HomeMy WebLinkAboutTHE HOUSING ELEMENT FEB 1992 *NEW FILE*
THE HOUSING, ELEMENT FEBm
1992
ARCHIVED ELEMENT-GENERAL PLAN
Th e
sin g
--E_ -1 e- m e n t
City of Newport Beach
General Plan
.......................................................................................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................................................................
Housing Element
of the
City of Newport Beach
Adopted by the
Newport Beach City Council
July 24, 1989
Resolution No. 89-80
Amended
Februa?y 24, 1992 IZ
Resolution No. 92-17
.......................................................................................................................................... ....................
...................................... ....................................... ...................... ...........................................................
............. .. ............ ........ ........ ........ .
Table of Contents
M
Introduction Page i
I. Community Analysis Page 1
PopulationTrends . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Page I
Housing Unit and Population Projections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Page 6
EmploymentTrends .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Page 10
Household Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Page 11
SpecialPopulation Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Page 18
Housing Stock Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Page 25
Inventory of Land Suitable for Residential Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Page 38
Energy Conservation Opportunities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Page 52
HousingNeeds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Page 53 '
Non-Governmental Constraints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Page 54
GovernmentalConstraints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Page 60
11. Housing Goals,Policies, Quantified Objectives and Programs Page 83
Housing Goals and Policies . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Page 83
Quantified Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Page 84
HousingPrograms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Page 88
Program 1: Sites for New Residential Development . . . . . . . . . . . .Page 88
Program 2: Negotiated Development . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .Page 91
Program 3: Development Assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 93
Program 4: Mixed Residential& Commercial/Industrial Use . . . Page 95
Program 5: Development Permit Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Page 96
Program 6: Existing Residential Development . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .Page 96
Program7: Fair Housing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Page 97
Program 8: Housing for Elderly . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Page 98
Program 9: Variety of Housing Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Page 98
Program 10: Review of Housing Element . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Page 99
Program 11: General Plan Consistency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Page 99
Program 12: Homelessness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 100
Program 13: Preservation of Existing Low Income Housing . . . . . .Page 101
111. Appendix
1984 Housing Element Review. . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .Page 103
Introduction
The Housing Element of the Newport Beach General Plan examines residen-
tial development within the City and sets forth local policies and programs to
facilitate the conservation, improvement, and development of housing for all
economic segments of the community.
This element presents policies and programs which are intended to guide the
City in daily decision-maldng regarding housing. These policies have been
developed to reflect local economic and social attitudes in the community,and
also to coincide with the attainment of state housing goals. These goals have
been declared as follows:
a) The availability of housing is of vital statewide importance, and the early
attainment of decent housing and a suitable living environment for every
California family is a priority of the highest order.
b) The early attainment of this goal requires the cooperative participation of
government and the private sector in an effort to expand housing oppor-
tunities and accommodate the housing needs of Californians of all
economic levels.
c) The provision of housing affordable to low- and moderate-income
households requires the cooperation of all levels of government.
d) Local and state governments have a responsibility to use the powersvested
in them to facilitate the improvement and development of housing to
make adequate provision for the housing needs of all economic segments
of the community.
e) The Legislature recognizes that in carrying out this responsibility, each
local government also has the responsibility to consider economic, en-
vironmental, and fiscal factors and community goals set forth in the
general plan and to cooperate with other local governments and the state
in addressing regional housing needs.
This Housing Element basbeenprepared in accordance with Article 10.6 of the
Government Code,which was adopted by the State Legislature in September
1980.
Organization of the Element
The Housing Element has been prepared in two sections and one appendix,as
follows:
1. Community Housing Market Analysis
This section presents the most current and available information pertaining to
the following seven subsections: (1) An analysi's and projection of population
and employment,an analysis of household characteristics including over-paying
and an analysis of housing characteristics including over-crowding and housing
stock conditions; (2) An analysis of housing needs; (3) An inventory of land
suitable for residential development; (4)Non-governmental constraints to the
production of housing;(5)Governmental constraints to the production of hous-
ing; (6)An analysi's of special population groups;and(7)An analysis of oppor-
tunities for energy conservation.
H. Housing Goals and Policies, Quantified Objectives�and Programs
This section has three primary functions: (1)to establish the City's housinggoals
and policies; (2)To quantify the maximum number of housing units that can be
constructed,rehabilitated, and conserved over the five year period July 1989 -
July 1994; and (3)Present the City's housing programs which represent a five
year schedule of actions to be implemented by the City to achieve the goals,
policies, and quantified objectives of the Housing Element.
III. Appendix
Government Code Section 65588 requires the City to review the Housing Ele-
ment as frequently as is appropriate and to evaluate the effectiveness of the
housing goals, objectives, and policies in contributing to the attainment of the
State housing goal; the effectiveness of the Housing Element in attainment of
the community's goals and objectives;and the City's progress in implementation
of the Housing Element. The appendix is the required review and evaluation
of the 1984-1989 Housing Element.
Citizen Participation
The views and proposals of the citizens in the community have been actively
solicited in the preparation of this Housing Element. Two citizen forums have
been sponsored to obtain public review and comment on each portion of the
Housing Element as it was prepared in draft form. Tbe City provided notice,of
these meetings as well as all public hearings to a mailing list of all interested
parties,including groups representing the interests of all economic segments of
the community. In addition, all meetings and public hearings were advertised
in the legal section a local newspaper and by means of a 3 inch by 5 inch display
advertisement in a prominent location of the same local newspaper.
One study session and six public hearings before the Planning Commission,and
one study session and two public hearings before the City Council, were also
held in the process of Housing Element preparation.
During the 1983 Amendment two public hearings were held on the draft Ele-
ment,one before the City Planning Commission and one before the City Coun-
cil.
During the 1984 review and amendment process,five public hearings were held
on the Draft Element; two before the City Planning Commission and three
before the City Council.
During the 1989 review and amendment process,two public hearings were held
before the Planning Commission and two public hearings were held before the
City Council. Legal notices were published in the paper for the hearings and
notices were mailed directly to housing developers and social service agencies.
Time Period Covered by the Element
This revised Housing Element covers the five-year period 1989-1994.
Review and Update of the Housing Element
The City will review thf s Housing Element on an annual basis to evaluate the
appropriateness of objectives,the effectiveness of programs,and progress inim-
plementation. The Housing Element will be revised again in five years (1994)
in accordance with State law.
iv
1. Community Analysis,
Population Trends
The City of Newport Beach was one of the first cities to develop within Orange County.
The City's rate of population growth therefore exceeded the county's through 1950. Since
1950,however,the City's proportionate gain inpopulation has been substantially less than
the county's.
TABLE I
POPULATION GROWTH
ORANGE COUNTY AND NEWPORT BEACH. 1910-1988
Orange County Newport Beach
Population Growth Rate Population Growth Rate
1910 34,436 445
1920 61,375 78.2% 894 100.9%
1930 118,674 93.417o 2,203 146.4%
1940 130,760 10.2% 4,438 101.4%
1950 216,224 65A% 12,120 173.1%
1960 703,925 225.6% 26,565 119.2%
1970 1,420,386 101.8% 49,442 86.1%
1980 1,932,709 36.1% 62,556 26.5%
1988 2,238,700 15.8% 69,600 11.3%
Sources. U.S. Census of Population andHousing and California Department of Finance.
I
This latter trend is due to the fact that the supply of vacant land to support new residential
development in the City of Newport Beach is rapidly being diminished. Therefore, im-
nif gration,which is still a strong factor in population growth in Orange County,is a much
lesser factor in Newport Beach.
Between 1976 and 1980,Newport Beach actually lost population, despite the fact that ap-
proximately 1500 housing units were added in the City. However, the State Department
of Finance estimates that the City has increased in population to 69,600by 1988 largely
due to the annexation of the West Newport Triangle in 1980, a portion of Santa Ana
Heights in 1987, and some large housing developments that were recently constructed.
The vacancy rate for allyear-round housingunits reported by the 1980 Census was 10.19o'.
The vacancy rate for year-round housing units in the City in 1976 was 10.9%. This rela-
tively high rate of vacant units is attributed to the use of many housing units as second
homes for persons who have seasonal business or recreational ties to the area. The over-
all vacancy of year-round units actually available for occupancy at the time of the federal
census was 5.2%. A 1988 survey showed an overall rental vacancy rate of 2.4%in New-
port Beach and 4.1%in Corona del Mar.
The use of units as second homes actually decreased between 1970 and 1980,and does not
explain the reduction in population growth relative to the increase in the number of
households. This trend is attributed instead to a sizeable reduction in the average size of
City households. While the average household size in 1976 was 2.36, the 1980 Census
reported an average household size of 2.23, Decreases in household sizes are occurring in
most communities in California; however, Newport Beach has traditionally had a
household size that is smaller than the regional or state average. The continuing decrease
in average persons per household is shown below:
TABLE 2
PERSONS PER OCCUPIED HOUSING UNIT
1989 MM
Newport Beach 2.7 2.6 2.4 2A 23 23 2.2 2.2
Orange County 3.4 3.2 2.9 2.9 2.8 2.8 2.7 26
Sources. U.S.CeiisusofPopulatiottaiidHousiitgaiidCalifoniiaDeparinteijtofFitialice.
Various factors that contribute to this phenomenon are explored below:
• Rental housing in most urban areas is occupied by households for which the average
size is smaller than owner-occupied housing. Thus,the supply of rental housing in New-
port Beach,which is proportionately higher than the region as a whole,contributes to
a household size that is smaller than the region as a whole.
• Many predominantly owner-occupied neighborhoods in the City were originallypopu-
lated by child-rearing famiRes. These families have matured and children have passed
.2-
through high school and left home in the same general time period. Thus,certain neigh-
borhoods now have sizeable numbers of childless couples in the "empty nest" stage of
life, causing a general reduction in neighborhood population.
• Limited opportunities exist for childrenwho have been raised in Newport Beach to es-
tablish an independent residence in the City and to raise a new generation of children.
Many young adults live in the City as renters;however,opportunities to purchase hous-
ing as a first-time homebuyer are rare. Young adults who are renting are generally not
pursuing a child-rearing lifestyle. Generally, this stage of life coincides with the first
purchase of housing. Thus,the City does not offer numerous housing opportunities for
households that are producing young children.
• Following the national trend, many young couples are postponing child-rearing or
electing not to have children at all for a variety of reasons. Such childless couples,sup-
ported by two professional salaries,are often able to afford housing in Newport Beach.
In many neighborhoods homes where child-rearing families have been predominant,
young childless households are now very common. Much of the reduction in neighbor-
hood population can be attributed to this phenomenon.
• Many retired persons have moved to Newport Beach in the last ten years.
In summary,the reduction in household size in Newport Beach is the result of a reduction
of child-rearing households in the City, and a reduction in the child population in the City
as well. This trend is further documented on Tables 3 and 4: Population By Age, City of
Newport Beach 1960-1976, and Changes in School Enrollment By Grades,January 1976-
January 1988.
-3 -
TABLE 3
POPULATIONBYAOE
CfIY OF NEWPORT BEACH IM-1980
Agr 12M of Total Im 42kmf-TQWI im (%of Tot
Under5 1,823 (6.9%) 21343 (4.7�b) 1,835 ( 2.99b) 1,663 (2.795j
5-13 4,102 (15.4%) 6,434 (13.07b) 6,460 (103%) 5,135 ( 8291.)
14-17 1,630 ( 6.2,75) 3,799 ( 7.7%) 4;Z70 (6.8% 3,843 ( 6.196)
18-34 4,715 (17.7%) 13,389 (Z7.101b 19,169 (30-501o) 19,342 (30.9%)
35-" 1:�169 (42-0%) 18,602 (37.6%) 24,934 (39.6%) 25;M (40.4%)
65+ 3,117 (1.1.7%) 4,859 ( gs-70 6,240 ( 9-90/0) 7,?M (IL7%)
TOTAJ� 26,556 49,426 62,908 62,556
Percentages do not add to 100%due to independent rounding.
Source: 1960, 1970,and 1980 U.S.Cham and 1976Spedal Cm=forNewporfBeach.
TABLE 4
CHANGES IN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ENROLLMENT BY GRADES
JANUARYW6- DECEMBER1988
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
Percent
Arm Schools Change
Mariners ElementarY� 516 558 652 +26.0%
West Newport Elementary 642 364 386 -40.0%
Of Newport Heights Elementary 575 417 497 -14.0%
Bay
Ensign Intermediate School 763 828 698 -9.0%
Anderson Elementary 673 498 493 -Z7.0%
East Corona del Mar Elementary 480 (Closed in 1982)
Of East Bluff Elementary 467 171 Closed
Bay Harbor View Elementary 662 516 781 +18.0%
Lincoln Intermediate School 1325 -74.0%
TOTAL 4,778 3,986 3A46 -20.0115
A school closure in an adjacent area within the school district accounts for this enrollment increase.
Source: Newpoif-Mesa UnifledSchoolDistrict.
TABLES
SCHOOL ENROLIMENT 1970-1988
im 1980(TD) 1=111M
Public,
K-8 5,681 4,495(-20.97o) 3,846 (44.0%)
9-12 am U22(+5A9o) aM (- 8.0%)
Subtotal 9,180) 8,164(-11.79o) 7,227 (-n.001o)
Private,
K-8 882 902(+2.39o) 895 (+1.0%)
9-12 -151 _M (27.49o) unavailable
Subtotal 1,039 1,102(+6.1%)
TOTAL 10,2ig 9,266
Source: 'Newpotf-Mesa Unifted School Distfict,
2City of NewpoH Beach PlannitigDepartment
Housing Unit and Population Projections
The ultimate residential capacity within the City of Newport Beach has been projected at
39,819 dwelling units within the present City limits and 5,376 dwelling units within the
unincorporated sphere of influence, This projection is based on the General Plan and the
City's traffic model.
This ultimate residential capacity provides the most accurate means by which to project
population within the City. To project population, the following assumptions have been
made:
1. Household size will stabilize at 2.2 persons per household by2000. Ashousingcosts
continue to rise,more units will be occupied by unrelated persons sharing housing
expenses. Additionally,a portion ofthe younger childless couples within the City will
eventually have children,thus providing some natural population increase and part-
ly offsetting the historical decline in household size.
2. Vacancy rates will decline somewhat as a result of the demand for housing and in-
creased price of housing in Orange County. An overall vacancy rate of 10%through
the year 2010 has been projected. (This 10% vacancy rate includes seasonal and
migratory units not available for occupancy. The comparable overall vacancy rate in
1980 was 12.9%.)
3. Ultimate residential buildout in the City is projected to occur by the year 2010.
- 6-
Table 6
PAST AND PROJECTED POPULATION
City of Newport Beach
Housing Average Assumed
1Wla Population HH Size Vacana Rate*
Current City Limits
1980 31,397 62,556 2.23 12.9%
1987 34,191 67,698 2.20 8.0%
Build-Out(2010) 39,819** 78,844** 2.20 7.0%
Sphere of Influence I Mincorporated Area
1987 442 875 2.20 8.0
Build-Out(2010) 5,376** 10,644** 2.20 7.0
*Includes second homes occupied seasonally,about 5%of the housing stock in 1987 declining to 4%
of the housing stock at build-out.
Land Use Plan of General Plan
These projections indicate that the City of Newport Beach will grow at an average rate of
1.5%per year as compared to a 2.2% annual growth rate which has been projected by the
Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) (Growth Forecast Policy
January 1982) for Orange County. This variance in growth rates is related to the smaller
portion of undeveloped residential acreage remaining in Newport Beach. It should also
be noted that population growth,will be significantly affected by the assumption regarding
average household size. If household size were to remain constant, the population in the
year 2000 would be 78,200.
"The past and future populations of both Orange County and Newport Beach are shown
below. Newport Beach population will continue to constitute a lesser percentage of the
county population.
-7-
Table 7
NEWPORT BEACH POPULATION AS A PROPORTION
OF ORANGE COUNTY POPULATION
Orange Newport %of
Coon JIMIL County
1940 130,760 4,438 3.4%
1950 216,224 12,120 5.6%
1960 703,925 26A5 3.8%
1970 1,420,386 49,442 3.5%
1980 1,932,709 62,556 3.2%
1988 2,238,700 69,600 3.195
Projections:
1995 2,596,800 76,500 3.0%
2010 3,044,000 89,488* 2.9%
*Including presently unincorporated areas in sphere of influence.
Sources: U.S.Census, 1980,State Depailmen(of Finan ce, 1986,-
City of Newpoit Beach Plan n ing Depaninen t.
The followingtable was created to show historical housing and population trends based on
past State Department of Finance estimates. Added to these estimates are housing unit
and population projections based on estimates of actual construction. The projections are
for the five year period covered by this Housing Element, 1989-1994.
