuit of political agendas not based in fact but in
hyperbole. Additionally, as you are likely aware, the State Department of Finance
recently updated its population projections, which show a significant decrease
since their previous forecast. Furthermore, Governor Newsom has stated that his
commitment to building 3.5 million homes by 2025 was a "stretch goal" and that
the state would soon be releasing a more pragmatic estimate of the housing
needs by region. The regional determination of 1.34 million housing units is
therefore not only unsupported by statute, it is not a feasible allocation given
recent housing projections. Combined with an inequitable RHNA methodology,
we are fearful that local jurisdictions are being set up for failure to comply with
state housing law.
The City of Newport Beach shares SCAG's goal to develop and adopt a RHNA
methodology that represents the best in regional planning, developed collaboratively
with local jurisdictions and stakeholders in a manner that is credible and defensible
at all levels, and can be realistically implemented in an equitable manner.
We request that the CEHD Policy Committee and Regional Council consider these
recommendations prior to the adoption of the Final RHNA methodology. We
recognize that there are time constraints established by State law; however, the
RHNA will have significant impacts on jurisdictions over the next decade and
beyond. Therefore, it is imperative that the RHNA be finalized in a way that is
equitable, realistic and achievable to help ensure tangible results in responding to
the housing crisis.
Sincerely,
Will O'Neill
Mayor
CC. City Council Members
Grace Leung, City Manager
Seimone Jurjis, Community Development Director
cwp
� z 9
U "A
c�c��oRN�P
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
100 Civic Center Drive
Newport Beach, California 92660
949 644-3004 1949 644-3039 FAX
newportbeachca.gov
Dear Mr. Ajise:
The City of Newport Beach (City) appreciates the opportunity to
provide written comments regarding the Regional Housing Needs
Assessment (RHNA) methodology being considered for the 6th RHNA
cycle. Like many other jurisdictions and stakeholders, the City has
been heavily engaged and has participated in the numerous meetings
held by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG)
regarding the development of the Draft RHNA allocation methodology.
Through much of the development process, SCAG staff has listened
to recommendations and input provided by various jurisdictions,
housing experts, and housing advocates to develop a fair and
equitable RHNA methodology. The months of effort and public input
resulted in a methodology recommended by SCAG staff and
supported by the RHNA Subcommittee, as well as the Community,
Economic and Human Development (CEHD) Committee. This
recommended methodology incorporated a reasonable factor of
household growth (50%) and appropriately responded to changes in
State law to factor in job accessibility (25%) and proximity to transit
(25%) within the existing need portion of the allocations. However, to
our dismay, with very little warning and no reasonable opportunity for
any detailed analysis and thoughtful public input, the Regional Council
inappropriately approved a substitute motion on November 7, 2019,
removing the household growth factor and significantly modifying the
Draft RHNA methodology to shift approximately 75,000 additional
housing units into Orange County. Therefore, the City of Newport
Beach respectfully requests that SCAG consider the following
comments and incorporate the City of Cerritos proposal dated
February 4, 2020, which recommends that household growth
February 21, 2020
Mayor
Will O'Neill
Mayor Pro Tem
Brad Avery
Kome Ajise, Executive Director
Council Members
Southern California Association of Governments
Joy Brenner
900 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1700
Diane Brooks Dixon
"Duffy"
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Marshall Duffield
Jeff Herdman
Kevin Muldoon
RE: February 24, 2020, Regional Housing Needs Assessment
(RHNA) Subcommittee, Comments Regarding Agenda Item 1 —
Recommended Final RHNA Methodology
Dear Mr. Ajise:
The City of Newport Beach (City) appreciates the opportunity to
provide written comments regarding the Regional Housing Needs
Assessment (RHNA) methodology being considered for the 6th RHNA
cycle. Like many other jurisdictions and stakeholders, the City has
been heavily engaged and has participated in the numerous meetings
held by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG)
regarding the development of the Draft RHNA allocation methodology.
Through much of the development process, SCAG staff has listened
to recommendations and input provided by various jurisdictions,
housing experts, and housing advocates to develop a fair and
equitable RHNA methodology. The months of effort and public input
resulted in a methodology recommended by SCAG staff and
supported by the RHNA Subcommittee, as well as the Community,
Economic and Human Development (CEHD) Committee. This
recommended methodology incorporated a reasonable factor of
household growth (50%) and appropriately responded to changes in
State law to factor in job accessibility (25%) and proximity to transit
(25%) within the existing need portion of the allocations. However, to
our dismay, with very little warning and no reasonable opportunity for
any detailed analysis and thoughtful public input, the Regional Council
inappropriately approved a substitute motion on November 7, 2019,
removing the household growth factor and significantly modifying the
Draft RHNA methodology to shift approximately 75,000 additional
housing units into Orange County. Therefore, the City of Newport
Beach respectfully requests that SCAG consider the following
comments and incorporate the City of Cerritos proposal dated
February 4, 2020, which recommends that household growth
forecasts be reintroduced back into the calculations for the
existing need as follows:
• household growth (33.3°/x);
• job accessibility (33.3%); and
• population within high quality transit areas (33.3%).
1. Reinstate household growth as a factor of existing need
As stated in previous comment letters, local input and projected household
growth is part of the very foundation of SCAG's planning efforts and furthermore
is required by State law.
State law requires that the determination of regional housing need:
"... shall be based upon population projections produced by the Department
of Finance and regional population forecasts used in preparing regional
transportation plans in consultation with each council of governments.