Table 8
POPULATION AND HOUSING TRENDS
POPULATION HOUSING LTNITS
Year House- Mobile Group single Mobile Percent Pop./
Uala TDId hoj& Homes 0=. Thid Eamily 21oA 5or > IIQMQS CLc&jUk4 va Hsehl
1980 65,283 64,972 916 311 31,016 17,490 7,149 5,762 615 28,282 8.810/0 2,297
1981 64,265 63,730 1,122 535 32,249 18,970 5,632 6,762 885 28,681 11.06% 2,222
1982 65,042 64�527 1,184 515 32,401 18,968 5,690 6,865 888 28,999 10.50% 2.225
1983 66,040 65,509 1,132 531 32,510 19,031 5,738 6,865 876 29,224 10.11010 2.242
1984 66,452 65,921 1,134 531 32,735 19,083 5,808 6,966 878 29,338 10.38% 2247
1985 66,817 66,284 1,144 533 32,843 19,078 5,836 7,052 877 29,605 9.86% 2.239
1986 67,336 66,758 1,170 578 33,059 19,094 5,866 7,239 870 29,894 9-57% 2.233
1987 67,804 67,229 1,113 575 33,365 19,168 5,955 7,380 862 30,225 9.41% 2.224
1988 69,597 69,051 1,285 546 34�336 19,415 6,051 8,030 840 31,415 8.51% 2.198
1989 *69,966 *69,421 *1,288 *545 34,648 19,539 6,170 8,108 831 *31,699 *8.51% *2.LQO
--- --------- ------- ------- ------ --- -------
1994 *73,690 *72,940 ------ *750 *36,3M ---- *33,W5 *8.25% *2.1%
Sources. 77te State Department ofFinance,Population Research Unit;and
Zhe City of NewportBeack PlanningDepartment estimates(as indicated by*s)
Employment Trends and Projections
The Newport Beach Planning Department estimated total non-construction employment
to be 42,000 in 1980. In January 1988,employment was estimated to be 58,255, a 3917o in-
crease. City estimates are based on the City's computer traffic modeling which applies
employment generationratios to non-residential land uses. The projected non-Tesidential
development square footage isbased on the recently amended Land UsePlan entitlements.
Previous entitlements were significantly reduced by this amendment. This modeling ac-
counts for employment that can be attributed to permanent land uses and therefore ex-
cludes miscellaneous seasonal and non-facility based employment (such as certain
construction jobs, fishing, lifeguards, and certain transportation employment). The ex-
cluded employment accounts for between one and three percent of the total employment
in Newport Beach.
The employment generation ratios used by the Planning Department in its traffic model-
ing appear in Table 9.
TABLE9
EMPLOYEE GENERATION RATIOS
Land Use Employee Generation
Catega Land Use Factor
Commercial Auto.Detailer 13.0/Acre
General 1.0/TSF
Hotel/Motel 39/Room
Restaurant 3.2/TSF
Office Business 3.9/TSF
Medical 3.2(TSF
industrial General 44/Acre
R&D 3.4/TSF
G.,EJ.F Hospital 23/Bed
Schools .07/Student
Employment growth in the City, like housing and population growth, will be limited at
some point in the future by the finite amount of land and building space available within
the City. Based on the traffic modeling employee generation factors, the 1988 employ-
ment of 58,255 will increase to 85,354 employees at build-out. This represents a 46.5%in-
crease over the existing employment level.
_ 10-
Table 10 compares the City's projected employment growth with the SCAG projected
employment growth for Orange County.
TABLE 10
PROJECTED EMPLOYMENT-NEWPORT BEACH
AND ORANGE COUNTY
Newport Orange City Employment
Beach Coon County Employment
1980 42,000 881,700 4.8%
1984 47,715 1,048,000 4.6%
2010 85,354 1,701,900 5.0%
1. City estimate is for 1984.
Sources. SCXG Growth Forecast and City estimate.
Analysis of Employment Trends and Projections
The employment in the City is expected,to increase by 791yo between 1984 and 2010, com-
pared to a SCAG-projected regional growth rate of 62% during that same period. The
City will have about 5.0%of the jobs in Orange County by the year 2010.
Between 1989 and 1994, employment should increase by about 6,160 jobs. It is estimated
that there are 1.65 workers per non-elderly household. Therefore, 6,160 jobs would
provide employment for about 3,733 households. Based on the percentage of households
living and working in the City in 1980 (about 37%), 6,160 jobs would translate into a hous-
ing demand of 1,450 units if a 5%vacancyfactor is included. Actual housing demand result-
ing from the additional employmentwill depend on the type ofjobs created,the availability
of housing in communities near Newport Beach at costs available to those workers.
Household Characteristics
Ethnicity
The 1980 U.S. Census reported the following ethnic and racial identification of City
households. Comparative figures for Orange County are also provided.
_ 11-
TABLE 11
ETHNIC AND RACIAL IDENTIFICATION
OF HEAD OF HOUSEHOLD
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH AND ORANGE COUNTY
Heads of Newport Orange
Household Riad, Count-v
Non-Minority White 26,726 96.00% 84.32%
Black' 61 .22% 1.15%
American Indian
Eskimo,&Alcutt 49 .18% .629o'
Asian&Pacific Islander 294 1.06% 3.24%
Other 109 .39% 1.15%
Spanish origin 581 2.09% 10,19%
White (461)
Black (3)
Americatiladian (13)
Other(104)
Excludes persons of Spanish origm,shown separately.
Source. U.S.Census Bureau 1980.
TABLE 12
HOUSEHOLDS BY TYPE AND ETHNICITY(1980)
Asian/ Spanish
Total H Muk Link 0=
Total Housholds 27,820 27,187 64 569 581
Non-Family HH 12,081 11,748 41 292 30
Single 8,644 8,439 & 14,e 168
Family Households 15,739 15,439 23 277 181
Married Couples A851 12,618 16 217 181
With Children 4,463 4,337 6 im 82
Virithout Children 8,388 8,281 10 97 99
Single Parent w/Children 1,479 1,440 3 36 49
Fernale,Headed 1,197 1,168 3 26 37
Other Family 1,409 1,381 4 24 42
1 Spanish Origin may be of any race.
2 Numbers do not add to total due to estimation of sampling error.
Source., U.S.CensusBureau,
- 12-
Household Incomes
rfbe median household income in Newport Beach has traditionally been higher than that
of Orange County. In 1970, the City's median income was 34.2%higher than the county
figure. In 1980, the City's median household income was 20.717o higher that the County's
household median income.
TABLE 13
ACTUAL AND PROJECTED MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOMES
ORANGE COUNTY AND NEWPORT BEACH
Orange Newport (0/0 of
Conn Beach county
1960' $7,219 $8,571 (+18.7%)
19V $12,244 $16,435 (+34.2%)
1976 $16,800' $20,87j' (+2430/,)
1980 $22,80 $27,516 (+20.7%)
1988(Est.) $39,9503 $47,950 (+75.101o)
Sources., L U.S. Census.
2. 1976 Special Censusfor Newport Beach.
3. Estimate based on HUD-calculated county median incomefor
March 1983.
- 13 -
TABLE 14
1980 AND 1994 ESTIMATED
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
HOUSEHOLD INCOME
Income Number1980 ffd Number 199 ffa
$ 0- 4,999 1,899 6.8% 1,682 5.6%
$ 5- 9,999 2,341 8.4% 2,074 7.0%
$10- 14,999 2,792 10.1% 2,468 83%
$15- 19,999 2,877 10.4% %552 8.6%
$20- 24,999 2,683 9.7% %407 8.1%
$25- 29,999 2,186 7.9% 1,939 6.5%
$30- 34,999 2,017 73% 1,787 6.0%
$35- 39,999 1,827 6.6% 2,492 8A%
$Q- 49,999 2,635 9.5% 3,595 12.1%
$SO- 74,999 3,296 1119% 4,470 15.0%
$75,000+ am 11.5% 4= 14.6%
TOTAL 27,736' 2%818
"Total does not add to total number of households due to rounding
2SOurces: U.S.Censits Bumau, U.S.Department ofHousing and Urban Development.
The households which are moving to Newport Beach to purchase housing are likely to be
in an income category that is well above the estimated median income for the City. The
income required to purchase the 1983 average-priced home of $330,100 is between
$134,000 and$144,000,depending on assumptions one makes regarding the downpayment�
percent of income devoted to housing payments, and the type of loan.
It should be stated that the incomes of households purchasing housing in Newport Beach
do not accurately characterize the average household residing within the City. A review
of 1980 Orange County Assessor's Property Tax Rolls indicates that 62.3 96 of all single-
family homeowners bought their housing before January 1, 1977. Before this date,owner-
occupied housing in the City was more accessible to moderate-income families. The
amount of rental housing in the City, approximately SO of the housing stock, also has a
strong influence on the overall household income.
- 14-
Housing Affordability
Housing affordability is best assessed by analyzing the levelof payment as compared to the
ability to pay. The most recent survey data on the amount of income spent on housing ex-
penses in the City of Newport Beach comes from the 1980 U.S.Census. For renters,about
54.5%of the households spent 25% or more of their income on rent. For homeowners,
about 34.7% of the households,spent about 35% or more of their monthly income on
mortgage payments. Currently,lenders are allowing households to pay between 29%and
35LYo of their gross income for housing. Table 18 shows the relationship of income spent
on housing by income group.
In its 1988 Regional Housing Needs Assessment, the Southern California Association of
Governments calculated that 4,431 lower-income households, 14%of all households,paid
more than 30% of their income for housing. According to SCAG estimates, 2,625 very
low-income households and 1,806 low-income households pay more than 30%of their in-
come for housing.
- 15-
TABLE-15
INCOME GROUP HOUSING EXPENDITURE
(1980)
Rent/Mortgage
asa%of $04,999 $Slow9lm $10,OW14,"9 $IS.0D0-l9jM $20,ODO + TOTAL
Income Renters Owners Renters Owners Renters Owners Renters Owners Renters Owners Renters Owners
0-24% 05% - 21% 1.49b - 33.7% 11.9% - 40.0% 25.0% - 54.7% 79.7% - 723% 45.5% - 633%
25-3495 2.1% - IL5% 83% - 10.9% 20.5% - 17.4% 37-595 - 15.5% 19.1% - 14.0% 193% - 14.0%
359b + 97.4% - 67.5% 89S% - 55.49b 67.69b - 42-690 37-59b - 29.8% 129b - 13.7% 352% - n7%
(1988)
HOUSEHOLDS PAYING OVER309/b OF INCOME
Owners Renters TOTA
VerylowIncome 553 2,072 %625
Lowincome 305 1,501 4806
TOTAL 858 3,573 4,431
Sources. U.S.0mus(1980),Southern QWomiaAssocWon of Governments(SCAG).
From this table, it appears that among those households earning 80% or less of the City
medianhousehold income,thenumberof households paying more than25%(301yo in 1988)
of their income for rents or mortgage payments is significant. It should be noted that a
large number of the lower-income households paying more that 25% of their income for
housing are likely to be students. The large number of renter households is also support-
ing evidence that a large number of households paying over 259o' to 30%of their income
for housing are students. (See Special Population Groups,Students.) Those households
in the moderate-and upper-income groups do not appear to have any housing affordability
problem.
The number of higher-income households payingmore than 25%of their income for hous-
ing is an indication of unique standards of housing affordability in Newport Beach. Many
households allocate a higher percentage of their income for housing because of the uni-
que environmental features of the community which are purchased with the housing unit.
In addition, a higher allocation of income toward housing is perceived to be justified be-
cause of the investment qualities of housing in the City. Finally, higher expenditures on
housing may be justified when tax advantages of such an arrangement are considered,and
also on the expectation that incomes will increase while housing expenses remain fixed.
Overcrowding
The substantial reduction in the average household size in the City of Newport Beach in-
dicates that the majority of City households are not overcrowded in terms of persons per
dwelling unit. The 1980 Census figure of 2.23 persons per dwelling unit is well below the
state and regional average.
In 1980,non-family households,households composed of individuals unrelated by kinship,
law,or marriage,comprised 43.6%of all households. By definition, all other households,
56.4%,were family households.
The most common household type in the City of Newport Beach was couples without
children. This household type comprised 52.4%of all family households and 29.61yo of all
households. The second most common household type was single-person residence,com-
prising 31.3% of all City households. Only 16.3% of all households were two-parent
families with children.
The 1970 Census indicated that 134,or 1.2%,of all owner-occupied units and 249,or 2.9%,
of all renter-occupied units in Newport Beach in 1970 were occupied by more than 1.01
persons per room. In 1980,these figures were 84(0.6%)for owner-occupied units and 212
(1.6%)for renter-occupied units. These percentages compare with county figures of 5.2%
overcrowding among owner-occupied units, and 7.8% overcrowding among renter-oc-
cupied units. The rate of overcrowding,therefore,was substantially less in Newport Beach
than it was in the county in 1970, and has decreased since that time.
In 1980, the incidence of overcrowding is most frequent among households where unre-
lated persons are sharing housing expenses. This household arrangement is common
- 17-
among students as well as seasonal visitors renting units in West Newport,Balboa Penin-
sula, and Balboa Island. Although the 1980 Census reports an average household size in
these areas of 2.18, 2.10 and 2.06 respectively, overcrowded conditions have been ob-
served. Overcrowding in such instances is related to the desirability of housing in these
areas,especially among students,and the willingness to"double up"in livm* g arrangements
in order to decrease housing costs. The incidence of overcrowding in West Newport,Bal-
boa Peninsula, and Balboa Island was 1.09o', 0.6%, 1.0%respectively.
Special Population Groups
Students
Newport Beach provides a sigmificant supply of housing for students attending both the
University of California at I'rvine and Orange Coast College in Costa Mesa. It is estimated
that approximately 800 UCI students and a comparable number of OCC students reside
in Newport Beach. However, any numbers obtained for students should be considered
with caution. Both campuses stress that they neither have exact data on students living i
Newport Beach, nor can they guarantee that those students who claim to live in the City
actually do. As an example, if a student's parents live in Newport Beach, he or she may
continue to list that address even while living elsewhere. While the Student Housing Of-
fices do provide information to students on locating housing, the students do not neces-
sarily obtain their housing through the offices. Also,the Student Housing Offices have no
way of following up on the residences of the students.
The UCI Housing Office has completed a study on housing costs for 1988. Rents range
from$596 per month for a one bedroom, one bath apartment, to $1,543 per month for a
four bedroom, two bath. 7le study was based on the number of rooms and made no dis-
tinction between apartments and homes. Average costs,based on students helped, are as
follows:
TABLE 16
UCI OFF-CAMPUS HOUSING OFFICE
HOUSING COSTS FOR NEWPORT BEACH — 1988
1 bedroom,1 bath $ 596/mo
2 bedroom,1 bath $ 750/mo
3 bedroom,2bath $1,180mw
4 bedroom,2 bath $1,543/mo
Most of the students reside in the W6stNewport,Balboa Peninsula areas and Balboa Is-
land. The rents for Balboa Island are slightly higher than elsewhere. Students are able to
afford these prices by living with other students and sharing costs. A drawback to this prac-
tice is that it may lead to overcrowded conditions. The housing needs of students could
- 18-
best be met by providing more compact and efficient units that would rent at a lower cost.
Student needs could possiblybe met by boarding houses or by facilities such as a communal
dormitory with a cafeteria.
Handicapped
The 1980 Census reports that 1,143 persons, or 1.8% of the City population had a per-
manent mental or physical handicap which prevented them from using public transporta-
tion. Over 69% of those individuals were 65 years of age or older. Public transportation
disability is an indicator of special housing needs of handicapped persons. This is the only
source of information on handicapped persons which the Census provides. Those with
handicaps include persons who are blind,deaf or mute,or confined to bed or a wheelchair,
or require crutches. A survey conducted by the Dayle McIntosh Center for the Disabled
in 1987 questioned 14,000 disabled residents in Orange County. The study concluded that
the two most prevalent housing needs for persons with disabilities are accessibility and af-
fordability. Individuals that are mobility impaired require special housing or structural
needs. These include,but are not limited to,wheelchair ramps,widened doorways,grab
bars, and access ramps. Certain individuals may require housing which has better access
to health care facilities.
From the Census data available,it is not possible to determine how many of these hand-
icapped persons are in need of housing assistance. However,the City was able to produce
two units designed for handicapped occupancy in one of its rent restricted, financially as-
sisted housing developments. The rental on these two units is restricted so as to allow the
use of Section 8 rental assistance certificates or vouchers. These units are also located in
close proximity to the largest concentration of health care facilities within Newport Beach.
Female Head of Household
Census data from 1980 reveals that there were 2,121 female-headed households within
Newport Beach. Of these, 1,224(5701o)had related childrenunder 18 years of age,and 181
had related children under 6 years of age. It is not possible to determine, from Census
'data,how many of these households are in need of housing assistance,below 80010 of Coun-
ty median household income and paying more than 30% of their income for housing.
However, Census data also reveals that 264 of the total female-headed households were
below poverty status for a family of four. Of those 264 households,202 had related children
under 18 years of age, and 32 had related children under 6 years of age. Until the results
of the 1990 Census are published, the City will not have more current information.
The City has been able to produce a significant number of rent restricted units with rents
that qualify for Section 8 rental assistance which are the type of units which would satisfy
the housing needs of this group. However, an inadequate supply of Section 8 Rental Cer-
tificates and Vouchers has, on occasion, allowed some of these units to sit vacant for two
months or more.
_ 19-
Elderly
In 1980, 7,288 persons, or 11.7% of the City population, were 65 years of age or older.
Those 62 years of age or older totalled 9,196,and made up 14.7%of the population. Since
1960,the elderly population in Newport Beach has steadily grown,and there is no indica-
tion of this trend reversing.The percentage of older persons in the City is large compared
to the region;in 1970,when 12.3%of all City residents were 62 years of age or older,only
8.4110 of all county residents were in this same age category. In 1980, 17.1%, of Newport
Beach residents were 60years of age or older,whereas only 11.91yo of Orange County resi-
dents were 60 years of age or older. Due to the aging of the"baby-boomers"and the fol-
lowing"birth-dearth"of 10 years ago, in which the nation's birth rate was the lowest ever,
the 65 years and older age group has been,proportionately, the fastest growing segment
of the total populationi the last two decades. Owing to the attractive atmosphere of New-
port Beach,the area may well continue to serve as a destination for retirees.
Many elderly persons residing in Newport Beach are long-time,residents. However,as in-
dicated,many others have more recently arrive to pursue a retirement lifestyle that is well
suited to the area's attractive locale. Those persons in the latter category are generally
well-housed because their housing arrangement has been chosen to match their retirement
lifestyle and financial situation. Persons in the former category,however, are more often
than not living in houses which they purchased before sky-rocketing real-estate prices. If
these individuals were to move to the City today,they would be unable to afford the house
in which they are currently living. Furthermore, these homes may no longer match their
housing needs in terms of living space,maintenance and location in respect to community
facilities. Thus,persons living on low,fixed incomes maybe"housing rich"in terms of the
accumulated,equity in their homes,but poorly served by the housing unit itself. In such
cases, elderly residents may retain their houses only because they wish to remain in the
community. Alternative living arrangements in the community, involving smaller units
close to commercial and transportation facilities with some congregate services,would bet-
ter serve the housing needs of this population segment.
Many elderly residents in the City reside in mobile home parks. A number of long-time
elderly residents live in the older parks which were developed in the 1950's and 1960's,
while others live in parks which are close to the bayznd which cater to a retirement life-
style.
Large Families
In this analysis,the City has examined total households and families with five or more per-
sons. For clarification,families are groups of persons related by blood,marriage or adop-
tion. Households represent all persons living together as groups,whether they are related
or not.
The 1980 Census reported that of the 27,736 total households in the City, 1,515 (5.49o')
contained 5 persons or�more. Of these 1,515 large households, 1,383 (91.2%)were large
families. Thus,the remaining 133 (8.89o)households,were non-related individuals living
-20-
together as household groups;these households represented'0.5%of the total households
in the City. The large family households represent 5%of the total households in the City
and 8.8% of the 15,656 total families. Table 17 shows the distribution of the number of
persons per family and household as indicated in the 1980 Census. As indicated in Table
18,in 1980, 131 (0.8%) of these large families were low income families earning less than
80%of the County median family income($13,045). Thirty-one(0.1%)households at that
time paid more than 30% of their income towards housing costs, and 19 (0.07%) of those
households fell in the very-low category.
The above information shows that there is a demand for large units to meet the needs of
low and very-low income large households. The City has been able to produce two units
for large family occupancy. The rental on these units is restricted at a level that allows the
use of Section 8 Certificates and Vouchers.
TABLE 17
Persons Families Percent Households Percent
1 8,686 31.3%
2 8,624 55.1% 10,581 38.1%
3 3,257 20.8% 4,184 15.1%
4 2,393 15.3% 2,770 10.0%
5 1,051 6.7% 1,120 4.0%
6 222 IA% 260 .9%
7+ 109 135 .5%
TOTAL 15,656 27,736
Source. 1980 Census
-21-
TABLE 18
PERSONS IN FAMILY BY FAMILY INCOME
Income Ranue 2 3 4 S 6 7+ Total
$ $ 4,999 276 131 46 8 0 3 467
$5,000- $ 9,999 546 110 72 15 0 0 743
$10,000- $14,999 723 208 97 6 7 0 1,041
$15,000- $19,999 997 273 148 68 13 11 1,510
$20,ODO- $2A,999 997 273 148 68 13 11 1,510
$25,000- M999 1,395 521 459 129 39 5 2,54�
$35,000- $49,999 1,525 699 507 168 61 37 2,997
$50,000- $74,999 :�272 576 52S 209 46 9 Z637
$75,000+
MEDIAN $31,849 $38ffl6 $42,358 $58,792 $46,875 $44,200
Source: 1980 Ceusus
Homeless
According to most reports, the number of homeless persons appears to be growing.
However,before any programs can be implemented to help these people, the nature and
numbers of the homeless are needed. Among the homeless population there is a variety
of reasons for homelessness. The following situations describe several of the most com-
mon reasons for homelessness,but it is,not intended to be all inclusive.
a. Single adult(usually male) transients who pass through a community on the way to
some other destination,but who do not stay.
b. Seasonal or migrant homeless individuals,mainly farm workers and fisherman.
c. Chronically homeless, single adults, including non-institutionalized, mentally dis-
turbed individuals,alcohol and drug abusers,elderly individuals with insufficient in-
comes, and others who voluntarily, or are forced, due to financial circumstances, to
"live on the streets."
d. Minors who have either run away from home or have been"thrown out."
e. Low-income families who are temporarily homeless due to financial circumstances
or are in the process of searching for a home. Single-parent families,mostly female-
headed, are especially prevalent in this group.
-22-
L Women (with or without children) who are escaping domestic violence. Men may
also fall into this category.
g. Persons displaced as a result of disaster with no short term means of providing shel-
ter.
When this analysis was originally prepared in December of 1986,the City examined avail-
able data sources and contacted governmental agencies,quasi-public organizations,social
service agencies, religious organizations, private firms and persons involved in providing
emergency shelter. These sources revealed that there were no precise data available on
the total number of persons and families in need of emergency shelter in Newport Beach.
Due to the nature of these individuals, primarily their mobility and lack of identifiable
residence, it is difficult, if not impossible, to obtain an accurate census of their numbers.
Coupled with this problem is the potential of double counting individuals as they move
from one agency to another.
During the initial preparation of the analysis,the City also researched governmental sour-
ces such as the 1980 Federal Census,the United States Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD), the State Department of Housing and Community Development,
the Southern California Association of Governments,Orange County Housing Authority,
and the Orange County Offices of Environmental Management,Human Resource and So-
cial Services. This revealed that neither a formal data system to enumerate the homeless,
nor precise counts of homeless persons exist. A national study undertaken by HUD in 1985
estimated that between 6-10,000 persons in Orange County needed emergency shelter at
any given time. In contrast, the Orange County Coalition for the Homeless also prepared
a report on a survey they conducted in 1985. The report stated that the survey was con-
ducted for one month at agencies providing homeless services and counted 3,169 home-
less persons in Orange County. A more detailed and up-to-date census of homeless
persons is currently being conducted by UC Irvine,in cooperation with,the Orange Coun-
ty Homeless Issue Task Force. It is hoped that this study will provide a more accurate pic-
ture of the homeless situation in Orange County.
Research of local agencies once again consisted of contacting those groups that provided
assistance to persons in need of emergency shelter and assistance. When the first analysis
was prepared,this research was hampered by a lack of information concerning these agen-
cies. However, since the last analysis,the City has been requiring Social Service agencies
receiving CDBG funds to provide information pertaining to the last permanent residence
of those persons helped. This data gathering requirement was established as part of a
Housing Element program implementation action. In many cases better information has
been provided, in other cases improved counting is still required. Agencies without the
expanded reporting requirements could not provide better information than in 1986.
The Orange Coast Interfaith Shelter(OCIS) is one such agency providing records of ser-
vice to the City as part of the reporting requirements of the CDBG program. Based on
this more detailed information for the period January 1,1988 through December 31, 1988,
527 families or 1,445 persons were temporarily housed. Based on a report of last per-
-23 -
manent address,79%of these families were former residents of Orange County, 12%ar-
rived from other California cities outside of Orange County,8%migrated from outside of
California, and less than 19o' were from other countries. Newport Beach families ac-
counted for only 1.1%(6 families) of the total. The ethnic breakdown revealed that 60%
of the individuals were White and non-Hispanic, and 24%were of Hispanic origin. The
percent Black was 13%, and only lVo were Asian. Of the total,8.51yo had females as head
of households.
The YWCAHotel for Women provides-shelter,food,counseling,job-search,andhousing-
search assistance for homeless women. The City also provides CDBG funds to this or-
ganization, and likewise, requires expanded reporting information. From July, 1987
through June, 1988,the Hotel assisted 296 women. Over 50%of these women were be-
tween the ages of 25 and 44, and 46% of the total assisted had no income when they ar-
rived. Statistics show that only 2%(6 women)lived in Orange County, 14%lived in other
California cities,and 8.5%came from elsewhere in the United States. As a group,women
entering the Hotel were 70%White,459o' single, and 66%had only a high school educa-
tion.
The City also assists smaller organizations with CDBG funds,such as the Newport Beach-
CostaMesa.YMCA. This organization offers temporary housing and related support ser-
vices. Based on two quarters, the YMCA provided temporary housing for 31 Newport
Beach individuals. However, due to the incomplete nature of the data submitted to the
City,it remains unclear whether or not the same individuals were helped more than once
during this period. The City has contacted the YMCA about their reports and it is not clear
from their information if the 31 reported individuals may have been counted more than
once,or are in fact,31 different people. If this program continues to be funded,attempts
will be made to clarify this information.
FISH-Harbor Area (Friends in Services to Humanity) is another organization receiving
CDBG funding from the City. Between July, 1987, and June, 1988,FISH provided assis-
tance to approximately 103 homeless, of which 39 persons (37%)listed newport Beach as
their last permanent address. As with the YMCA, the data is too weak for making con-
clusions. It is not clear is the same people are being assisted more than once.
The American Red Cross also assists persons temporarily displaced from their residence
due to disasters such as fires. During 1988,the RedCross provided assistance for oneNew-
port Beach family after their home burned down. Between January 1989,,and April 1989,
the agency reported helping only one family. This agency does not request CDBG fund-
ftig from the City.
Aside from the organizations discussed above,other volunteer groups and avariety of local
religious organizations serve Newport Beach and the surrounding communities in
numerous ways. These agencies offer assistance to both homeless individuals and needy
persons by providing temporary shelter,bus fares to reach pre-planned destinations,rent-
al assistance,medical assistance,food and clothes.
-24-
Located in Santa Ana, the Salvation Army provides a hospitality house,with 50 beds for
the homeless to use on a nightly basis. Some One Cares Soup Kitchen, a volunteer or-
ganization, does not offer temporary housing, but does offer meals to the homeless and
needy. The Soup Kitchen takes monthly surveys and the most recent survey revealed that
of the approximately 200 people served daily,34%lived on the streets and 26%lived in a
car. It is not known how many of the homeless were from Newport Beach.
Several motels in the Newport Beach-Costa Mesa area are utilized by various agencies to
accommodate homeless persons. These agencies pay all or a portion of the costs. One
Newport Beach motel operator reported offering reduced rates to homeless persons when
vacant units were available.
Based on available data,it is estimated that no more than 50 people who were permanent
residents of Newport Beach will become homeless for varied periods of time during a one
year period. It is further estimated that an additional 50 temporary residents of Newport
Beach might become homeless for varied periods of time on an annual basis. An undeter-
mined number of transients or chronically homeless individuals will pass through Newport
Beach. Much of this depends on opportunities and conditions presented to these in-
dividuals within Newport Beach and the surrounding communities.
The housing needs of these individuals includes transitional housing in the form of single
room occupancy units (SROs and more shelters,both emergency and transitional). Due
to the high costs of these types of facilities,it may be necessary to form a county-wide ef-
fort to provide this assistance.
Housing Stock Characteristics
Residential Growth and Dwelling Unit Types
Between April 1970 and April 1980,8,919 housing units were added to the housing inven-
tory in the City of Newport Beach. This indicates an average yearly increase in the hous-
ing stock of approximately 892 housing units. Since 1980,this rate of increase has slowed
significantly. Between April 1980 and January 1989, 3,642, an average of 404 housing
units per year,were added to the housing stock. Actual units constructed each year since
1976 are listed in Table 19.
-25-
TABLE 19
NETADDITIONS AND TOTAL HOUSING UNITS
1976-1989
Total-Houslag Units NetAdditions Total Net
Y= At Year Star Durin&Yea Additions
1976 29,530 Z
1977 29,687 437
1978 30,324 446
1979 30,770 246
1980 31,016 1,233
1981 32,249 152
1982 32,401 109
1983 32,510 225 225
1984 32,735 108 333
1985 32,843 216 549
1986 33,059 306 855
1987 33,365 971 1,826
1988 34,336 312 2,138
To this total must be added the West Newport annexation and the discrepancy between
the City's records and the 1980 Census count. The actual total number of housing units as
of January 1, 1984,is estimated to be 32,489. The number of housing units in 1976 and in
1980 in each statistical area of the City is shown on Table 20.
TABLE20
HOUSINGUNITMIX
Number Percent
HousineUnItType of Units ofTotal
Single-Family Detached 15�212 43.9%
Single-Family Attached 4,327 12.5%
Duplex to Fourplex 6,170 17.8%
Muld-Family 8,108 23.4%
MobileHome M 2.4%
CITY TOTAL 34,648 100.0%
Source., State Depatiment of Finance,Population
Research MR,Jan uajy 1, 1989.
-26-
This housing unit mix compares to Orange County and neighboring cities as follows:
TABLE21
HOUSING UNIT COMPARISONS
2-4 5 or more
Single- Multiple Multiple Mobile
Famil IRL& Ibilk Homes
Newport Beach 19,415 6,051 8,030 840 34,336
(56.596) (17.6%) (23A17b) (2.4,7o) (10090)
Costa Mesa 17,535 5,200 13,594 953 37,282
(47.0%) (13.9%) (36.501o) (2.6%) (10017b)
Huntington Beach 42,326 9,061 16,109 2,683 70,179
(60.301o) (12.9%) (23.0%) (3.8%) (100%)
Laguna Beach 8,319 2,027 2,019 446 12,811
(64.9%) 15.89o) (15.801o) (3.57o) (10001o)
Orange County 501,211 83,137 218,165 26,893 829,406
(60.401o) (10.001b) (26.3%) (3.2%) (10091o)
California 6,517,313 896,382 2,823,942 470,617 10,708,254
(60.9%) (8.4%) (26.4%) (4-49o) (1009o)
Source: State Department of Finance,Population Research Unit,knuary 1, 1988.
Residential Densities
Residential densities in many neighborhoods in the City of Newport Beach are very in-
tense. Densities have been estimated by dividing residential acreage (as of 1972)by cur-
rent dwelling unit counts.
-27-
TABLE22
RESIDENTM DENSITIES BY AREA
Estimated Density
(Dwelling Units per Acre)
Balboa Peninsula 22.4
West Newport 193
Balboa Island 27.7
Old Corona del Mar 16.9
Lido-Island 13.9
Source. City of Newport Beach PlanningDepartment.
In addition,many attached housingprojects in the City have been developed to maximize
land usage. Existing attached projects in the City and their densities are listed below.
TABLE23
DENSITIES OF ATTACHED HOUSING
Number of Dwelling
Gross Dwelling Units Per
Prolect Acreaue Y-n AS Gross Acre
Newport Crest 38.0 460 12.1
Versailles Phase 1 6.8 255 37.5
Lido Condominiums 1.1 54 49.1
621 Lido Park Drive W 36 21.2
Caribe 13 48 36.9
The Towers 0.5 28 543
Rendezvous 0.75 24 32.0,
Oakwood 323 1,446 44.8
Mariners'Square 6.2 114 18.4
Park Newport 53.2 1,306 24.5
Promontory Point 32.8 520 15.8
BayvieW Apartments 5.4 64 11.8
BayportApartments 5.3 104 19.6
Baywood Apartments 27.4 320 11.7
Newport Terrace 40.0 281 7.0
Granville Apartments 10.2 68 6.7
Source. City of NewportBeach PlanningDepartment.
-28-
Dwelling units in these projects when totalled with all units in the neighborhoods listed
above account for 18,640 dwelling units, or 60% of all City dwelling units as of January
1980.
The trend within the City toward higher density development is also demonstrated by build-
ing permit data. Since 1980,multi-fan-.dly permits issued have exceeded single-family per-
mits issued in the City. This is exactly opposite the trend state-wide,where single-family
permits have exceeded multi-family in recent years.
Housing Tenure
Tenure of housing in Newport Beach has varied as follows between 1970 and,1980:
TABLE24
HOUSING TENURE
Total
Occupied Owner Renter.
111I.Ra Occupied Occupied
1970 19,280 10,810 (56.101b) 8,470 (43.99o)
1976 26,553 14,710 (55.49o) 11,843 (44.6%)
1980 27,820 14,M (53.501o) 12,932 (46.59o)
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau;1976 Special Censusfor Newport Beach.
The percentage of rental housing in Newport Beach is higher than that of Orange Coun-
ty. The latest data comparing rentals are from the 1980 Census:
-29-
TABLE25
PERCENT OF RENTAL HOUSING BY CITO
Percent of Rental Housing
Newport Beach 46.5%
Costa Mesa 57.7%
Huntington Beach 43.0%
LagunaBeach 47.9%
Orange County 40.1%
Percentbased upon occupied units plus units available for sale
or rent.
Source. U.S.CensusBurcau,
The percentage of rental housing has increased in the City since 1960,when only 361yo of
all occupied�units were rented. This is due to a sizeable amount of new rental construc-
tion beginning in the late 1960's and in the recent 1980's. Such rental projects include the
following:
.30-
TABLE26
MAJOR RENTAL PROJECTS
Rental Proiect #of Units
Anchorage Apartments 39
The Balboa Bay Club 144
Bayport Apartments 104
Bayview Apartments 64
Baywood Apartments 320
The Beach House 226
Big Canyon 74
Granville Apartments 68
Las Brisas 54
Mariners'Square 114
Mediterranean Newport Apartments 44
Mesa Hotel Apartments 29
Newport Marina 64
Newport North 570
Newport Seaside Apartments 25
Newport Seacrest Apartments 65
Newport Villa 60
Oakwood Apartments 1,446
Park Newport 1,306
Promontory Point 520
Seaview Lutheran Plaza 100
Sequoia Apartments 54
The Shores Apartments Im
The Terraces 56
850 Domingo Drive 34
TOTAL: 25 projects 5,700 Units
Source: Vie City of Newport Beach Planning Department
In addition to these larger rental projects, and others built earlier, the City contains many
rented duplex, triplex, and fourplex rental units in its older neighborhoods. Areas where
this type of rental housing is predominant include West Newport, Balboa Peninsula, and
Balboa Island.