[65584.01(b)]
Incorporating local input of projected household growth would ensure greater
consistency between RHNA and the Regional Transportation Plan
(RTP)/Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) (Connect SoCal) as required by
State law. However, the draft RHNA allocation would not be consistent with the
development patterns projected in the Connect SoCal Plan. For Newport Beach,
approximately 2,900 households are projected to be formed through 2045, yet
the current draft RHNA allocation assigns 4,832 new units to be constructed in
the City in the next eight-year planning period.
Any RHNA methodology that does not consider local conditions, as expressed
in local General Plans, would ignore more than a half -century of State and
Federal planning policy requiring comprehensive planning. Local General Plans
and their development policies and assumptions must reflect a wide range of
issues. Newport Beach is an attractive city for residents and visitors alike, but
subject to various legal and geographic constraints. Though relatively small
compared to sprawling bedroom communities, Newport Beach:
(1) neighbors an international airport;
(2) oversees the largest recreational boating harbor west of the Mississippi
River;
(3) contains substantial Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas, as well as
wetlands;
(4) borders state lands that have been recently described as high-risk fire
zones;
(5) is home to a number of State parks and beaches; and
(6) has a vacant landfill bordering a tolled highway system.
The above list is not comprehensive, but paints a complex picture of the
challenges that are overlooked with the elimination of local input.
Furthermore, these environmental concerns are all governed by comprehensive
state and federal laws and regulations with differing objectives that will constrain
the City's ability to comply with state housing laws and achieve RHNA
allocations. For example, in 2008, the City approved the Banning Ranch project,
which would have allowed for the development of 1,375 residential units,
including an Affordable Housing Implementation Plan, and 252 acres of
permanent open space. However, the California Coastal Commission denied
the project and the property remains fenced off. This places Newport Beach —
and cities like it — in a perilous position of trying to comply with the housing
allocations when other State and Federal agencies have competing
programmatic agendas.
Finally, as SCAG staff has correctly noted in every RHNA staff report, State law
required SCAG to conduct a survey of "local planning factors" to identify local
conditions and explain how each of the factors are incorporated into the
proposed methodology. A simple mathematical calculation of local housing
allocations based only on jurisdictions' proximity to jobs or population within
transit -rich areas without consideration for local development constraints would
render the local planning factors survey completely meaningless and would be
contrary to State law.
Incorporating the request from the City of Cerritos to reintroduce a component
of household growth forecasts back into the calculations for the existing need at
a reduced rate of 33.3%, instead of the SCAG staff's original recommended
methodology of 50%, is a compromise that the City of Newport Beach fully
supports. This would constitute a minor revision to the RHNA methodology that
remains substantially consistent with HCD's January 13, 2020, review of the
methodology. As supported in the SCAG staff -recommended RHNA
methodology staff report for the November 7, 2019, Regional Council meeting,
the reintroduction of household growth into the existing need would further the
five objectives of state housing law.
2. Redistributed units from residual need calculation should be redistributed
region wide as opposed to remaining within county
Orange County has five jurisdictions defined as the "extremely disadvantaged
communities" (DACs), meaning they have over 50% of their population located in
very low resource areas. As a result of their DAC designations, the draft RHNA
allocation methodology caps their RHNA allocation to the jurisdiction's projected
2045 household growth to limit growth in very low resource jurisdictions. Despite
the DAC jurisdictions proximity to transit and jobs, the "residual" share of their
existing need above projected household growth is then redistributed to other
Orange County cities. It is recommended that redistribution occur across the
SCAG region for the following reasons:
Each of the five DACs have jobs accessible via 30 -minute commute that are
located outside boundaries of Orange County. Therefore, county boundaries
should not be a factor in redistribution.
The existing need projection for the region is stated to be the result of low
vacancies, high overcrowding rates, and high cost burdens across the State.
As such, each jurisdiction in the region, not just the counties, must do its part
to address the housing crisis.
3. SCAG should continue objections to Department of Housing and
Community Development's (HCD) faulty regional determination of 11,341,827
housing units
The City of Newport Beach supports Orange County Council of Government's
(OCCOG's) February 18, 2020, request to SCAG to continue to oppose the
regional deamination provided by the HCD. SCAG should continue to assert that
HCD did not follow statute when allocating the regional determination:
"If the total regional population forecast for the projection year, developed by
the council of governments and used for the preparation of the regional
transportation plan, is within a range of 1.5 percent of the total regional
population forecast for the projection year by the Department of Finance, then
the population forecast developed by the council of governments shall be the
basis from which the department determines the existing and projected need
for housing in the region...." ..." [Gov. Code § 65584.01(a)]
This sets a dangerous precedent not only for SCAG, but also for other
metropolitan planning organizations across the State to have their projections
cast aside capriciously in pursuit of political agendas not based in fact but in
hyperbole. Additionally, as you are likely aware, the State Department of Finance
recently updated its population projections, which show a significant decrease
since their previous forecast. Furthermore, Governor Newsom has stated that his
commitment to building 3.5 million homes by 2025 was a "stretch goal" and that
the state would soon be releasing a more pragmatic estimate of the housing
needs by region. The regional determination of 1.34 million housing units is
therefore not only unsupported by statute, it is not a feasible allocation given
recent housing projections. Combined with an inequitable RHNA methodology,
we are fearful that local jurisdictions are being set up for failure to comply with
state housing law.
The City of Newport Beach shares SCAG's goal to develop and adopt a RHNA
methodology that represents the best in regional planning, developed collaboratively
with local jurisdictions and stakeholders in a manner that is credible and defensible
at all levels, and can be realistically implemented in an equitable manner.