Since 1980, the amount of new rental construction in the City has been significant; five
major apartment projects have been completed during the past three years, for a total of
770 units. Approved condoniffil'um.conversions, since 1980, total 2 units. In September
1979, the City adopted a new ordinance to regulate condominium conversions. Con-
dominium conversions are restricted as follows:
• No condominium conversion may be approved on a lot of less than 5,000 square feet,
regardless of when such lot was legally established(Zoning Code,Chapter 20.73.025).
• No condominium conversion use permit shall be approved when the rental dwelling
unit vacancy rate in the City is equal to or less than 5% (Zoning Code, Chapter
20.73.035). This provision can be overridden if two-thirds of the tenants of a project
vote to recommend project conversion, or if conversion win minimize vacancies or
other wise substantially comply with the intent of the City's Zoning Code.
These restrictions have influenced the incidence of condomi'nium.conversions in the City
of Newport Beach as follows:
TABLE27
CONDOMINIUM CONVERSION APPLICATIONS APPROVED
Resubdivisions MM911 Total
1976 0 34 34
1977 12 0 12
1978 60 53 113
W9 7 255 262
1980 11 0 11
1981 2 0 2
1982 0 0 0
1983 0 0 0
1984 0 0 0
1985 0 0 0
1986 0 0 0
1987 0 0 0
1988 0 0 0
1989(through April) 2 Q 2
Total 92 342 434
Source. City ofNewporfBeacls PlauningDepartincut.
-32-
Under this zoning regulation, most rental units in the older beach neighborhoods are
preserved as rental housing because lots in these neighborhoods are generally less than
5,000 square feet. Property owners may not convert rental units,but, in some cases, such
units have been demolished and new attached for-sale housing has been built to bypass the
City's restrictions on condominium conversions.
Review of assessor parcel information indicates that 384 of the 424 units approved for con-
version by the City actually converted. This represents ten projects,including two triplexes,
one duplex and one project consisting of 225 units. The remaining 7 conversions ranged
in size from 8 units to 45 units. Among those units which were approved,but did not con-
vert were nine duplexes and three triplexes. The remaining projects which did not convert
contained 6, 10, and 11 units.
The conversion of large rental projects has been restricted by the city's vacancy rate
provision.
Vacancy Rates
The City's overall housing unit vacancy rate has varied as follows between 1970 and 1980:
TABLE28
NEWPORT BEACH OVERALL HOUSING UNITVACANCY RATE
All Vacant Units Total For Sale For Rent
1970 14.2% 6.8% 2.6% 11.6%
1976' 10.9% 43% 23% 6.5%
19863 10.1% 5.2% 3.8% 6.1%
Sources.,
' 1970 U.S. Census,
2 1976 Special CensusforNewport Beach,all vacancy rates have been adjustedfrom actual 1976
data to accowitfor S4.1%vacancy rate within Promontory Point which was recently completed at
the time of the 1976 Census;
3 1980 U.S. Census—year-round housing units.
The large discrepancy between overall vacancy rates and vacancy rates among available
units is due to the large number of seasonal units and second homes in Newport Beach.
Within the 1980 Census, 1,526 of 3,120 vacant units were"held for occasional use"or"held
for other reasons."
-33 -
To assist in the administration of its condominium conversion ordinance,the City has con-
ducted rental vacancy surveys since 1979. The results of these surveys are shown on Table
29.
TABLE29
CITY RENTALVACANCY RATE SURVEY RESULTS
Vacancy Rates
Unit J=e October 1979 April 1980 Auzust 1988
Single-Family 8.68%
Duplex 4.66% 3.53% 3.14%
Triplex 3.47% 4.37% 4.91%
Fourplex 1.23% 2.38% 5.00%
5 or More Units 1.97% 1.25% 5.80%
Mobile Homes 12%—
TOTAL 4.22% 23190 4.85%
Source., City offewport Beach PlanningDepartment.
Total vacancy percentages represent mean weighted figures after adjusting for response
rate.
The mostrecent source of information from an outside agency on vacancies comes from
the Federal Home Loan Bank Board.
TABLE30
FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK OF SAN FRANCISCO�VACANCY SURVEY
(MAY 1988)
Zip Code Areas All,Unitq Sinoe-Famil Multi-Famil
Ncnortlhach
92660 305(2.7%) 84(1.0%) 221(6.79o)
92661 58(2.29o) 42(l.9%) 16(3.6,75)
92662 39(1,8%) 28(1.6%) 11(2.895)
92663 255(23'Yo) 100(l.601o) 155(3.0%)
Corona del Mar
92625 204&W 240(135) 14(l.95)
TOTAL 921)(2.7%) 503(215/5) 417(4.15/5)
*Including mobile homes and attached units.
-34-
It should be noted that the method used by the Federal Home Loan Bank Board in cal-
culating vacancies differs from the Census Bureau because of the method of counting
vacant units and defining such units. Vacancies are calculated by interagency agreement
with the U.S. Postal Service. Vacant units are counted as those dwellings which are not
receiving mail deliveries. Thus, the Federal Home Loan Bank survey cannot distinguish
unoccupied units by rental or sales status or whether the unit is a much lower reported
vacancy rate than the Census. Federal Home Loan Bank surveys usually show lowervacan-
cy rates than comparable Census surveys because of the different definitions used to deter-
mine vacancy.
A regional housing vacancy survey for owner- and renter-occupied units provides com-
parisons between overall vacancy rates in Newport Beach and within the Anaheim-Santa
Ana-Garden Grove Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area(SMSA).
According to the Federal Home�Loan Bank Survey,vacancy rates in this region declined
during the late 1970s and early 1980s, and increased after 1985.
TABLE31
REGIONALTACANCY RATES
Vacancy Rate
AIIHousingTvves
May 1978 23%
July 1979 2.0%
July 1980 13%
May 1984 2.0%
May 1988 2.5%
Source. Federal Ronze Loan Batik Survey(May 1983, 1984, 1988).
Housing Condition
The most recent survey of housing conditions in Newport Beach was completed as part of
the 1976 Special Census. This survey indicated that only 1.3% of all housing units were
deficient. Deficient units in this regard include deteriorated,and dilapidated units,as well
as those units which were inadequate in original construction,or which were under exten-
sive repair.
Three neighborhoods in the city contain slight concentrations of substandard housing. Five
and one-tenth percent of all housing units on Balboa Peninsula were in substandard con-
-35-
dition,while 2.59o' and 2.6%of all units on Balboa Island and in Newport Heights(Statis-
tical Area H)respectively,were in substandard condition.
Because of the increasing value of housing in Newport Beach,private investment inhous-
ing improvements is a common phenomenon. Based on 1980 Census information and a
1984 visual survey,it is estimated that currently less than 1.0%of the City's housing stock
is deficient because of structural or plumbing problems.
In 1980,729o' of all residential buildingpermits issued by the City of Newport Beach were
for residential alterations or additions. The average value of the 676 building permits is-
sued in 1980 was $14,530.
Mobile Homes
There are presently 937 mobile�home spaces in 10 mobile homeparks in Newport Beach.
Of these 937 spaces, 914 or 97.5% are occupied by permanent residents. The remaining
homes are occupied by persons who use their mobile homes for vacations and weekend
visits to the area. These parks house 1,421 permanent residents. Space rents range from
$300 to $1,300. (See Table 32.)
The character of the City's 10 mobile home parks varies. Four of the parks are located on
or close to Newport Harbor. The character of these parks appeals to retirees. Over 99.1%
of all spaces in these parks are occupied by permanent residents. Space rents range from
$550 to $1,300 a month, depending on the location of the space in relationship to the bay
and the size of the mobile home. One of these parks,Bayside Village,is occupied primari-
ly by retired persons, a large portion of whom have occupied their mobile homes for 20
years or more.
The remaining six mobile home parks are located either in West Newport(Statistical Area
B)onthe north side of Pacific CoastHighway orin the West NewportTriangle area(Statis-
tical Area A). Space rents in these parks range from$300 to $535 per month. Many of
these mobile homes are older,having been in parks since theirrdevelopment usually in the
1950's or 1960's. Many of the residents of these parks are also older.
For mobile home residentswho own their mobile home andwho bought themwheninter-
est rates were lower, or who made,a cash purchase, housing payments will be affordable
on moderate incomes and,in some,cases,lower incomes.
-36-
TABLE32
MOBRE HOME PARKS
#of Spaces
Total #of Occupied #of
Mobile Home Park #of #Of Spaces byPermanent Permanent Space Rent
(Site AddrcW Spaces Acres LAM Residents Residents aim")
Bayside Village 264 24.66 10.70 264 448 $550-1,000
300 East Coast Highway
Beach and Bay 47 1.41 3333 45 77 $425
7204 W.Coast Highway
Cannery Village 35 1.40 25.00 33 61 $614-988
700 Lido Park Drive
Ebb Tide 81 4.16 19.47 76 109 $390-440
1560 Placentia Avenue
Flamingo 20 031 64.52 20 30 (not available)
7000 W.Coast Highway
Harbor 40 1.92 20.83 38 48 $3W
1535 Superior Avenue
Lido 217 12.40 17.50 214 323 $600-1,3W
710 Lido Park Drive
Marinapark 60 4.94 12.15 60 93 $601-847
1770 W.Balboa Blvd.
Newport Terrace 56 4.27 13.11 53 71 $464
824 W.15th St.
Seacliff 117 9.12 12.83 111 161 $535
890 W.15th St.
Total(s): 10 937 64.50 14S2 914 1,421 $300-1,300
Sourre: 7he City of NewportBeach,PlanningDepartment(mean) (range)
The chart below identifies developments by project name and address, the type of
governmental assistance received, the earliest date of change from low-income uses to
non-low income uses and the total number of elderly and non elderly�units that could be
lost from the housing stock during the ten year period through 2002.
City of Newport Beach
Assisted Housing Analysis
Earliest Total
Project Name, Type of Assistance Possible Date Number of
&Location Received of Change Units Lost
NEWPORTNORTH CDBG 1997 50 non-elderly
2 Milano Drive @ Jamboree
SEAVIEWLUTHERAN
PLAZA Section 202 2002 100 elderly
(Senior Citizens only)
Depending on location,it is estimated that it would cost between eight and eleven million
dollars,in today's dollars, to replace the 150 low income units. This estimate is for market
rate construction. It is assumed that it would be necessary to subsidize the replacement
affordable units as the City has done to achieve affordable rent levels. The City currently
subsidizes affordable units at an approximate rate or$13,300 per unit resulting in a subsidy
cost of$1,995,000 for all 150 units.
The 50 CDBG units are located within a 570 unit apartment development. Therefore, it
will be more economical to preserve the low income units by reducing the rents with a
subsidy program rather than buying the apartment development. The cost to preserve the
50 units at Newport North under the current ownership for an additional 30 years, the
approximate remaffiiing economic life of the structure,is estimated at 1.67 million dollars.
Caring Incorporated, the Lutheran Church managing entity of Seaview LutheranPlaza,
indicated that they presently have no intention of converting the 100 low income units to a
non-low income use.
Currently, there is only$42,000 in Community Development Block Grant(CDBG) funds
available for the preservation of low income units. The City of Newport Beach does not
have a Redevelopment Agency, therefore,the City does not have direct control of any set
aside funds. The Orange CountyHousing Authority(OCHA)operating reserve funds are
currently being allocated for development loans for the provisions of new affordable
housing. The City does not have the financial capacity to replace orpreserve the lowincome
units from its own financial resources.
-37A-
Presently, the only organization known to the City that is a public or private nonprofit
corporation with legal and managerial capacity to acquire and manage housing units is the
Orange County Community Housing Corporation.
I
-37B-
I
Inventory of Land Suitable for Residentitil Development
The following section of the Housing Element is an inventory of land which has been deter-
mined to be suitable for residential development. All of this land is located within the
boundaries of the City. Discussion of this inventory of residential land is separated into
two parts. Each part details the potential for a distinct type of residential development.
The first area of discussion involves the eight remaining major undeveloped (vacant)
residential sites. The second section analyzes the potential for redevelopment and/or the
intensification of underatilized residential properties.
Undeveloped Residential Sites
The eight remaining major undeveloped sites suitable for residential development are
listed below and shown on the following map. Of the eight vacant sites,one has been desig-
nated by the General Plan for"Single Family Detached Residential"use,four for"Single
Family Attached Residential"use,and the remaining three for"Multi-Family ResidentiaV'
use. Six of the vacant sites are located within the City's coastal zone,and have Local Coas-
tal Program Land Use Plan designations consistent with their General Plan designations.
All the sites are zoned Planned Community CT-C). Three of the sites already have
adopted P.C. texts establishing the residential development standards. Tlie sites vary in
size from 6.3 to 60.0 gross acres,and have a capacity of 1,498 dwelling units. Each site cur-
rently has public facilities and services adjacent to it. Table 33 presents a summary of the
assessment made of all eight major vacantresidential sites. Directly following this table is
a description of each site.
Undeveloped Residential Sites*
Sito Numbe site
1. San Diego Creek South
2. Freeway Reservation East
3. Newporter North
4. Newport Center,Block 800
5. Villa Point Remnant
6. Castaways
7. Cal-Trans West
8. Newport Ranch
see map for site locations.
-38-
L
All,
r '3 Nik
:;p- 5N, �I
iw 110
)NN 0
010
M"M
U
WWII
TABIE33
UNDEVELOPED RESIDENTIAL SITES
Estimated
General Site Area Buildable
Plan L.C.P. zonmg D.U. (gross Density Acre Density
shr, Dzig. D&!dg Dxsi& CaPacitY zaas (d"4P) kaW4 (dulba)
Safi Diego Creek South hfFR MER, P-C 300 20.0 15.00 18.0 16.67
Freeway Reservation East SFA not in P-C 76 25.9 2.93 20.7 3.67
coastal zone
NewporterWorth SFA SFA P-C 212 253 8.38 24.1 8.80
Newport Center, NIFR not in P-C 245 63 38.89 63 38.89
Block800 coastalzone
Vilta Point Remnant NIFR NIFR P-C 90 9.5 9.47 3.7 2432
Castaways SED SFD P-C 151 60.0 2.52 34.8 4.34
CalTransWest SFA SFA PwC 152 13.6 11.18 102 14.90
Newport Ranch SFA SFA P-C 222 AS2 fim 2&Q 9M
Tot,11(s) 8 1,498 205.8 145.8
Averages(s) 728 10.27
Notes:
SED = Single Family Detached
SEA = SingleFamilyAttached
NIFR = Multiple-FamflyResidential
P-C = Planned Community
Source: 77se City of Newport Reach P[mmingDeparonent.
.......... ------
Site No. 1 3 SAN DIEGO CREEK SOPTH
%
N
$
C.0 0
General Plan Designation: 9 Other—AImpact of road noise
* Muld-FamilyResidential Public Facilities:
Local Coastal Program Designation: Streets, cable televisionlelectricallgaslsew-
erltelephonelwater lines, bicycle traiisopen space,
Multi-FamilyResidential andpark are available.
Zoning District: Allowable Uses:
* Flanned Community(F-C) * General Flan—Allocated 300 dwelling units
Area (acres): * Local Coastal Frogram—same as General Flan.
o Gross-20.0 o ZoningCode—AdqptcdP.0 Development Textre-
Net Buildable—18.0 qui.res amendment to establish development inten-
(estimate) sity and otherstandards.
Constraints:
Environmental— Froximity to San Diego Creek
an d Upper Ne wport Bay
-41 -
Site No. 2 FREEWAY RESERVAMN EAST
...... .........
":I
rn.i
'6t
4"
Q
General Plan Designation: Other—Impact of road noise, and limited access
potential
SiitgleFamilyA(IacitedResidetitiaI
Public Facilities:
Local Coastal Program Designation: Streets, cable televisionlelectricallgasIsew-
e (none,not in the coastatzone) erltelephonelwater lines, bicycle trallsopet;space,
andpark are aVallable.
Zoning District: Allowable Uses:
9 Planned Community(P-C)
* GeneralPlan—.Allocated 76dwallingunits
Area (acres): * Local Coastal Program—not applicable
• Gross—25.86
it ZonbsgCode - no adopted,P.C. Development
• Net Buildable—20.68 TWI
(estimate)
Constraints:
Etiviroiiincittal—Ripatiaitldraltiage area
-42-
Site No.3 NEWPOI(TER NORTH
. .SA
�4
A1715
V
General Plan Designation: Other—Impact of road and airplane flight track
noise,archaeological sites.
0 Single FamilyAttachedResidential
Public Facilities:
Local Coastal Program Designation: Streets, cable televisionlelectricallgaslsew-
Single FamilyAttachedResidential erltelephonelwater lines, bicycle trails, and open
space are available.
Zoning District: Allowable Uses:
* Planned Community(P-C) * GeneralPlan— Allocated a maximum 212 dwell-
Area (acres): ing units, the designation does not limit develop-
ment type.
• Gross—25.3
* Local Coastal Program—same as General Plan.
• Net Buildable— 24.1
(estimate) * Zoning Code—no adopted P.C Development Tad.
Constraints:
Enivironmental—PradmitytoUpperNewpoitBay
and rparian1welland areas, coastal bluffs and en-
dangeredflOIM
-43-
Site No. 4 NEWPORT CENTER BLOCK 800
3
NEWPO
c W7-
6
General Plan Designation: Other Impact of roadnolse
# Multi-Family Residential Public Facilities:
Local Coastal Program Designation: Streets, cable televisionlelectricallgaslsew-
erIfelephonelwater lines, bicycle traits, and open
o (itoijetiotiiiiiiecoastalzotte) space are available.
Zoning-District: Allowable Uses:
* Planned Community(P-C) * GeneralPlan—Allocated 245 dwelling units
Area (acres): e Local CoastalProgram —notapplicable
• Gross— 645 o Zoning Code—Adopted P.C.Development.Ted re-
quires amendment to adopt SiteDevelopmentPlan
• Net Buildable— 6.30 to establish development intensity and other stand-
(estimate) ards.
Constraints:
Environmental—(none)
-44-
Site No. 5 MILA POINT REMNANT
... "AG
C,
stAND
r
General Plan Designation: a Other—Impact of road and airplane flight track
noise,potentialarcliaeologicalandpateontologicaI
9 Multi-FamilyResidential site,potential R-O-Wforgrade separation.
Local Coastal Program Designation: Public Facilities:
Multi-FamilyResidential Streets, cable televisionlelectricallgaslsew-
erlteliphonelwater lines, bicycle trails, open space,
Zoning District: andpark are available.
Mixed—Planned Community(P-Q and Allowable Uses:
Unclassified(U) * GencralPlan— Allocated 90 dwelling units.
Area (acres): @ Local Coastal Program — same as General Plan
• Gross— 9.50
* Zoning Code—AdoptedP.C_Development Text re-
• Net Buildable— 3.7 quires amen&nent to establish development inten-
(estimate) sity and other standar&
Constraints:
Environmental— (none)
-45-
Site No. 6 CASTAWAYS
jil,V-�,
...........
.X
A
General Plan Designation: Other—Impact of road and airplane flight track
nolse,paleonfologicalsi(es.
Single Family Detached Residential
Public Facilities:
Local Coastal Program Designation:
e Streets, cable televisionlelectricallgasIsaw-
SliigleFanjilyDetacliedResideiiiiaI erlielephonelwater lines,bicycle trails, open space,
andpark am available.
ZoningDistrict:
Allowable Uses
Planned Community(P-C)
• GeneralPlen— Allocated a madmunt 151 dwell-
Area (acres): ing units, Ilse designation does not limit develop-
mew type.
• Grass-60.0
• Local Coastal Pro8ram — same as General Plan.
• NetBulldable— 34.8
(estimate) * Zoning Code—no adoptedAC.Development TW.
Constraints:
Environmental — Pwx1hilty to Upper Newport
Bay,rparfan1welland areas,and coastal bluffs.
46-
.z
Site No. 7 CALTRANSWEST
.............
ST
7,
X cov5s
0A
...........
AV
14 MW
jr7N
C:3 4�7 AR.
General Plan Designation: Odier—Impact of road noise
0 Single FamlyAltached Residential Public Facilities:
Local Coastal Program Designation: e Streets, cable televisionlelectricallgaslsew-
erltelephonelwater lines, bicycle trails, open space,
Single FamlyAttached Residential andpark are available.
Zoning District: Allowable Uses:
Planned Community(PLQ * General Plan — Allocated 152 dwelling units, the
designation does not limit development type.
Area (acres): e Local CoaYtal Program—same as General Platt.
• Gross— 13.6
* Zoning Code— Adopted P.C.Development TW.
• Net Buildable— 10.2
(estimate)
Constraints:
Environmental— (none)
-47-
Site No. 8 NEWPORT RANCH
.............. 4LI
.................
ow
OF �r
vp
UP'
PJA
lot
go!t
General Plan Designation: Other— Impact of road noise
* SingteFanjilyAttacliedResidetitiaI Ptiblic Facilities:
Local Coastal Program Designation: Streets, cable televislonlelectricallgasIsew-
erliclephonclivater lines, bicycle trails, open space,
SiiigleFattillyAttacliedResidetitiaI andpark am available.
Zoning District: Allowable Uses:
o Planned Community(P-Q Generalflah—Allocated272 total dwelling units,
113 to northernparcel,and 159 to southemparcel,
Area (acres): die designation does not limit development type or
mLaure of types, a portion of units may be trans-
• Gross—45.2 jeffedfrom south em to n orthern parcel.
• Net Buildable—28.0 Local Coastal Program — sameasGeneralPlan.
(estimate)
Zoning Code — Adopted P.C.Development TM
Constraints:
9 Environmental— Riparianlivetland areas, mod-
iftedcoastalbluffs,polentialhabitafforcisdaijgered
fauna.
-48-
Redevelopment and"Infill"
The following map identifies areas of the City with potential for redevelopment and/or in-
tensification of under utilized residential properties (infill). Several factors account for
this potential. These properties are typically located in the older sections of the City,built
prior to the 1950's when Newport Beach was primarily a weekend and/or summer"vaca-
tion home"community. This residential development usually involved a less intense par-
cel utilization than exists today. This type of development continued well into the post-war
period. With the expansion and improvement of the economy and circulation systems in
Southern California in the late 1950's, the character of residential development in New-
port Beach changed from that of vacation homes, to a fairly even mixture of permanent
residences and vacation homes, and finally to almost exclusively that of permanent
residences. During this period of change enough vacant land existed to meet the increas-
ing demand for housing. The housing demand had little effect on the City's older areas,
other than transforming the pattern of tenure from'occasional'to'permanent'. Whilethis
housing demand continued well into the 1980's sufficient vacant land existed to satisfy the
demand. In fact,for the last eight years the development activity in terms of net dwelling
units constructed on vacant sites versus "infill" has been almost 10 to 1 (2,101 d.u. com-
pared to 234 d.u. respectively). However, with the decrease in the amount of vacant
residential acreage,and the marked increase in the cost of both improved and vacant land,
both redevelopment and"infill" activities have started to increase.
Since 1979, the demolition and replacement of existing homes has averaged around 75
units per year,for a total of 731 dwelling units. Given the market factors discussed above,
this trend is expected to continue,if not increase,over the 5 year term of the Housing Ele-
ment. This means that approximately 375 newly constructed dwelling units will replace
older housing stock between 1989 and 1994. Table 34 details this replacement activity from
1981 until 1994,and also highlights the City's"infill"activity during the same span of time.
In the last three years the number of"infiff'units constructed on under utilized residential
properties has also averagedjust under 75 units per year. Projecting that another 375 dwell-
ing units will be constructed as "infill"units over the next 5 years is realistic and perhaps
conservative.
-49 -
RESIDENTIAL.:I. " INFILL" S I T E S
'ROSO
rv—
t I
N
'S'a
dr-w—U,
CITYOFNCWP XCACN-
c
TABLE34
"REPL4,CEMENT'AND"INFILU HOUSING IN NEWPORT BEACH
Cumulative
TOTAL TOTAL
Date of Actual Replace- Cumulative Cumulative (Replace. (Replace
Estimation Period of ment Replace. Infilit Infill + Infill) + Infiff
01 Jan.) Growth 4#� 4#� (&d-u� (#d.u� (#d.u.) (Ad.u.)
1981? 1980 67 67 53 53 IM 120
1982 1981 122 189 0 53 122 242
1983 1982 51 240 3 56 54 296
1984 1983 49 289 21 77 70 366
1985 1984 72 361 5 82 77 443
1986 1985 65 426 5 87 70 513
1987 1986 101 527 72 159 173 686
1988 1987 60 587 82 241 142 828
1989 1988 63 650 58 299 121 949
1990 1989 75 725 75 374 150 1099
1991 1990 75 800 75 449 150 1249
1992 1991 75 875 75 524 150 1399
1993 1992 75 950 75 599 150 1549
1994 1993 75 1025 75 674 150 1699
�The*#of d.u.given for"infill"represents the"neCincrease in units,and does not include"replacemene'
units.
2 The#of d.u.given,1981 to 1989(est.date),reflect the#submitted to DOF,based upon actual
final building permits,"by the Planning Department.
3 The#of d.u.given,1990 to 1994(est.date)reflect the average#estimated by the Planning Department
based upon the available land,market study and trend analysis.
Sources. 77te State Department of Finance and the City of NewpoitBeach
-51-
Energy Conservation Opportunities
The City of Newport Beach is fully enforcing the provisions,of Title 24 of the California
Adn M—strative Code, which provides for energy conservation in new residences. The
standards found in Title 24 create energy savings of approximately 501yo over residential
construction practices utilized prior to the Standards'enactment.
The building department of the city evidences an awareness of energy conserving design
innovations and solar technology. The department utilizes the Solar Systems Code Review
Manual and its companion document, the Pool and Spa Solar Systems Code Review
Manual,both published by the International Conference of Building Officials (1CBO) to
facilitate the installation of appropriate solar systems.
Underthe existing statelaw(the California Resources Code),localjurisdictions may adopt
structural energy conservation standards in excess of the existing state standard. In the
moderate climate of the City of Newport Beach,such an increase in standards would be of
dubious value. Additionally, it should be noted that increases in conservation standards
generallyincrease homebuyers'costs and will therefore exacerbate the existing housing af-
fordability concern.
The City of Newport Beach has a relatively small remaining amount of land available for
residential development. As such,land use standards which would require proper orien-
tation of subdivisions to take advantage of solar energy would be of limited value. The city
maywish to explore this option;however,carezhould be taken to insure that densities,and
therefore affordability, are not unduly affected.
Amajor concern in the area of energy conservation is the relationship of housing to employ-
ment and the necessary transportation lines between them. While specific energy savings
are difficult to quantity because of the myriad of variables involved in our transportation
system, it is generally true that a physical proximity between home and work provides
transportation energy savings. With regard to Newport Beach, the existing affordability
concern increases energy use by forcing workers employed within the city to seek less ex-
pensive housing outside of the city. Again,it should be noted here that the relatively small
amount of remaining land for residential development cannot in itself mitigate this con-
cem. 'fbejobs/housing imbalance in the city cannot be expected to be totally mitigated by
residential development within the city.
-52-
With regard to other"alternative"energy sources, it should be noted that Newport Beach
is not in an area of either geothermal'or significant wind2 activity and, therefore, cannot
take advantage of these sources.
It appears that the city,through the enforcement of Title 24 and by its sensitivity to innova-
tive design is maldng excellent use of residential energy conservation opportunities.
,Housing Needs
In accordance with State housing element law the Southern California Association of
Governments (SCAG) has prepared a Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) to
assess the housing need for each jurisdiction within the region. This model was prepared
for the five year period 1989-1994. The RHNA assesses Newport Beach's portion of the
housing units needed to satisfy, the housing needs resulting from projected growth in the
region. In order to accommodate the projected growth in the region SCAG estimates that
the City needs to target its housing unit production at sufficient units to accommodate 1,774
new households. Since Newport Beach has a vacancy rate that is somewhat higher than
the generalized"ideaVvacancy rate used throughout the region some of this new household
growth can be satisfied by vacant units currently in existence. Taldng into consideration
the 77 excess vacant units that currently exist only 1,697 additional new units would be
needed to accommodate the projected five year growth of 1,774 households. SCAG also
estimates that 365 dwelling units will be demolished and need replacement during the next
five years. Therefore,the total new housing unit production projected by SCAG for New-
port Beach during the five year period 1989-1994 is 2,062 units. State law also requires
SCAG to distribute these new units on the basis of income and in doing so avoid further
impaction of localities with relatively high proportions of low income households. Third
and finally, it is required that the existing housing need be assessed. SCAG assessed this
need by using the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) standard of
overpayment. Households overpaying are households with incomes below 80% of the
county's median household income and paying more than 30% of their income toward
housing/shelter. SCAG estimated existing need by applying the percentage of overpaying
households enumerated in the 1980 Census to the current City population. Using this
method of estimation the existing need in Newport Beach is 4,431 households. The tables
below showthe future need for housing in Newport Beach and its distribution by income
group as calculated by the RHNA.
1 California Energy Commission, Geothermal Energy Resources in California:
Status Report,June 1976.
2 California Energy Commission.
-53-
TABLE35
PROJECTED REGIONAL DEMAND IN NEWPORT BEACH
1989-1994
Household Net Vacancy Demolition Total
Growth Adjustment A4iuqtment NewlJmts
1,774 units -77 units 365 units , 2,062
TABLE36
TOTAL NEW UNITS DISTRIBUTED BY INCOME
VeryLow Lower Moderate High low
299 408 359 996 2,062
14.5% 19.8% 17.4% 48.3% 10090
Non-Governmental Constraints
Community Attitudes
The citizenry inNewport Beach is well-organized through neighborhood homeowners as-
sociations and community environmental groups. In these circles, a strong public senti-
ment pervades with regard to preserving the suburban environment in the City. Inthepast,
opposition has been voiced against increased commercial and office uses in the City and
against expansion of the adjacentJohn Wayne Airport. Higher density residential develop-
ment is also opposed by much of the populace in Newport Beach,due to concerns regard-
ing traffic,congestion and perceived infrastructural Ifintitations.
There exists a growing public attitude in Newport Beach, as wen a&in the country as a
whole,that government regulation of the marketplace should belimited. Therefore,hous-
ing policies which GUIDE development toward social goals rather than REGULATE
development are generally more compatible with local public attitudes. For example,the
regulation of housing prices is an unacceptable area for government intervention for a
majority of Newport Beach residents.
54-
Public sentiment is noted as a constraint because of its influence on local officials and be-
cause of the ability of citizens to set development policies and zoning through the initia-
tive process.
Market Impacts on Development Costs
The growing market demand for housing in Newport Beach and the relatively small sup-
ply of remaining vacant residential acreage in the City has had a strong impact on the finan-
cial aspects of residential development in the City. The greatest impact of this market
demand on cost of new housing is seen in the price of residential land in the City.
Land costs vary as much within Newport Beach as they do within Orange County. General-
ly though, they are much higher than land costs in other areas of the county,reflecting the
desirability of the area for its proxvi mity to amenities,and its reputation as a favored residen-
tial community. Information submitted to the City by developers in the course of process-
ing residential development approvals and reviewed by professional real estate appraisers
indicates that raw land in the City zoned for multiple family residential use(approximately
20 units/acre),with a water orientation, has a MINIMUM market value of 3.5-4.0 million
dollars per acre; and the market value of raw,land in Newport Beach with similar poten-
tial land use,but without water orientation,is a minimum of$890,000 per acre. By way of
comparison, available information indicates that comparable sites in Huntington Beach
and in Costa Mesa,range between.44-.57 million dollars per acre.
Density increases are often set forth as a method to decrease land cost components of hous-
ing costs. While density increases may or may not decrease land costs on a per unit basis,
sales prices of units in project approvals granted by the City in recent years indicate that
density increases do not necessarily have any effect on the cost of housing to consumers.
For example, density increases allowed in two 1981 projects did not substantially decrease
the cost of the units to an affordable level; in these instances, units ranging in size from
1,324 to 1,675 square feet, and built at a density of 25 units per acre, sold in a range of
$179,900 to $199,900. The developer of a fourteen unit condominium project approved
for development in early 1984 at a density of 29.2 units per acre proposed to market two-
bedroom units of 800 square feet, 1,250 square feet, and 1,500 square feet for $145,000,
$185,000,and$235,000 respectively. Higher density project approvals that are not condi-
tioned upon price controls thus do not substantially reduce the cost of housing to consumers
in the City at least in the examples cited.
In addition,high residential densities involving buildings taller than three stories will great-
ly increase unit marketability in many areas of the City because of the addition of a view
factor. Regardless of square footage or density, a unit with a Newport Beach view can be
marketed as a luxury condominium and will command an extremely high price on the
market.
Higher land costs in the City are the main factor in higher square footage costs for hous-
ing provision. High land costs also trigger higher costs in other areas of development. To
balance the price of land, developers must increase amenities within the housing unit as
-55 -
well as within the community area in order tojustify the higher prices paid for land. Thus,
a higher land price is the factor that triggers increased development costs "across the
board." Table 37-shows estimated land and construction costs for four projects constructed
during the early 1980s.
Financing Constraints
High interest rates substantially reduce the home purchasing potential of homebuying
households. New homebuyers-especially find that the housing product they can afford is
substantially less than their expectation. The difficulty in producing housing which is af-
fordable to first-time homebuyers is thus compounded.
While the cost of production has increased, the purchasing power of customers has
decreased. Because development costs in Newport Beach are higher than in other areas
of the state,housing is even further out of the reach of first-time homebuyers.
With savings and loan institutions and other home loan lenders experiencing higher costs
in attracting funds,it is extremely difficult for the fixed rate,long-term mortgage to be used
as the primary mortgage instrument for housing finance purposes. Consequently,variable
rate mortgages,equity appreciation mortgages,and other techniques are being promoted.
This smorgasbord of"creative financing"helps to maintain a higher levelof capital for hous-
ing than might otherwise be available.
Table 38 shows how changes in interest rates affect payments on a $150,000 loan. A loan
of this amount would allow a moderate-income household to purchase one of the lowest
cost condominiums or townhouses in Newport Beach.
TABLE38
THE EFFECT OF CHANGES IN INTEREST RATES
OF THE AFFORDABILITY OF A$150,000 LOAN'
Interest Monthly Income %Able
Rate Paymen kLecdecP to Affo
8% $1,300 $440230 54%
9% $1,390 $47)660 50%
10% $1,500 $51,430 45%
11% $1,610 $55,200 40%
12% $1,720 $59,310 35%
13% $1,830 $62,740 32%
1 Assumes a 30-year,fixed rate Mortgage. 2 Mortgage plus insurance and taxes.
3 Assumes a maximum of 35%.of income is spent on mortgage payments,insurance and
taxes. 4 Based on the estimated distribution of household income in Newport Beach in 1989.
Source: Connerly&Associates,Inc.