We request that the RHNA Subcommittee consider these recommendations prior to
the adoption of the Final RHNA methodology. We recognize that there are time
constraints established by State law; however, the RHNA will have significant
impacts on jurisdictions over the next decade and beyond. Therefore, it is imperative
that the RHNA be finalized in a way that is equitable, realistic and achievable to help
ensure tangible results in responding to the housing crisis.
Sincerely,
Will O'Neill
Mayor
CC. City Council Members
Grace Leung, City Manager
Seimone Jurjis, Community Development Director
November 6, 2019
Mr. Kome Ajise, Executive Director
Southern California Association of Governments
900 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1700
Los Angeles, CA 90017
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
100 Civic Center Drive
Newport Beach, California 92660
949 644-3200
new portbeachca.9ov/communityclevelopment
Subject: November 7, 2019 Regional Council Agenda Item 4 - RHNA Methodology
Dear Mr. Ajise:
The City of Newport Beach offers the following comments regarding SCAG staffs RHNA
methodology recommendations to the Regional Council:
1. Some participants continue to urge SCAG to eliminate or minimize the use of local
input in the RHNA process. However, SCAG staff has correctly noted that it is a
requirement by State statutes to consider local input, as reflected in the Connect
SoCal RTP/SCS growth forecast, in the RHNA methodology.
2. The "substitute motion" alternative discussed in the Regional Council staff report
would result in major changes to the RHNA distribution at the county and
jurisdictional levels. For example, under the substitute alternative, the Newport
Beach RHNA would increase from 2,751 units to 4,832 units. It would be highly
inappropriate for the Regional Council to approve this alternative, or any
substantial change to the staff recommendation, at the 11 th hour without allowing
additional time for analysis and comment.
3. We continue to be concerned that the additional social equity adjustment in "high
resource areas" results in an unachievable RHNA that could set those cities up for
failure. For Newport Beach, the very -low- and low-income categories represent 50
percent of the total RHNA allocation. The lack of sufficient affordable housing
subsidy funds combined with initiatives by the State legislature to punish cities that
do not achieve their RHNA allocations is a recipe for failure, and Sacramento
continues to blame cities for "not building enough housing." SCAG staff has
commented that most cities in the region have enough residential capacity to
SCAG Regional Council
November 7, 2019, Agenda Item 4 - RHNA Methodology
accommodate the 2045 growth forecast; however, under Housing Element, law
development capacity is stratified by income category and new State laws severely
limit use of "underutilized" sites to accommodate the lower-income RHNA
allocation. In fact, most housing development in the most highly urbanized areas
of the region occurs on underutilized sites, and some cities in the SCAG region
have virtually no buildable vacant land. This fact in combination with "no net loss"
rules creates a major disconnect between the regional growth forecast,
transportation planning, and housing capacity as determined by HCD during
Housing Element reviews.
4. While we continue to share the concerns expressed by many other jurisdictions
regarding the unrealistically high RHNA assigned by HCD, we encourage the
Regional Council to adopt SCAG's staff recommendation as a reasonable
methodology given the constraints imposed by State housing mandates.
The City of Newport Beach appreciates your consideration of these comments and all
the efforts of SCAG staff throughout the RHNA process.
Sincerely,
O
Seimone Jurjis,
Community Development Director
CC' City Council
Grace Leung, City Manager
Jaime Murillo, Senior Planner
Marnie Primmer, Orange County Council of Governments Executive Director
�EWP_p�
o I �.
`U` \ fZ l
'cgciFoaN`P' ;
October 21, 2019
Mr. Kome Ajise, Executive Director
Southern California Association of Governments
900 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1700
Los Angeles, CA 90017
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
100 Civic Center Drive
Newport Beach, California 92660
949 644-3200
newportbeachca.gov/communitydevelopment
Subject: Community, Economic and Human Development Committee
October 21, 2019, Agenda Item 1 - Recommended Draft RHNA Methodology
Dear Mr. Ajise:
As SCAG moves toward finalization of the RHNA methodology, the City of Newport
Beach would like to offer the following recommendations.
1. Some housing advocacy organizations continue to urge SCAG to eliminate local
input from consideration in the RHNA process. As your staff, subregional councils,
and many jurisdictions have correctly noted, SCAG is required by State statutes
to consider local input in developing the RHNA allocations, and any arguments to
the contrary are a misrepresentation of the law.
2. We continue to be concerned that the additional social equity adjustment in "high
resource areas" results in an unachievable RHNA that could set those cities up for
failure. For Newport Beach, the very -low- and low-income categories represent 50
percent of the total RHNA allocation. The lack of sufficient affordable housing
subsidy funds combined with initiatives by the State legislature to punish cities that
do not achieve their RHNA allocations is a recipe for failure, and Sacramento
continues to blame cities for "not building enough housing." SCAG staff has
commented that most cities in the region have enough residential capacity to
accommodate the 2045 growth forecast; however, under Housing Element law
development capacity is stratified by income category and new State laws severely
limit use of "underutilized" sites to accommodate the lower-income RHNA
allocation. This fact in combination with "no net loss" rules creates a major
disconnect between the regional growth forecast, transportation planning and
housing capacity as determined by HCD during Housing Element reviews.
Community, Economic and Human Development Committee
October 21, 2019, Agenda Item 1 - Recommended Draft RHNA Methodology
While we continue to have great concern regarding the unrealistically high RHNA
assigned by HCD, the City of Newport Beach appreciates your consideration of the
comments provided in this letter and all the efforts of SCAG staff throughout the RHNA
process.