-56-
TABLE37
COMPARISON OF COSTS FOR FOUR SIMUAR PROJECTS
Average Sales Bldg Land&
Total Square Total Average Price Const Bldg
No.of Footage Price of Price Land Construe- Per Cost per Cost per
Emiec Jbjjjj Per Unit All Unots Per Uni C.Qu toon Cost Sq.FL Sam Sq.Ft
1317 E.Balboa Blvd. 4 2137 $1,180,000 $295,000 $250,000 $ 769,000 $139.50 $90.9 $120.46
Spinnaker Bay 10 1004 2,000,000 200,000 8W,000 710,000 199.20 70.72 151.41
LA
487 Morning Canyon Road 14 129 2,810,000 200,714 950,000 1,434,600 155.25 79.26 13L75
311 Carnation Avenue 4 3390 2,579,000 644,750 810,000 1,428,000 L%.19 10531 165.04
Source. Tarantella&Company.
TABLE39
SALES PRICE COMPONENTS OF RESIDENT]ALFROJECTS
IN NEWPORT BEACH AND ORANGE COUNTY
Single-Family Townhouses and
Detached Condominium
Sales Price Category Oran=Coun NcMmrt Beacl? Oranee Coun Nowrt Bea
Direct Costs
Land 1296 28% 11,70 1190
Site Improvements 13% 8% no/0 4%
Community.Amenities 2% 0 5% 3%
Construction 5M 26ffi 2ffi 4M
TOTAL 78% 62% 78% 60%
Indirect
00 Financing 50/0 16% 69o' 19%
Sales&Marketing 4% 9% 4% 5%
Gross Profit 10% 8% 8% 12%
Overhead and Contingencies --iffi 1% 3M 40/-
TOTAL 22% 38% 21% 40%
Sources. 1 77te Cost ofHousing in Orange County, 77te Orange County Cost of Housing Committee,Febrawy 20,197&
TotalprojecissurveWd.- 11.
2 Based on one singfe-fivnity and one condominiumproject constructed and sold in Newport Reach in 1981.
Developers'Perceptions of Marketability
Perceptions by developers of the marketability of newly-constructed housing units also
constitute a constraint upon the development of housing for all income levels. In order to
attract a specific segment of the market, developers frequently include in their housing
developments a variety of amenities not required under the City's zoning,subdivision and
building codes. These amenities include increased amounts of open space,additional park-
ing spaces, and lower densities than are required under City regulations. While the City
can and does impose mininum.requirements regarding amenities,it does not,and can not
realistically,prevent developers from imposing more stringent requirements on themsel-
ves.
As Table 40 shows, developers of larger residential projects in Newport Beach have his-
torically chosen not to develop at the highest density permitted on their parcels:
TABLE40
COMPARISON OF MAXIMUM PERMITTED
DENSITIES AND ACTUAL DENSITY OF CONSTRUCTED
HOUSING UNITS BY PROJECT
Ma)dmum No.of Constructed
Permitted Units Units Per
Prqiect P= A= Density iluilt A=
Westcliff 1952-1967 4933 SRF(8/A) 1649 3.34
Cameo Shores 1958 64.1 SFR(81A) 177 2.63
Irvine Terrace 1959-1963 152.5 SRF(8/A) 416 2.73
Harbor View West 1959-1967 97.6 SIR(8/A) 266 2.7
Cameo Highlands 1960 44.3 SIR(8/A) 142 3.2
Eastbluff 1963 165.33 SIR(8/A) 462 2.79
Harbor View East 1966-1971 167.2 SFR(8/A) 490 2.93
Harbor View Homes 1968-1972 321.2 SRF(8/A) 1,169 3.64
Big Canyon 1970-1972 165.2 SRF(8/A) 476 2.88
Spyglass Hill 1971-1972 155.6 SFR(8/A) 350 2.25
Jasmine Creek
Ist Phase 1973 SFR(8/A) 379 4.39
2nd Phase 1973 10/A 346 4.0
3rd Phase 1976 10/B.A. 324 3.74
Broadmoor Seaview 1976 51.4 175 units 167
Harbor Ridge 1977-1978 1663 4/73A. 392 2.36
Big Canyon-Area 10 1983 7.2 10/B.A 21 2.92
Source: City of Newport Beach PlanningDeparinjent.
_59-
Development approvals granted by Newport Beach In early 1984 indicate that,developers
are continuing to exceed City standards with respect to project amenities. The following
table distinguishes between the level of amenities required by the City and those proposed
by the developer,on three attached residential projects:
TABLE41
COMPARISON OF REQUIRED AMENITIES AND
AMENITIES PROPOSED BY DEVELOPER
city Developer
EEW= Amenity Requirement Proposal
406E.BayAve. Parking Spaces 15 spaces 20 covered sp.
(10 covered)
Open Spaces 22,126 cu.ft. 59,346 cu.ft.
311 Carnation Density Up to 17 units 4 units
Parking Spaces 6 spaces 9 spaces
Open Spaces 14,040 cu.ft. 148,700 cu.ft.
487MorningCyn. ParkingSpaces 21 Spaces 32 Spaces
Lot Coverage Up to 60% 3617b
Source.- City ofNewpoifBeach PlanningDepartinent.
As cited examples indicate, developers have historically imposed amenity requirements
upon their own residential projects that are more stringent or restrictive than those man-
dated by City regulations. Whether this is done due to marketingperceptions or for other
reasons,these self-imposed amenity requirements are a constraint,over which the City has
no control, to least-cost housing.
Governmental Constraints
11is section of the Housing Element addresses actual and potential City governmental
constraints upon the development of housing for all income levels. Examples of such con-
straints include land use controls (zoning),building codes and their enforcement, site im-
provements, fees and local processing, and permit procedures. In many of these areas,
localities have varying degrees of discretion to modify state standards for local implemen-
60-
tation and/or conditions. Also included in this analysis are constraints created by specific
State regulations.
TABLE42
EXISTING RESIDENTIAL USE
BY DENSITY CATEGORY
Estimated Gross Dwelling No.of Units
Residential Density Acrean Units Per Gross Acre
0-4 units per acre 2,261 6,770 2.99
4-10 units per acre 1,185 6,927 5.85
10-15 units per acre 274 3,216 11.74
15-25 units per acre 566 11,071 19.56
25+ units per acre 2Q §�953 27.48
TOTAL 4,539 34,937 7.70
Source. City of Newport Beach Planning.Depaitment.Land Use Summary
(January 1984).
In Newport Beach, as previously mentioned in the discussion of site availability, there is a
relatively limited supply of vacant land remaining for development. Only eight vacant
parcelsof developable residential land remain in Newport Beach. This limitation on the
supply of land, and the accompanying existing urban development patterns of the City,
serve to shape its land use regulations. This analysis of the regulations takes these cir-
cumstances into consideration.
The Planning Process
A. General Comments. TheCity Planning Department is divided along traditional lines
into sections for current and advance planning.
The Current Planning section performs zoning administration and related functions.
The Advance Planning section concerns itself with the general plan, local coastal
plan, and related types of activities.
The organization of the department is rather typical and fiinctions well, as the for-
mal and informal coordinating methods facilitate communication and minhinize
redundancy. The Building Department is a separate entity; however, the essential
communication between these distinct departments is open. The critical relation-
- 61 -
ship of zoning administration and the building permii process is working wen and
does not cause undue delays in processing.
B. The City Council maintains a"Council Policy ManuaVon a formal basis. This manual
is comprised of Council Policies formulated on a motion of a council member and
voted by a majority of the quorum present. The manual allowsthe Council,to express
policyregarding planning and land use issues without the formalities of an ordinance
proceeding. The manual has no force or effect of law,however it does have a bind-
ing effect on the council and City staff.
C. The Newport BeachGeneral'Plan includes Und Use,Circulation,Housing,Recrea-
tion and Qpen Space,Public Safety,and Noise Elements;all are mandated by State
law. The Newport Beach General Plan has been revised periodically since 1973.
Its provisions receive frequent review, however, in the amendment process, and
through adoption of related policies, documents, and ordinances such as the local
coastal plan and the traffic phasing ordinance.
The City General Plan Amendment (GPA) process is administered in accordance
with Council policy. All amendments are initiated by the City,some of which are at
the request of a property owner. This system eliminates the need for a comprehen-
sive application process and for an amendment fee. It also provides the City with
substantial control over the amendment process. In practice, the major difference
between the City's procedure and an application process is as follows. The City has
the ability to decide if the amendmentwillbe initiated(heard). This decisionprocess
need not include an exposition of the merits of the request for amendments. In the
case of an application process,while ultimately the application maybe denied,it can-
not be summarily dismissed without a hearing on its merits. The application has paid
a fee which entitles the applicant to a hearing through a specified process. The
"recommending"property owner in the City has no such guarantee. It should also be
noted,because GP amendments are City initiated, the time linuitations of state law
do not apply to this process.
D. The Zoning Code of the City is complex but not atypical for an already highly ur-
banized community. The code uses a district concept which is appropriate to the
diverse urban patterns and topography found in the City. The Zoning Code contains
six basic zoning districts (excluding Planned Community districts and other special-
ized districts) to regulate residential uses within the city. These zoning districts are
R-A (residential agricultural), R-1 (single family residential), R-1.5 (single family
residential and duplex),R-2(single family and duplex),R-3 (single and multi-fami-
ly residential) and R-4 (single and multi-family residential). Table 80 summarizes
the Zoning Code provisions for residential density,height,set-backs,and parking for
the R-A, R-1, R-1.5, R-2, R-3, and R-4 districts, as well as the Newport Shores
Specific plan for comparison purposes. These density requirements follow the
General Plan Land Use Element policies. Maximum densities range from eight to
thirty-four units per net acre(excluding streets and unbuildable areas)in single fami-
ly and duplex zones(R-1,R-1.5,R-2). The Zoning Code establishes different build-
-62-
ing area standards for various residential districts within the City. Within the R-1.5
District,gross floor area cannot exceed 1.5 times the buildable area of a site. The R-
2 District allows a 2.0 maximum floor area ratio throughout most of the City;however,
in Corona del Mar a maximum of 1.5 times the buildable area is permitted due to the
existing high density and traffic congestion in the area. Although this may restrict
maximum residential usage,it is justified because of limited parking area and street
capacities in these districts. Both districts permit duplexes.
Maximum densities in the multifamily zones(R-3 and R-4)depend on the configura-
tion of the lot,as lot area per dwelling unit restrictions apply. In the R-3 zone,a min-
imum lot area per dwelling unit of 1,200 square feet is required,which translates to
a maximum density of 36 units per net acre. In the R-4 zone,the 800 square feet per
dwelling unit requirement translates to a maximum density of 58 units per net acre.
Table 34 provides examples of actual residential densities,which range from 6.59 to
49.1 units per gross acre, with an average density of 19.4 units per gross acre. The
following hypothetical example shows how the various zoning requirements interact
on an R-4 zoned lot. This example is intended for informational purposes, not as a
typical probable outcome.
Assume a flat site of one acre (43,560 square feet) square. The 800 square feet per
dwelling unit requirement would allow the construction of 54 units. These 54 units
would have to be placed in a building(s)which did not exceed yard setback require-
ments. In the R-4 zone, required setbacks leave a buildable area of about 34,200
square feet. A minimum of 81 off-street parking spaces are required. If parking is
provided at grade, about 20,000 square feet of area would remain for the 54 units.
These units would require about 15,300 square feet if developed in a three-story
structure. About 5,000 square feet of lot area would remain for common areas, on-
site amenities, and landscaping.
-63 -
TABLE 43
SUMMARY OF ZONING CODE PROVISIONS BY DISTRICT
CITYOFNEWPORTBEACH
R-A R-1(SX. R-1.5 R-2 R-3 R4� Newport Shores
Z&nt ka &DuRlex) (S.F.) (Duplex) (Multi.) (Muld Spes:1fic Plan
HeighJ 24?/W 2V1W 24?/W 24?/W 28t32! 28')3T 20W
Min.Lot 6,000 sqfL 5,000-sqAj 5,ODO Sameas Sameas Sameas
size 6,000 comer sq1t. R-1 R-1 R-1
lots
ch Min.Lot 60 ft. 5D fL/60& Sameas Sameas Same as
vvidth comer lots R-1 R-1 R-1
Parking 11/2 Same Same Same Same Same
spaces/unit
FloorArea:2 L5110 L5 1.5/2.0 1.5t3.0 1-5a(p 2-0
Ratio
Lot Coverage 40% 100%less Sameas
setbacks R-1
FrontYard' 20 fL 20 ftJ Same as Sameas Same.as Same as 5 fr5
(Mindmax) 35A. R-1 R-1 R-1� R-1 5
TABLE43(Con't.)
SUMMARY OF ZONING CODE PROVISIONS BY DISTRICT
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
F-A R-1 R-1.5 R-2 R-3 R4
Zone f911 J&F (DuWex) (multi.) (multi.) Specific Plan
A MU
Side Yard 10%of lot 3 fL or Same as Same as Same as 8%Of lot Sameas
width(3minJ 41 R-1 R-1 R-1� width(3 R-1
6'max.) stories or
less) + 20/,
for each addi
tional story
up to 25 ft.
Rear Yard� 20%of lot 10 ft. Same as Same as Same-as Same as 50
depth(15'min./ R-1 R-1 R-l� R-l�
25'max.)
Minimum Lot width x Lot width x Lot width x Lot width x 10%Of
Open Space height limit height limit height limit height limit buildable
x6ft. x6ft. x6ft. x6ft.
Lot Area Per 1,000 sqfL 1,000 sqfL 1200 sq.ft. 800 sqft. 1200 sqft
Dwelling (I or 2 units)
11500 sqft.
1 Lower number is the basic height limit,which can be increased to higher number upon approval of a use permit in each case. (3+ units)
2 The 1.5 F�A_R.applies to Old Corona del Mar and Balboa Island only. FA.R.does not-include open decks,balconies,or patios.
3 Excludes building area used for parking
4 Twenty feet,unless otherwise specified on districting maps.
5 Other special yard and building distance requirements may apply.
Source: City of NeRport Beach PlanningDeparftnent.
The amount of space for on-site amenities could be increased to 16,000 square feet
if parking is placed underground. Otherwise,the number of units would have to be
decreased,probably to less than 40 units, in order to provide enough space for on-
site amenities.
�In practice, the densities allowed under Newport Beach's land use regulations are
high to moderate in comparison to many other communities of a shmilar size. This
is evidenced by the larger percentage of multi-family housing in Newport Beach than
in neighboringjurisdictions.
The current parking standards set forth in the Zoning Code generally require 1.5 off-
street parking spaces (including one covered space),per dwelling unit in the R-1,R-
1.5,9-2, R-3, and R-4 districts. For all residential development within the Coastal
Zone, the Coastal Commission requires 2 parking spaces per residential-unit. The
amount of parking spaces currently required in residential districts under the New-
port Beach Zoning Code are appropriate in light of the lack of available on-street
parking in those districts and the heavy traffic congestion throughout Newport Beach
during the summer and holiday periods; this parking requirement also compares
reasonably with residential parking standards mandated for similar residential dis-
tricts by other municipalities in Orange County,and is lower than the parking stand-
ard generally imposed by the County of Orange. A standard of two parking spaces
per unit has generally been included in Planned Community Districts.
The Zoning Code establishes five height zones within Newport Beach: the24/28foot
height Iffinitation zone, the 28/32 foot height limitation zone, the 26/35 foot height
limitation zone, the 32/50 foot height limitation zone, and the high rise (375 feet)
height limitation zone. The high rise height limitation zone covers approximately
7%of the land within Newport Beach,including the Newport Center,Aeronutronic
Ford,and portions of the North Ford parcels. The 32/50 foot height limitation zone
permits structures of up to fifty feet in elevation, pursuant to an adopted Planned
Community District text or a Specific Area Plan or approval of a use permit. A fifty
foot height restriction allows development of residential structures with five stories.
The 32/50 foot height limitation zone covers approximately 159o' of the land in New-
port Beach, including Cal Trans West, Castaways,Newport Ranch, and portions of
West Newport Beach.
Multi-family residential structures within the 28/32 and 32/50 foot height limitation
zones can be constructed to a height of three stories without a use permit or other
discretionary approval'. Numerous multi-family residential structures in the City
have been developed to a height of three stories. Table 44 sets forth a partial inven-
tory of these developments, as follows:
-66-
TABLE44
MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS
OF THREE OR MORE STORIES
No.of units
Project Stories Enka Per Acre
Versailles 3 255 37.0
Lido Condominiums 9 54 49.1
621 Lido Park Drive 8 36 21.2
Caribe 6 48 36.9
Rendezvous 3 24 32.0
Oakwood 3 1,450 44.9
Park Newport 4 1,302 24.5
Premonitory Point 3 520 15.8
Balboa Bay Club 5 144 34.7
Villa Balboa 3 418 32.2
The Beachhouse 3 226 40.1
Las Brisas Apartments 3 54 37.0
Seaview Lutheran Plaza 3 161 44.9
The Towers 7 28 54.3
Source. CiiyofNewporiBeacItPlaiiiiitjgDepartntent.
The City's Zoning Code provides for a modifications committee made up of the Planning
Director,the Public Works Director,and the Building Director or their designated repre-
sentative. Whenever a strict interpretation of the Zoning Code, or its application to any
specific case or situation, would preclude a reasonable use of property not otherwise al-
lowed under the zoning regulations,the modifications committee is authorized to modify
requirements relating to building setbacks, encroachments, size and location of parking
spaces,lot line adjustments,and related matters. The Zoning Code also provides a proce-
dure under which variance from the zoning regulations may be granted whenever the af-
fected property owner shows that there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances
applying to the land,building, or use which do not generally apply, that it is necessary for
the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights,and that it will not material-
ly affect adversely the health or safety of persons and will not be detrimental to the public
welfare or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood.
-67-
The requirements of residential zones are augmented by several special designations-
• Planned residential development.