Sincerely,
Seimone Jurji
Community evelopment Director
CC' City Council
Grace Leung, City Manager
Jaime Murillo, Senior Planner
Marnie Primmer, Orange County Council of Governments Executive Director
Vph"
September 13, 2019
Mr. Kome Ajise, Executive Director
Southern California Association of Governments
900 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1700
Los Angeles, CA 90017
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
100 Civic Center Drive
Newport Beach, California 92660
949 644-3200
newportbeachca.gov/communityclevelopment
Subject: Comments on Proposed 6th Cycle RHNA Methodology
Dear Mr Ajise:
The City of Newport Beach appreciates the opportunity to provide written comments to
SCAG regarding the draft Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) methodologies
being considered for the 6th RHNA cycle. The City also recognizes the efforts of SCAG staff
and the RHNA Subcommittee, CEHD Committee, and Regional Council members who
devoted their time to participate in this important effort. The City remains committed to doing
its part in addressing this housing crisis in compliance with Housing Element law
(Government Code Sections 65580-65598.8) and respectfully requests that SCAG carefully
consider the following comments related to the RHNA methodology options.
Overall, the City of Newport Beach supports Option 3, with recommended modifications
below, as it is the only option based on local input grounded in the Regional Transportation
Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) process. Options 1 and 2 fail to
consider limitations local agencies may have in being able to accommodate additional
housing and allocation of housing largely based on population without regard to local input.
Opposition to Option 1
Redistribution of existing need would result in allocations and percent shares
Rof income categories that are inconsistent with those provided in HCD's
egional Determination. As noted In the Center for Demographic Research letter
of August 23 ,2019 (Comments 3 and 4), we agree with redistribution of existing need
above -moderate units to the very -low, low and moderate income categories is not
consistent with the 6th cycle methodology adopted in other regions throughout the
state and should be eliminated from SCAG's RHNA methodology. This redistribution
proposal would result in allocations and percent shares of income categories that are
inconsistent with those provided in HCD's Regional Determination.
Mr. Kome Ajise, Executive Director
September 13, 2019
Page 2 of 5
For Newport Beach, existing need represents more than 90% of the total need
in Option 1. Option 1 is based upon local input for projected need, but existing need
is based primarily (70%) on the jurisdiction's share of total regional population. This
method of allocating existing need fails to acknowledge the fact that cities have
different levels of vacancy, overcrowding and cost -burden, which are the primary
components of existing need, or that cities have vastly different amounts of land
(either vacant or underutilized) suitable for housing development.
Disaggregation of the existing regional "unmet" housing need based on a
jurisdiction's population is inequitable and penalizes iurisdictions that have
not contributed to the factors that are attributable to that "unmet" re ional
need. Attachment 1 of the SCAG RHNA Subcommittee June 3, 2019, staff report,
identifies each jurisdiction in the region and four factors that have contributed to the
unmet housing needs. In this attachment, the CityofNewportBeach is nothighlighted
as having a pronounced problem in any of the four factors identified as contributing
to the unmet existing housing need. In particular, Newport Beach has issued building
permits for new single-family and multi -family construction above the regional
average. Additionally, Newport Beach maintains rates of overcrowding and cost -
burden significantly below the regional average. Yet, as noted in the bullet above,
utilizing Option 1, the existing need component assigned to Newport Beach is 9 times
the projected needs for the City.
Disaggregation of the existing need based on population results in a social
equity factor being applied twice Establishing existing housing needs for the
region based on adjustment factors related to vacancy, overcrowding, and cost
burden, and then redistributing the need based on a jurisdictions percentage of the
region's population will have the effect of disproportionately increasing housing need
assessments to jurisdictions that experience higher vacancy rates and lower rates of
overcrowding and cost burden, such as Newport Beach. Alternatively, jurisdictions
that historically experienced lower vacancies and higher rates of overcrowding and
cost burden, factors upon which unmet existing need is being calculated, will benefit
from a lower proportionate assessment of this existing unmet need. Newport Beach
understands that each jurisdiction must do its part to address the housing crisis and
jurisdictions that are already overly burdened by these factors cannot be expected to
take on the sole responsibly of addressing unmet housing needs, redistributing the
unmet existing housing need based on population inherently implements a form of
social equity. Therefore, the need for a subsequent social equity adjustment at the
final RHNA allocation process will apply a social equity factor twice in the process. If
disaggregation of existing need is approved based on population, then the final social
equity adjustment (such as the currently proposed 150% adjustment) should not be
removed.
Opposition to Option 2
• Option 2 would completely disregard local input in determining RHNA
allocations and would be inconsistent with both State law and Ion-standin
SCAG practice. Several comments submitted argue that local input should not be a
Mr. Kome Ajise, Executive Director
September 13, 2019
Page 3 of 5
primary factor, or considered, in the RHNA methodology. However, local input is part
of the very foundation of SCAG's planning efforts and furthermore is required by State
law.
SB 375 of 2008, the landmark climate change legislation, integrated regional planning
for transportation and housing, and includes the following key provisions:
Each metropolitan planning organization shall prepare a sustainable
communities strategy ... including the requirement to utilize the most recent
Planning assumptions considering local general Plans and other factors. The
sustainable communities strategy shall ... identify the general location of uses,
residential densities, and building intensities within the region, ... identify areas
... within the region sufficient to house an eight-year projection of the regional
housing need for the region pursuant to Section 65584, ... set forth a
forecasted development pattern for the region which, when integrated with
the transportation network, and other transportation measures and policies,
will reduce the greenhouse gas emissions ... to achieve, ... the greenhouse
gas emission reduction targets approved by the state. [Government Code Sec.
65080(b)(2)(B)]
State law also requires that the determination of regional housing need:
"... shall be based upon population projections produced by the Department
of Finance and regional population forecasts used in preparing regional
transportation plans in consultation with each council of governments.
[65584.01(b)]
As noted in the first excerpt, the population forecast upon which the RTP/SCS is
based utilizes planning assumptions grounded in local general plans. Therefore, it is
clear that any RHNA methodology that does not consider local input would be
contrary to the intent of the State Legislature.
Furthermore, any RHNA methodology that does not consider local conditions, as
expressed in local General Plans, would ignore more than a half -century of State and
Federal planning policy requiring comprehensive planning. Local General Plans and
their development policies and assumptions must reflect a wide range of issues
including sensitive environmental resources such as endangered species habitat,
public safety hazards such as wildland fire zones, flood zones and geotechnical
hazards, and infrastructure constraints such as water supply and the availability of
wastewater treatment systems.
Finally, as SCAG staff has correctly noted in each RHNA staff report, State law
required SCAG to conduct a survey of "local planning factors" to identify local
conditions and explain how each of the factors are incorporated into the proposed
methodology. A simple mathematical calculation of local housing allocations based
only on jurisdictions' total population or population within transit -rich areas without
consideration for local development constraints would render the local planning
factors survey completely futile and be contrary to State law.
Since Option 2 would completely disregard local input in determining RHNA
Mr. Kome Ajise, Executive Director
September 13, 2019
Page 4 of 5
allocations, it would be inconsistent with both State law and long-standing SCAG
practice.
Support for Option 3 with Modifications
Population vs household growth share. Option 3 would allocate housing need
based upon jurisdictions' shares of projected population growth rather than
household growth. However, housing need is more closely correlated with
households than population; therefore, it is more appropriate to use projected
household growth in the RHNA methodology.
Both Options 1 and 3 apply a replacement need component to the calculation for
units demolished that were not replaced on the same site. This has the effect of
requiring units demolished and not replaced on the same site to be replaced in the
next planning period on a different site. What this methodology fails to address is that
replacement may have already occurred on other sites in the same planning period
as the demolition. In Newport Beach, new housing development has exceeded the
prior RHNA allocation by more than the replacement need; therefore, the City
recommends that the calculation of replacement need be based on total housing
permits regardless of whether those units were built on the same sites where the
demolition occurred.
General Comments
No alternative methodolo ies without additional 3ublic review. The City
recommends that SCAG not adopt an alternative RHNA methodology to Options 1,
2, or 3 until after HCD provides a final regional determination and additional public
review time is afforded so that jurisdictions and the public will have the opportunity to
fully assess how the alternative methodology will impact individual jurisdictions.
need. As noted in the Orange County Council of Governments (OCCOG) letter cted
dated
August 22, 2019, each jurisdiction has submitted projected housing development
numbers to SCAG as part of the Connect SoCal process, which is linked with the
RHNA process. The selected RHNA methodology therefore should ensure that any
number assigned to a jurisdiction captures, at minimum, the number of units a
jurisdiction identified through the local input process. For example, if a jurisdiction
projected construction of 8,000 units, but the selected RHNA methodology only gives
that jurisdiction 5,000 units, there should be an adjustment provided for the remaining
3,000 units to the jurisdiction, rather than distribute the 3,000 units to other
jurisdictions. This respects local input, and ensures equity for other jurisdictions not
to be overburdened.
- -••••��••• 11%,u 111m neeus wnen combined with new housin lelementlaw
may result in an unattainable RHNA and sets up local jurisdictions for failure
It is essential that SCAG officials recognize the significance of the RHNA allocations
to cities and counties. Combining an over estimation of existing need to a
jurisdiction's RHNA with new State housing element law requirements, adopted in
Mr. Kome Ajise, Executive Director
September 13, 2019
Page 5 of 5
2017 that limit a jurisdiction's ability to "count" sites towards RHNA, may lead to
widespread noncompliance throughout the State. The State Legislature has adopted
new laws making it more difficult for sites to qualify for RHNA "credit," and HCD is
proposing a RHNA allocation that is more than three times higher than the current
Housing Element cycle. Despite the City of Newport Beach's efforts to identify a
surplus of adequate sites in past housing element cycles, AB1397 will significantly
increase the difficulty for jurisdictions to illustrate the adequacy of sites. Furthermore,
SB 166 will require a jurisdiction to continually identify additional low-income housing
sites when a developer chooses to develop market -rate housing on a site identified
to accommodate low-income housing. The combination of these requirements would
create a de -facto, State -mandated inclusionary requirement necessitating State
funding.
The City of Newport Beach appreciates your consideration of the comments provided in this
letter. The City of Newport Beach shares SCAG's goal to develop and adopt a RHNA
methodology that represents the best in regional planning, developed collaboratively with
local jurisdictions and stakeholders in a manner that is credible and defensible at all levels,
and can be realistically implemented in an equitable manner. The City looks forward to
working with SCAG to achieve this goal.
Sincerely,
Seimone Jurjis, P - CB
Community Deve pment Director
cc: City Council
Grace Leung, City Manager
Jaime Murillo, Principal Planner
Marnie Primmer, Orange County Council of Governments Executive Director
June 5, 2019
Honorable Peggy Huang, Chair
Honorable Stacy Berry, Vice Chair
Community, Economic and Human Development Policy Community
Southern California Association of Governments
900 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1700
Los Angeles, California 90017
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
100 Civic Center Drive
Newport Beach, California 92660
949 644-3200
newportbeachca.gov/communitydevelopment
Subject: Draft Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) Consultation Package
to the California Department of Housing and Community Development
(HCD)
Honorable Chair Huang and Honorable Committee Members:
The City of Newport Beach appreciates the opportunity to provide written comments to the
Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) regarding the June 6, 2019 CEHD
Agenda Item on the RHNA Consultation package to HCD. The City appreciates SCAG staff's
efforts and the Committee members who sacrifice their time to participate in this important effort.