• Planned community district (including special requirements in mapped coastal bluff
areas identified in the Zoning Code).
• Specific plan districts.
• "B"Districts.
• Mobile Home Park Districts.
Planned Residential Development: This procedure allows the development of land of suf-
ficient area to create a better designed development than under customary zoning regula-
tions. Maximum lot coverage is set at 409o', and minimum dwelling unit living area is
established at 1,000 square feet in R-1 and R-2 districts and 600 square feet in R-3 and R-
4 districts.
Planned Community Districts: This procedure permits the development of large areas
under a coordinated plan proposed by the developer. Non-residential and residential land
uses may be combined in a single development. The plan may depart from traditional
zoning standards as approved by the city on a case-by-case basis.
Specific Plan Districts. These are area wide plans adopted by the City,but not with regard
to a particular development. Specific plans include development standards which may
depart from or augment the traditional zoning. Specific plans have been adopted for Can-
nery Village/McFadden Square,Newport Shores and Mariner's Mile.
The Newport Shores specific plan permits single-family and duplex residences outright and
multifamily residences subject to a use permit. Cannery Village/McFadden Square Plan
allows mixed uses, single family, multifamily residences. The Mariners' Mile area is all
commercial uses.
"B"Districts, Where R-1, R-2, R-3 or R-4,districts are combined with a "B" district, the
development standards in Table 82 govern.
Mobile Home ParkDistrict: There is an overlay zone which maybe applied to encourage,
maintain and protect existing mobile home park uses. Once applied,this overlay designa-
tion cannot be removed unless certain findings are made and a phase-out plan,including
relocation assistance and programs to mitigate the housing impacts upon tenants with low
and moderate incomes,who are elderly, or who are handicapped,have been approved by
the City Council.
Traffic PhasingDrdinance: An important part of zoning review is,the City's traffic phasing
ordinance, which directly impacts the allowable land uses in the community. The traffic
-68-
phasing ordinance (TPO)was adopted by the Council in response to growing community
concern over traffic congestion at critical intersections. The TPO provides that each
development which qualifies must be analyzed to determine which intersections it impacts
and the level of impact. If the anticipated generation will produce a level of service worse
than level"D" at the intersection, or increase traffic flow 1% on any leg of a critical inter-
section, mitigation measures must be provided by the developer. The "qualifying'
threshold which brings a development under the TPO is 10,000 covered square feet for a
commercial or industrial development, or 10 dwelling units for a residential I develop-
ment.
Condominium Conversion Ordinance: Another component of the Zoning Code which im-
pacts allowable land uses is the City's Condominium Conversion Ordinance. This or-
dinance requires, in addition to the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act, a use permit
for conversions of existing rental units to condominium use. Chapter 20.73 of the Zoning
Code specifies that no condominium conversions will be permitted on lots smaller than
5,000 square feet or under market conditions where the multifamily vacancy rate is less
than5%. Overriding considerations are provided;however,these standards have acted to
substantially limit the number of conversions in the City since adoption of the ordinance
in 1979.
Several affects of this ordinance have been observed within the Newport Beach housing
market.
• The ordinance acts to preserve concentrations of rental housing in older beach neigh-
borhoods which are developed at higher densities and where infrastructure deficien-
cies are evident.
• To make the rental of duplex housing financially feasible,owners frequently rent units
at winter rates to students and at higher summer rates to vacationing households. To
afford winter rates,students often"double up",causing overcrowded conditions. Park-
ing demand is also increased by this type of usage. Tbus, beach area rental housing,
and especially duplex housing,causes a higher rate of utilization and a greater demand
on neighborhood services than owner-occupied housing.
-69-
TABLE45
SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS IN COMBINING-W DISTRICT
COMBINING DF-SIGNATIONIk
Building Site Area 6,000 Square Feet
Lot Width 60 feet
Lot Length 80 feet
FrontYard 20 feet
Rear Yard 6 feet
Side Yard 6 f eet
Maximum Coverage 60 percent
COMBINING DF-grGNATION B-1
Building Site Area 7,500 Square Feet
Lot Width 75 feet
Lot Length 90 feet
Front Yard 35 feet
Rear Yard 7 feet
Side Yard 7 feet
Maximum Coverage 60 percent
COMBINING DF-SIGNATION 13-2:
Building Site Area 10,ODO Square Feet
Lot Width 90 feet
Lot Length 100 feet
Front Yard 15 feet
Rear Yard 10 feet
Side Yard 10 feet
Maximum Coverage 60 percent
COMBINING DF-SIGNATION13-I&
Building Site Area 20,000 Square Feet
LotWidth 00 feet
Lot Length 150 feet
Front Yard 15 feet
Rear Yard 10 feet
Side Yard 10 feet
Maximum Coverage 60 percent
MIMMUMSITE AREA PER DWELLTNG U
-R--L -R-1 JL-4
B 3000 sq.ft. 1500 sqft. IZO sq.ft.
B-1 3000 sq.ft. 1500 sq.ft. 1250 sq.ft
B-2 3000 sq.ft. 2000,sqft. 1500 sq.ft.
B-3 3000 sq.ft 2000 sq.ft. 1500 sq.ft.
Source. City of NewponBeach Mimicipal Code Cljapter20.18
-70-
The Subdivision Process
The City of Newport Beach implements the State Subdivision Map Act through a local im-
plementation ordinance. This appears as Title 19 of the Municipal Code,and is titled,"Sub-
divisions." The basi'c text of the ordinance was published in January 1974 and revised in
1982. The basic provisions of the Subdivision Code are similar to those of most jurisdic-
tions of this size.
The Code also contains design standards which provide minimum criteria for develop-
ment. The standards set forth are not unreasonably restrictive and,as in the case of street
width,provide for reductions of standards if appropriate. Such reductions are made at the
Planning Commission level,subject to City Council approval based on a demonstration of
justification for reasons of topography or the number of lots served.Such provisions allow
flexibility in the application of the ordinance and potentially reduce development costs.
In addition to the above-described design standards, the Subdivision Code also addresses
"Improvements".This section requires street trees,the undergrounding of utilities,and the
use of ornamental street lighting. While such improvement standards may be deemed im-
portant for quality of life considerations,they are not essential to maintain minimurnhealth
and safety requirements and will add to the cost of development.
Also included in the Subdivision Code is a provision for the dedication of parkland. The
dedication of parkland and/or the provision of in lieu fees is a requisite to the-approval of
a final subdivision map. In 1983, the City amended its parkland dedication provisions in
response to changes in State law regarding park dedications; the City's parkland dedica-
tion requirements, as amended in, 1983, are substantially identical to the State statutory
framework.
Specific provisions of the City's subdivision and design controls which may constrain hous-
ing production are described below.
Required Street Widths
a. Major Streets orHighways. Minimum right-of-way shall be 120 feet;minimum pave-
ment width between curbs, 100 feet.
b. Pfimary Streets orHighways. Minimum right-of-way shall be 100 feet;minimumpave-
ment width between curbs, 80 feet.
C. Secondary Streets or Highways. Minimum right-of-way shall be 84 feet; mim'11111111
pavement width between curbs, 64 feet.
d. Local Streets. Minimum right-of-way shall be 60 feet;minimum pavement width be-
tween curbs,40 feet..
71-
e. Cul-De-Sac Streets and Service Roads. When not over 350 feet in length, the M' Imi-
mumright-of-way shall be 60 feet;mmimium.pavementwidth between curbs,40 feet.
E Two-Level Streets. Minimum rigbt-of-way, 60 feet -- variable according to grade,
pavement widths,two sections,each 20 feet curb face to curb face.
g. Parkways. Parkways between curbs and sidewalks shall be requited,and established
at a mm' imumwidth of 5 feet. Compliancewith policies recommended by the Parks,
Beaches, and Recreation Department, and adopted by the City Council,pertaffiffig
to parkways,shall be required. (1949 Code Section 9254.14 added by Ord.650; Oc-
tober 8, 1951,a&amended by Ord. (35;August 22, 1960.)
h. Alleys. Minimum width shall be 20 feet in residential areas.
Park Dedication Standards
Park land dedication requirements are,computed by the following formula: Average num-
ber of persons per unit x 5 acres/1000. Park fees in lieu of land dedication are computed
by the following formula: Averge number of persons per unit x 5 acres/1000 x land cost.
Location of Structures
Newport Beach has developed around and along extremely unique and valuable land forms
and resource areas. The City's cbarm and character,as well as the value of residential and
commercial property, are all tied to preserving, protecting, and enhancing Upper and
Lower Newport Bay,the oceanfront beaches,and other valuable resources within the City.
The City's commitment to preservation and enhancement of these areas is demonstrated
by its role in the Upper Newport Bay restoration project. 71he City was the lead agency in
both the development and administration of this project.
The natural resources within the City are enjoyed by residents and visitors alle. Given
the value of ocean or bayfront property,there is constant pressure to develop property in
and around the bay and beaches. While the City remains committed to protect private
property rights,it is also committed to regulate the placement of buildings and structures
in areas adjacent to valuable natural resources or environmentally sensitive habitats.
1. Development of Coastal Bluff Sites. Natural coastal bluffs represent a significant
scenic and environmental resource. As used in this Section, "coastal bluff' is any
natural landform having an average slope of 26.6 degrees (50%) or greater, with a
vertical rise of 25 feet or greater.Wherethere is some question as to the applicability
of this sectionto a specific landform,a determination as to whether or not the specific
landform.constitutes a coastal bluff shall be made by the Planning Commission, con-
sistent with the purposes of this regulation.
-72-
2. In order to preserve these unique landforms,developments proposed for coastal bluff
areas shall be subject to the following regulations:
a. The following regulations apply to all building sites on existing subdivided lots,
and residential subdivisions containing less than four units-
1) Grading. Permitted development shall be designed to minimize the
alteration of natural landforms along bluffs and cliffs. In areas of
geologic hazard, the City shall not issue a building or grading per-
mit until the applicant has signed a waiver of all claim against the
public for future liability or damage resulting from permission to
build.All such waivers shall be recorded with the County Recorders
Office.
2) GeologicReport. To promote public safety,a geologic study shall be
performed for each site to determine areas of potential instability.
The bluff areas of potential hazard or instability shall be indicated
on maps as a part of any development plan.
3) Shoreline Protective Devices. In the event of an impending or exist-
ing natural disaster or other emergency,a property owner,upon the
approval of a building and/or grading permit by the City Grading
Engineer and Building Official, may install temporary shoreline
protective devices, material, or other suitable construction to
protect a coastal bluff. Prior to the approval of a building and or
grading permit for the construction or installation of the emergen-
cy protective device or material,the City Attorney shall approve as
to form and content a document signed by the property owner
stipulating that said material or devices will be removed im-
mediately upon the termination of the threat to the property.In ad-
dition, said agreement will also provide for the waiver of all claims
and indemnify the City against liability for any damage resulting
from approval to install said emergency, protective material or
devices.The property owner may elect to apply for the appropriate
local and state permits to retain the protective material or devices
after the threat to the property no longer exists, in which case the
agreement shall be modified to state that upon exhaustion of all
local and state administrative procedures to retain said material or
devices, said material or devices will be removed in the event that
the appropriate applications are denied.
b. In addition to the regulations set forth above, the following regulations apply
to all new tracts and subdivisions. If the development is residential in nature,
these regulations will apply to all new subdivisions containing four or more
units.
-73-
1) Setback Requirement. A bluff setback adequate to provide safe
public access,taking into account bluff retreat and erosion,shall be
provided in all new development.As a general guideline,property
lines shall be set back from the edge of the bluff no closer to the
edge of the bluff than the point at which the top of the bluff is inter-
sected by a line drawn from the solid toe of the bluff at an angle of
26.6 degrees to the horizontal. A greater setback distance shall be
required where warranted by geological or groundwater conditions,
but in no case�shall a property line be closer than 40 fe et to the edge
of the bluff.
Ia addition, there shall be a building setback of 20 feet from the
bluffside property line. This required building setback may be in-
creased or decreased by the Planning Commission in the review of
a proposed site plan consistent with the purposes of this section.
2) Environmentally Sensitive Habitats and Riparian Areas. There are
many areas within the City of Newport Beach that are enviromnen-
tally sensitive in nature. For the most part, these are water as-
sociated habitats such as marine intertidaI,riparian,or marsh areas.
a. The following environmentally sensitive areas shall bepreserved andprotected,
and no structures or landform alteration shall be permitted within these areas,
except as provided in Section d.below:
1) Areas supporting species which are rare, endangered, of limited
distribution, or otherwise sensitive.
2) Natural riparian areas
3) Freshwater marshes
4) Saltwater marshes
5) Intertidal areas
6) Other wetlands
7) Unique or unusually diverse vegetative communities
b. Where there is some question as to the applicability of this section to a specific
area, a determination as to whether or not the specific area constitutes an en-
virormentally sensitive area shall be made by the Planning Commission, con-
sistent with the purposes of this regulation.
.74-
C. These policies are not intended to prevent public agencies and private proper-
ty owners from maintaining drainage courses and facilities, sedimentation
basins,public infrastructure, and other related facilities in a safe and effective
condition with minimal impact on the environment.
d. When the environmental process demonstrates that adverse impacts can be
mitigated to an acceptable level, or that the benefits outweigh the adverse im-
pacts, the Planning Commission may approve a development plan in an en-
vironmentally sensitive habitat or riparian area.
3. Geologic HazardAreas. There are areas within the City of Newport Beach that the
natural geological processes can pose a threat to the public health, safety, and wel-
fare. These areas contain earthquake faults, existing or potential landslides, areas
with expansive or collapsible soil,excessive settlement and subsidence,and areas sub-
ject to potential erosion and siltation.The following policies shall apply to all areas
of potential geologic hazard:
a. No structures shall be permitted in areas of potential geologic hazard, except
as provided in Section b.below.
b. When the environmental process demonstrates that adverse impacts can be
mitigated to an acceptable level, or that the benefits outweigh the adverse im-
pacts,the Planning Commission may approve a development plan in an area,of
potential geologic hazard.
4. ResidentialAreasImpacted byNoise Levels Greaterthan 65 CNEL. Duetonoisesour-
ces such as roadways and aircraft overflights, certain residential areas are impacted
by exterior noise levels in excess of 65 CNEL.The following policies shall apply to
residential subdivisions of four or more units where the existing or future exterior
noise levels are greater than 65 CNEL-
a. No new residential development shall be permitte'd within any area where the
noise levels are greater than 65 CNEI,unless the environmental process iden-
tifies specific mitigation measures that result in exterior areas of any residence,
such as patios and other public and private recreation areas,being mitigated to
less than 65 CNEL.
b. In addition to mitigating exterior noise levels to less than 65 CNEI,all interior
portions of a residence shall not exceed 45 CNEL.
Permit Process and Development Fees
The City's permit process is not perceived by developers to be a significant constraint to
the production of housing. Zone change requests can be handled in as little as 60 days if
-75-
no environmental impact report(EIR)is required. For those rezonings requiring an EIR,
up to eight months may elapse until a decision is rendered, still well within the one-year
time frame set by state law.
Conditional use permits and subdivision parcel maps can typically be approved in seven
weeks, again provided that an EIR is not required. Planning Commission decisions on
zoning change request,parcel maps,and conditional use permits are final unless appealed
within 21 days to the City Council or unless a member of the City Council requests within
21 days to review the Planning Commission decision.
TABLE46
PROCESSING TIME BYJURISDICTION
Jurisdiction G.P.Change Zone Change Tent Map Final Map
Newport Beach 5-6 months 2 months 2 months 6 weeks
Costa Mesa 3-5 months 2-3 months 4-6 months 1 month
Irvine 3-6 months 3-6 months 2 months 1 month
Huntington Beach 3-6 months 3 months 6 weeks 2 weeks
Fountain Valley 3-4 months 3-4 months 3-6 weeks 2-6 weeks
Laguna Beach 3-4 months 3-4 months 6 months 6 months
Orange County 13 months 3-4 months 4 months NIA
Sources: 2hePlanning, Communi(yDevelopinent,orEtiviroijmetitalManageiiietitDeparonents of
the above nantedfivisdictions.
TABLE47
A COMPARISON OF PERMITFEES
Jurisdiction UsePermit Variance Appeal Fee
Newport Beach $867 $867 $325
Costa Mesa $25/comm$50 $25 $12.50/comm.$25
Irvine M min,$69/hr $X0 min,$69/hr M min,$69/hr
Huntington Beach $350 $150 $165
Fountain Valley $250 $250 $12�
Laguna Beach M $1,000 $150
Orange County
$1,600 Zoning Commissioner $1,600 $760 Co&l.
$3,800 Planning,Commission $280 Re$id.
Sources. 771c Planning. Compuadly Development,or Envirournental Management
Departments of the above natnedjudsdictions.
76-
TABLE48
NEWPORT BEACH PERMIT FEES
Use Permit $ 867
Variance 867
Rezone 1,288
Modification Application 215
Planning Commission Appeal 610
City Council Appeal 325
Specific Plan Site Review 812
PRD Use Permit
Amendment
Community Plan Application
Amendment
Tentative Map 1,789 or$56 per lot
Resubdivison 447
Offifte Parking Agreement 744
Coastal Residential Dev.Permit 750 or$250 per unit
Feasibility Study for Coastal Permit 3,000-4,000
Coastal Conceptual Approval 30
Traffic Phasing Study 2,000 and up
Residential Building Inspection 55
Sign Exception 298
Source: City of Newport Beach PlanningDepartnient,based on annualfee
study evaluating actual time and costfor each type ofpermit.