The City remains committed to doing its part in addressing this housing crisis in compliance with
Housing Element law (Government Code Sections 65580-65598.8).
It should be noted that in 2006, the City comprehensively updated its General Plan and identified
several new residential housing opportunity areas. These opportunities were created as infill and
replacement of previously permitted retail and office development capacity, with a realistic
development capacity of approximately 3,200 new dwelling units. In 2011, the Airport Area was
identified as the City's primary housing opportunity area to address the City's lower-income
housing needs and a Residential Overlay was adopted to incentivize residential development that
includes a minimum of 30% of the units affordable to lower-income households. Since then, the
City has approved over 2,100 new multi -family dwelling units, including 91 very low-income units
and 78 low-income units. While the City has been able to continue to build housing units to meet
existing and projected need, available land within the sites inventory has been significantly
reduced since the last RHNA cycle by changes to Housing Element Law. Extremely high land
values in the City exacerbates the difficulty in developing housing affordable to lower-income
households due to the high financial subsidies needed to make projects financially feasible.
Therefore, the City of Newport Beach is concerned about the proposed methodology that SCAG
is proposing for the 61h RHNA cycle that is above and beyond the projected growth in the Regional
Transportation Plan/ Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) and will greatly impact the
City's ability to remain compliant with state housing laws. Therefore, the City respectfully requests
Honorable Peggy Huang, Chair
June 5, 2019
Page 2 of 3
that the Subcommittee carefully consider the following comments related to the proposed
consultation package to HCD and the proposed RHNA Methodology.
1) Existing need already accounted in RTP/(ZCS - The City of Newport Beach encourages
SCAG to propose a total regional determination of 429,926 for the 61" RHNA cycle,
consistent with the RTP/SCS. The RTP/SCS growth forecast includes input from local
jurisdictions that already incorporates existing need and future projected need. As such,
all numbers, tables, and discussion regarding existing need as a separate calculation
should be removed from discussion, since by adding a separate existing need, the
proposed RHNA methodology would result in double counting the need.
2) Applyinq adjustment factors overestimates need - Beyond double counting the existing
need as mentioned above, the additive approach of vacancy, overcrowding, and cost
burden factors are additionally inappropriate due to the level of overlap between them.
Although we commend SCAG staff for recognizing that cost burden may be an
inappropriate factor to apply, the application of the remaining factors are still closely
related and would result in overestimating unmet housing needs.
3) Phasing of existing need imperative beyond a single RHNA cycle - Although the City
strongly disagrees with the proposed methodology of calculating existing housing needs,
if HCD determines this calculation to be appropriate, it is imperative that this existing need
be spread across the 6th, 7th, and 8th cycles of RHNA. It is unrealistic to assume that years
of unmet housing needs "back log" can be addressed in an 8 -year planning cycle. Housing
construction typically lags behind RHNA targets, with affordable housing projects taking
significantly longer to finance and develop. Spreading past unmet need across multiple
cycles would allow jurisdictions to realistically plan and address for this additional growth
that has not been included in the RTP/SCS. Additionally, it will allow jurisdictions to make
a good -faith effort to accommodate this unmet need.
4) Consultation i2ackage should recognize that disaggregation of the proposed existing
unmet lousing need based on DODUlation results in a social eguity factor being-gppiied
twice - Establishing existing housing needs for the region based on adjustment factors
related to vacancy and overcrowding, and then redistributing the need based on a
jurisdictions percentage of the region's population will have the effect of disproportionately
increasing housing need assessments to jurisdictions that experience higher vacancy
rates and lower rates of overcrowding and cost burden, such as Newport Beach.
Alternatively, jurisdictions that historically experienced lower vacancies and higher rates
of overcrowding and cost burden, factors upon which unmet existing need is being
calculated, will benefit from a lower proportionate assessment of this existing unmet need.
While Newport Beach understands that each jurisdiction must do its part to address the
housing crisis and jurisdictions that are already overly burdened by these factors cannot
be expected to take on the sole responsibly of addressing unmet housing needs,
redistributing the unmet existing housing need based on population inherently implements
a form of social equity. Therefore, the need for a subsequent social equity adjustment at
the final RHNA allocation process may be unnecessary and as it will apply a social equity
factor twice in the process.
Honorable Peggy Huang, Chair
June 5, 2019
Page 3 of 3
5) Over estimating e Kisting housinq needs when combined with new housin i element law,
may result in an unattainable RHNA and sets up local iurisdictions for failure -
Combining an over estimation of existing need to a jurisdiction's RHNA with new State
housing element law requirements adopted in 2017 that limit a jurisdiction's ability to
"count" sites towards RHNA, may lead to widespread noncompliance throughout the
State. Despite the City of Newport Beach's efforts to identify a surplus of adequate sites
in past housing element cycles, AB1397 will significantly increase the difficulty for
jurisdictions to illustrate the adequacy of sites. Furthermore, SB 166 will require a
jurisdiction to continually identify additional low-income housing sites when a developer
chooses to develop market -rate housing on a site identified as being able to accommodate
low-income housing.
The City of Newport Beach appreciates your consideration of the comments provided in this letter.
The City of Newport Beach shares SCAG's goal to develop and adopt a RHNA methodology that
represents the best in regional planning, developed collaboratively with local jurisdictions and
stakeholders in a manner that is credible and defensible at all levels, and can be realistically
implemented in an equitable manner. The City looks forward to working with SCAG to achieve
this goal.
Sincerely,
Seimone Jurjis, P CB
Community &eve pment nirector
cc: City Council
Grace Leung, City Manager
Jaime Murillo, Senior Planner
Marnie Primmer, Orange County Council of Governments Executive Director
� IWPq CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
<C I 100 Civic Center Drive
Newport Beach, California 92660
I 949 644-3200
newportbeachca.gov/communityclevelopment
\U > Y Z
June 3, 2019
Honorable Peggy Huang, Chair
RHNA Subcommittee
Southern California Association of Governments
900 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1700
Los Angeles, California 90017
Subject: Draft Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) Consultation Package to
the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) and
Proposed RHNA Methodology Components
Honorable Chair Huang and Honorable Members of the RHNA Subcommittee:
The City of Newport Beach appreciates the opportunity to provide written comments to the Southern
California Association of Governments (SCAG) on Item No. 5 and No. 6 of your June 3, 2019, meeting
agenda. The City appreciates SCAG staff's efforts and the RHNA Subcommittee members who
sacrifice their time to participate in this important effort. The City remains committed to doing its part
in addressing this housing crisis in compliance with Housing Element law (Government Code Sections
65580-65598.8).
It should be noted that in 2006, the City comprehensively updated its General Plan and identified
several new residential housing opportunity areas. These opportunities were created as infill and
replacement of previously permitted retail and office development capacity, with a realistic
development capacity of approximately 3,200 new dwelling units. In 2011, the Airport Area was
identified as the City's primary housing opportunity area to address the City's lower-income housing
needs and a Residential Overlay was adopted to incentivize residential development that includes a
minimum of 30% of the units affordable to lower-income households. Since then, the City has
approved over 2,100 new multi -family dwelling units, including 91 very low-income units and 78 low-
income units. While the City has been able to continue to build housing units to meet existing and
projected need, available land within the sites inventory has been significantly reduced since the last
RHNA cycle by changes to Housing Element Law. Extremely high land values in the City exacerbates
the difficulty in developing housing affordable to lower-income households due to the high financial
subsidies needed to make projects financially feasible. Therefore, the City of Newport Beach is
concerned about the proposed methodology that SCAG is proposing for the 61h RHNA cycle that is
above and beyond the projected growth in the Regional Transportation Plan/ Sustainable
Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) and will greatly impact the City's ability to remain compliant with
state housing laws. Therefore, the City respectfully requests that the Subcommittee carefully consider
June 3, 2019
Page 2 of 4
the following comments related to the proposed consultation package to HCD and the proposed RHNA
Methodology.
Comments on Agenda Item 5 (RHNA Consultation Package to HCD)
The City fully supports the comments raised in the Orange County Council of Governments (OCCOG)
letter regarding the RHNA consultation package to HCD. In particular, the City of Newport Beach
encourages SCAG to propose a regional determination of 429,926 for the 6th RHNA cycle, consistent
with the RTP/SCS. The approach identified in the June 3, 2019, SCAG staff report to the RHNA
Subcommittee to address existing housing need through certain adjustments factors such as vacancy,
overcrowding, and cost burden is inappropriate for the following reasons:
1) Existing need already accounted in RTP/SCS - The RTP/SCS growth forecast includes input
from local jurisdictions that already incorporates existing need and future projected need. As
such, all numbers, tables, and discussion regarding existing need as a separate calculation
should be removed from discussion, since by adding a separate existing need, the proposed
RHNA methodology would result in double counting the need.
2) Applying adjustment factors overestimates need - Beyond double counting the existing need
as mentioned above, the additive approach of vacancy, overcrowding, and cost burden factors
are additionally inappropriate due to the level of overlap between them. Although we commend
SCAG staff for recognizing that cost burden may be an inappropriate factor to apply, the
application of the remaining factors are still closely related and would result in overestimating
unmet housing needs.
3) Consultation package should recognize that disaggregationof the proposed existing unmet
housing need based on population results in a social equity factor being applied twice -
Establishing existing housing needs for the region based on adjustment factors related to
vacancy and overcrowding, and then redistributing the need based on a jurisdictions
percentage of the region's population will have the effect of disproportionately increasing
housing need assessments to jurisdictions that experience higher vacancy rates and lower
rates of overcrowding and cost burden, such as Newport Beach. Alternatively, jurisdictions that
historically experienced lower vacancies and higher rates of overcrowding and cost burden,
factors upon which unmet existing need is being calculated, will benefit from a lower
proportionate assessment of this existing unmet need. While Newport Beach understands that
each jurisdiction must do its part to address the housing crisis and jurisdictions that are already
overly burdened by these factors cannot be expected to take on the sole responsibly of
addressing unmet housing needs, redistributing the unmet existing housing need based on
population inherently implements a form of social equity. Therefore, the need for a subsequent
social equity adjustment at the final RHNA allocation process will apply a social equity factor
twice in the process. If disaggregation of existing need is approved based on population, then
the final social equity adjustment should not be increased from the past practice of 110% and
should arguably be removed.
4) Phasinq of existing need imperative beyond a single RHNA cycle - Although the City strongly
disagrees with the proposed methodology of calculating existing housing needs, if HCD
determines this calculation to be appropriate, it is imperative that this existing need be spread
across the 6 t 7 1 and 8th cycles of RHNA. It is unrealistic to assume that years of unmet
housing needs "back log" can be addressed in an 8 -year planning cycle. Housing construction
typically lags behind RHNA targets, with affordable housing projects taking significantly longer
June 3, 2019
Page 3 of 4
to finance and develop. Spreading past unmet need across multiple cycles would allow
jurisdictions to realistically plan and address for this additional growth that has not been
included in the RTP/SCS. Additionally, it will allow jurisdictions to make a good -faith effort to
accommodate this unmet need.
5) Over estimating existing housing needs when combined with new housing element law, may
result in an unattainable RHNA and sets up local iurisdictions for failure -
Combining an over estimation of existing need to a jurisdiction's RHNA with new State housing
element law requirements adopted in 2017 that limit a jurisdiction's ability to "count" sites
towards RHNA, may lead to widespread noncompliance throughout the State. Despite the City
of Newport Beach's efforts to identify a surplus of adequate sites in past housing element
cycles, AB1397 will significantly increase the difficulty for jurisdictions to illustrate the adequacy
of sites. Furthermore, SB 166 will require a jurisdiction to continually identify additional low-
income housing sites when a developer chooses to develop market -rate housing on a site
identified as being able to accommodate low-income housing. The combination of these
requirements would create a de -facto, State -mandated inclusionary requirement necessitating
State funding.
Comments on Agenda Item 6 (Proposed RHNA Distribution Methodology)
Although this item is described as informational only, SCAG staff is requesting input and direction
from the RHNA Subcommittee on the staff recommended approaches for distributing existing and
projected need to jurisdictions along with the social equity adjustments. The City of Newport Beach
respectfully requests the Subcommittee to consider the following comments and provide SCAG staff
direction to address these concerns.
6) Multiple adiustments for Social Equity - As mentioned in Comment 3 above, if a separate
existing need calculation is developed based on the adjustment factors of vacancy and
overcrowding, and subsequently redistributed to jurisdictions based on population, a social
equity adjustment is already included through this redistribution. As such, no additional social
equity adjustment should be applied.
Furthermore, the application of a new proposed 150% social equity adjustment is inappropriate
for the following reasons:
• As previously stated, the redistribution of existing need based on population already
accounts for social equity adjustment.
As illustrated in Attachment 1 of the staff report, the City of Newport Beach is not
highlighted as having a pronounced problem in any of the four factors identified as
contributing to the unmet existing housing need. In particular, Newport Beach has
issued building permits for new single-family and multi -family construction above the
regional average. Additionally, Newport Beach maintains rates of overcrowding and
cost -burden significantly below the regional average. Therefore, the application of
150% adjustment factor is excessive in the case of Newport Beach, and when
combined with the fact that Newport Beach would be disproportionately assigned an
existing need based on factors of vacancy and overcrowding that are not identified as
a problem locally. The increased adjustment factor is simply unwarranted.
June 3, 2019
Page 4 of 4
The application of a 110% social equity adjustment factor in past RHNA cycles is a
historically accepted practice that has been manageable for jurisdictions to zone and
provide adequate sites to meet increased lower-income housing need.
7) Insufficient data to analyze proposed 30% distribution for High Quality Transit Area (HQTA
Insufficient data has been provided to thoroughly analyze the effect of the proposed 30%
distribution based on population with HQTAs. Although the current staff report now includes a
weblink to SCAG's Open Data platform, there is a vast amount of documents and data
available for review and it is not clear how to find jurisdiction -specific information. SCAG should
provide each jurisdictions population in an excel table, similar to a table provided in Attachment
1, and jurisdiction -specific maps to allow transparent availability to the data.
8) HQTA maps may have significant errors that need to be addressed
In reviewing both the 2014 and 2040 SCAG HQTA maps, it appears that the Catalina Flyer
dock located in the City's historic Balboa Village is identified as a HQTA, when in reality, the
ferry provides once -a -day recreational transportation to Catalina Island and does not connect
to any significant bus and transit routes. The goal of encouraging growth around HQTAs will
not be realized at this ferry location and assigning Newport Beach additional housing needs
as a result is unwarranted.
9) Elimination of above -moderate income housing category from existing need allocation is not
appropriate.
SCAG staffs current proposal to redistribute the existing need solely to lower- and moderate -
income categories is not consistent with past practice, further increases the intensity of social
equity adjustments being applied to jurisdictions, and will further set up jurisdictions for failure
when attempting to development a compliant Housing Element as mentioned in Comment 6
above.
The City of Newport Beach appreciates your consideration of the comments provided in this letter.
The City of Newport Beach shares SCAG's goal to develop and adopt a RHNA methodology that
represents the best in regional planning, developed collaboratively with local jurisdictions and
stakeholders in a manner that is credible and defensible at all levels, and can be realistically
implemented in an equitable manner. The City looks forward to working with SCAG to achieve this
goal.
Sincerely,
Seimone Jurji ,
Community Development Director
cc: City Council
Grace Leung, City Manager
Jaime Murillo, Senior Planner
Marnie Primmer, Orange County Council of Governments Executive Director
STATE OF CALIFORNIA }
COUNTY OF ORANGE } ss.
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH }
I, Leilani I. Brown, City Clerk of the City of Newport Beach, California, do hereby certify that the
whole number of members of the City Council is seven; the foregoing resolution, being Resolution
No. 2020-92, was duly introduced before and adopted by the City Council of said City at a regular
meeting of said Council held on the 131h day of October, 2020; and the same was so passed and adopted
by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Mayor Will O'Neill, Mayor Pro Tem Brad Avery, Council Member Joy Brenner, Council
Member Diane Dixon, Council Member Duffy Duffield, Council Member Jeff Herdman,
Council Member Kevin Muldoon
NAYS: None
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto subscribed my name and affixed the official seal of
said City this 141h day of October, 2020.
Leilani I. Brown V
City Clerk
Newport Beach, California
i; f0RN%i