In addition to the above fees,there is a$325 charge for Planning Commission appeals and
an EIR fee of 10%of the consulting fee charged to the City. All of the above feesmay be
waived for projects containing low and moderate income housing in the percentage that
such units are provided in the proposed project. Planning staff from two of the cities in the
fee comparison survey stated that their City was in the process of increasing fees to better
reflect the cost of services.
The Building Permit Process
The Building Department of the City has recently undergone a number of changes in or-
ganization and procedures.
The Building Department is currently using the following codes:
Uniform Building Code 1985 Uniform Housing Code 1985
Uniform Mechanical Code 1985 National Electrical Code 1984
Uniform Plumbing Code,1985
-77-
City code requirements exceed State standards in the following respects, all of which are
relatively inexpensive:
Building Code
• Requires pressure treated wood shingles rather than conventional"shake!'to increase
fire safety during wind-swept fires caused by"Santa Ana"wind conditions.
• Requires spark arrestors on all chimneys to increase fire safety during wind-swept fires
caused by"Santa Ana"wind conditions.
• Requires erosion control measures during grading to minimize siltation and pollution
of Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve.
Plumbing Code
• Requires non-combustible drainage,vent and rainwater piping to increase fire safety
in densely populated areas.
• Requires V minimum water piping supply line to provide more volume and overcome
low water pressure conditions that exist in Newport Beach.
• Requires drip pans under water heaters when a hazard to habitable areas exist,
Electrical Code
• Requires that aluminum wiring, if used, be a minimum size of#6 AWG, to increase
dependability and fire safety.
• Requires undergrounding of conductors between structures on same lot to decrease
hazard of electrical shock from physical contact.
• Requires same nuinimum wire sizes for garage and carports as main house for fire and
safety reasons.
• Requires separation of lighting and receptacle circuits for fire safety.
• Requires single fusible switch or automatic circuit-breaker for fire safety.
• Requires additional methods of grounding panels to prevent electrical shock.
• Requires continuity of conductors(pigtailing)for fire safety.
• Requires that metal clad cable (BX) not be used in new construction for fire safety
reasons.
-78-
• Restricts use of non-metallic sheathed cable as exposed wiring to prevent electrical
shock.
• Restricts use of thin-walled metallic tubing where exposed to outside air or weather to
prevent fire and/or electrical shock.
• Restricts use of flexible metal conduit where exposed to outside air or weather to
prevent fire and/or electricalLshock.
• Requires light switches rather than pull chains in closets to prevent electrical shock.
• Requires major appliances (garbage disposal, dish washer,washing machine, etc.) to
be on separate circuits for fire safety reasons.
State Law requires that the most recent-edition of the model codes be adopted at this time.
The above named codes do not represent the most recent edition of the codes and the City
is therefore not in compliance with state law. As a part of the current revisions to the
departmental procedures,the codes will be updated to the state requirements.
The fee schedule of the Building Department is provided in the 1979 edition of the Uniform
Building Code. This schedule is well accepted throughout the state and is generally
believed to put a department on a "break even"basis with regard to revenues and expen-
ditures.
State Legislature Constraints
In recent years,the State Legislature has enacted numerous laws relating to land use plan-
ning and development. While these statutes serve a variety of laudatory social goals,they
frequently require inconsistent local implementation activities,inhibit local discretion and
flexibility in residential planning, and serve as constraints to the maintenance, improve-
ment and development of housing for all income levels. An example is the,State require-
ments regarding General Plans. In addition to a housing element, Newport Beach and
other localities must also adopt elements relating to circulation, noise and seismic safety,
to name a few. In its Noise Element,the City is required,among other things,to set forth
mitigating measures and possible solutions to existing and foreseeable noise problems;
given that the Orange County Airport flight path is over much of Newport Beach,and be-
cause a number of major roadways providing beach access run through the City,the City's
required programs to mitigate the noise impacts from these factors necessarily constrains
the development of housing adjacent to major thoroughfares and under the airport flight
path. Likewise,the State mandated open space element,which must contain programs to
conserve and preserve open space within Newport Beach, constrains housing develop-
ment. Thus, while State mandated general plan elements serve important goals, they
sf multaneously impact upon the delivery of housing within Newport Beach.
-79-
Other State legislation -restricts the City's discretion to plan the physical development
within its boundaries. For example,State law mandates that the Newport Beach General
Plan be consistent with an airport land use plan for airports adjacent to the City. Modifica-
tion of the City's general plan to achieve consistency with airport land use policies-neces-
sarily restricts the City's discretion and flexibility in planning residential as well as
non-residential development.
Public bearing requirements can also serve as a State legislative constraint to housing.
State law mandates that public-hearings be held prior to the approval of any land use en-
titlement,including general plan amendments,rezonings,tentative subdivisions,use per-
mits and variances. While public hearings serve the important governmental purpose of
permitting interested persons the opportunity to voice their concerns and objections to
proposed projects, public participation can both delay project approvals and result in
project modifications. General plan amendments and planned community district regula-
tions for the Beeco and North Ford parcels were modified and delayed as a result of citizen
input received in the numerous public hearings whf ch preceded these project approvals in
1982 and 1983, respectively. In addition, public hearings conducted on controversial
projects often tend to politicize the planning process. Consequently,while State mandated
public hearings on land use development proposals represent an important and,tangible
part of the local democratic process,they too have an impact upon the delivery of housing.
While numerous State statutes serve as governmental constraints,the legislationwhich has
had the greatest impact upon housing and land use in Newport Beach relate to environ-
mental quality and coastal policies.
The CE0A Process
The California Environmental Quality Act,(CEQA),was enacted in 1970, and requires
governmental agencies which propose to approve projects to undertake an analysis of the
environmental impacts resulting from that project, California courts have interpreted
CEQA to mean that virtually all land use and housing actions ana regulations are projects
which require environmental analysis prior to their approval by the governmental agency.
'Ibis environmental review must describe the project and the resources affected by the
project, including physical changes, alterations to ecological systems, health and safety
problems caused by the proposed physical changes,changes in population distribution and
concentration resulting from the project,and impacts upon other aspects of the resources,
such as water, scenic quality and public services. Where significant and detrimental im-
pacts are discovered in the environmental review process,measures must be proposed to
mitigate them. Under certain circumstances, where detrimental impacts cannot be
mitigated,the governmental agency must�if it wishes to approve the project,adopt a state-
ment of overriding considerations to justify the project approval in light of the known en-
vironmental impacts.
_80-
The CEQA process undeniably preserves environmental resources by requiring all
governmental agencies approving projects to weigh environmental concerns and sen-
sitivities,and to consider project modifications which result in a lesser impact upon the en-
vironment. However,this environmental reporting and review process is not without cost,
both in terms of time and money. The CEQA process can be a lengthy one, and,project
delays can increase costs to developers. Ilkewise,the financial cost to prepare the environ-
mental documentation necessary to satisfy CEQA can be quite high, and traditionally is
borne by the project applicant.
The CEQA process particularly affects Newport Beach, due to the rich natural resources
in the area. Concern for the protection of natural resources within Newport Beach has in
the past required, and will continue to require, modifications to the intensity of residen-
tial development and the design of projects in the City. Environmental issues which
generally affect residential development in Newport Beach include:
• Sediment flows into the Upper Newport Bay,usually due to the denuding of develop-
ment sites as natural ground covers are removed.
• Water pollution resulting from surface runoffs from subdivision streets,which waters
flow into the Upper Newport Bay.
• Preservation of riparian habitats and archeological sites,and protection of endangered
species of flora and fauna, on portions of many of the undeveloped parcels of vacant
land in the City.
• Preservation of ocean views, which may require the limitation of building heights on
specific areas.
• Reduction of air pollution caused in large part by traffic congestion on arterial streets
and major roadways during the.summer and holiday periods.
It should be noted that the City's environmental review process is responsive and well coor-
-dinated, and meets CEQA requirements. The review of this environmental reporting
process for purposes of the preparation of this element illustrates that it is not excessive
or overly restrictive, at least in terms of what is required by State law.
Coastal Act Requirements
Another governmental constraint to the maintenance, improvement and development of
housing in Newport Beach is the California Coastal Act of 1976. The basic goals of this
State legislation are to protect,maintain,and,where feasible,enhance and restore the over-
all quality of the coastal zone environment;to assure orderly and balanced utilization and
conservation of coastal zone resources; to maximize public access and public recreational
opportunities in the coastal zone; and to assure priority for coastal-dependent and coas-
tal-related development over other development in the coastal zone. Approximately 3,800
_81 -
of the 10,000 acres of land within Newport Beach(or almost 40%of the City's land area)
is within the coastal zone and subject to the California Coastal Act,of 1976.
The California Coastal Act of 1976 requires each municipality to prepare a Local Coastal
Program,including a Land Use Plan,for those areas of the City which are within the coas-
tal zone, for submission to and certification by the California Coastal Conmiission. The
Land Use Plan of the Newport Beach Local Coastal Program was adopted by the City on
April 23, 1981,and certified by the California Coastal Commission on May 19, 1982. The
Land Use Plan sets forth sensitive habitat areas and unique coastal resources,new develop-
ment of visitor serving facilities and coastal dependent uses,and land use designations for
residential, commercial, public (including semi-public and institutional), and industrial
uses within the coastal zone. The Land Use Plan of the Local Coastal Program sets forth
detailed regulations regarding the development of coastal bluffs, of areas where ar-
cheological,paleontological and historical resources are located,and areas affording coas-
tal views,as well as policies which promote visitor serving and coastal dependent uses over
all other uses within the coastal zone;these regulations and policies are binding upon,the
City. By its adoption by the City and certification by the California Coastal Commission,
the Land Use Plan of the Newport Beach Local CoastalProgram establishes land use desig-
nation for the following undeveloped residential parcels within the Newport Beach Coas-
tal Zone: San Diego Creek South, Newport North, Villa Point Remnant, Castaways,
CalTrans West,and Newport Rancb. These undeveloped residential parcels are described
in Table 33 and the individual parcel descriptions.
Given that the Land Use Plan of the Newport Beach Local Coastal Program has been cer-
tified, land use designations may not be modified without the approval of the California
Coastal Commission. Consequently,the City does,not have complete authority to redesig-
nate land uses on 173.6 acres of the 205.8 acres of undeveloped residential sites.
In 1981, the California Legislature enacted S.B. 626 (Mello), which added Government
Code Section 65590,eliminating certain provisions of the California Coastal Actwhich had
required local coastal programs to include housing policies and programs; Section 65590
further mandates that coastal communities require both the inclusion of low and moderate
income housing as part of new residential developments, and the replacement of low and
moderate income housing eliminated as a result of the demolition of eldsting housing,
within the coastal zones of those communities. On August 19, 1982, the Newport Beach
City Council adopted Council Policy P-1, establishing administrative guidelines and im-
plementation procedures to adn IM'Ster Section 65590 within the coastal zone areas of the
City� The administration of this requirement has added costs and time to the development
process.
-82-
H. Housing Goals, Policies, Quantified Objectives,
and Programs
Previous sections of the Housing Element included: an analysis of the major population,
employment and housing characteristics of Newport Beach, an inventory and analysis of
land suitable for residential development,a quantification of existing and projected hous-
ing needs, an analysis of special housing needs and an analysis of both governmental and
nongovernmental constraints to the production of housing. Opportunities for residential
energy conservation were also analyzed. The analysis contained in the Housing Element
has led to the creation of the following housing goals, policies, quantified objectives and
programs.
Housing Goals and Policies
The City's goals for housing are formulated around a two-fold purpose. First,the physical
and visual character of the City's residential neighborhoods are the key to the-provision of
a quality living environment. Therefore, one City goal is:
1. To promote quality residential development through the application of
soundplanning�rinciples, and through policies which encourage preserva-
tion, conservation, and appropriate redevelopment of the housing stock
Secondly, the City's housing stock must provide for the housing needs of all present and
future residents of the City. Market forces have increasingly identified Newport Beach as
an upper income housing market. Therefore,it is a City goal to encourage diversity in the
housing stock through development of all types and designs of housing for all economic
segments of the community, and through the preservation of the housing stock where ap-
propriate,to serve an economically diverse community. In this regard, City goals are:
2. To provide a balanced community, with a vwiety of housing types and
designs and housing opportunities for all economic segments of the com-
munity. very low and lower income as well as moderate and upper income.
3. To extend ownership opportunities to as many households aspossible,par-
ticularly those of moderate and upper incomes. 77ils is where the greatest
demand isprojected.
4. To preserve and increase affordability, through rental housing,for the very
low and lower income.
The four basic policies which describe the City's role in the attainment of these goals are
as follows:
-83-
1. Enabling private industry to function more effectively, as a result of con-
straints being eliminated, whereverfeasible, and allowable density being in-
creased.
2. ProvidInggovernmental cooperation and leadership to assist the industry in
producing a variety oftroduct types and uses that are most responsive to the
emerging demography of the community.
3. Providing incentives and direct assistance to industry, within the limitations
of available resources, to facilitate the prov u* ion of housingfor the very low,
lower and moderate income.
4. Providing incentives and direct assistance to property owners, within the
limitations of available resources,tofacilitate the rehabilitation of the evist-
inghousingstock
Quantified Objectives
In addition to goals and policies, Section 65583 of the Government Code requires that a
housing element include quantified objectives. Itisthepurposeof thissectionof theHous-
ing Element to quantify,through an estimate,the maximum number of housing units that
could be constructed,rehabilitated,and conserved over the next five year period. This es-
timate assumes optimum conditions for the production of housing over the five years. Be-
cause of general plan requirements of State Law and the constraints identified in this
Housing Element it is not physically,environmetally or fiscallypossible for the City to fully
satisfy all of the identified housing need. Such a magnitude of need, as the legislature
recognized in Section 65583(b)of the Government Code,is beyond the ability of the City.
The quantified objectives herein represent the most diligent good faith effort which the
City of Newport Beach considers possible.
TABLE49
QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVES
MAXIMUM NUMBER OF HOUSING UNITS BY INCOME CATEGORY
1989-1994
VeaLo 1&= Moderate lipm
1. New Units 272 294 647 1,245 2,448
2. Rebabilitation 8 8 1,000 2,000 3,016
3. +Conservation 2,000 2,990 2,567 1,615 9,172
-84-
Following is a detailed estimate of the projected-sources of units summarized above:
1. Production-of 2,448 new units is projected from the sources shown in the following
table. Housing programs 1,2,3,5,9,and 12 are designed to achieve this new construc-
tion quantified goal.
TABLESO
NEW HOUSING UNITS BY INCOME CATEGORY
1989-1994
Very Lower Moderate Upper IDW
San Diego Creek South 30 30 240 0 300
Freeway Reservation 8 8 60 0 76
East
Newporter North 22 21 0 169 212
Newport Center,
Block 800 24 25 0 196 245
Villa Point Remnant 9 9 72 0 90
Castaways 15 16 0 120 151
CalTrans West 22 23 0 107 152
Newport Ranch 27 27 100 118 272
Vacant Site Subtotal: 157 159 472 710 1,498
Subtotal Percentage: 10.5% 10.6% 31.5% 47.4% 100%
Infill/Intensification/ 40 0 50 285 375
CDBG
Density Bonus 75 125 0 0 200*
Demolition Replacement: 0 0 125 250 375
TOTAL 272 284 647 1,245 2,448
PERCENT 11.1% 11.6% 26.4% 50.9% 100%
*Could increase based on above projects using density bonus of 25%or less.
2. Private rehabilitation of units in the housing stock consists of remodels and improve-
ment of standard units. Rehabilitation of lower and very low income units will in-
volve the correction of substandard conditions and be assisted through funding
programs. Housing Program 6 is designed to achieve this goal. Based on private
rehabilitation for the moderate and upper income units and the HUD CDBG and
-85-
Rental Rehabilitation programs for the lower and very low income units,the follow-
ing table summarizes the City's rehabilitation objectives:
TABLESI
VeryLow 1&= Moderate U= law
Rehabilitation 8 8 1,000 2,000 3,016
3. The following table summarizes the maximum number of units that can be conserved
over the five-year period.
TABLE52
CONSERVATION OF HOUSING INNEWPORT BEACH
BYINCOME CATEGORY,1989-1994
Ve[XLo Lowe Moderate UP=
(0-50%of (50-80%of (80-120%of (120%of
Median) Median Median Median
Income) Income) Income) Income)
1.Appl.of Mobile
Home Park Zone
Ord.pursuant
to Program 6 90 345 100 65 600
2. Appl. of Condo
Conversion Regs.
pursuant to
Program 6 1,175 1,765 1,510 990 5,440
3. Appl.of Council
Policy P-1 re.
replacement housing
pursuant to
Program 6 735 980 957 560 3,132
TOTAL 2,000 2,990 2,567 1�615 90172
-86-
Performance Relative to Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA)
Article 10.6 requires a local jurisdiction to consider regional need,but recognizes that it
may not be feasible to accommodate this need calculation in all cases. According to the
RHNA prepared by SCAG,there is a projected regional need for additional units in.New-
port Beach as follows:
TABLE53
PROJECTED REGIONAL DEMAND IN NEWPORT BEACH
1989-1994
Household Net Vacancy Demoliton Total
GroyAh Adjustment Adjustment NewUnit
1,774 units -77 units 365 units 2,062
TABLE54
TOTAL NEW UNITS DISTRIBUTED BY INCOME
Vexy Low Lower Moderate High Total
299 408 359 996 2,062
14.5% 19.8% 17.4% 483% 100%
Forpurposes of comparison,the City's Quantified Objectives are shownbelow in the same
format as the RHNA.
TABLE55
CITVS QUANTIFIED GOALS
1989-1994
Household Net Vacancy Demolition Total
Growth Adjustment Adjustment New Units
2,073 units -77 units 375 units 2,371
-87-
TABLE56
CITY'S QUANTIFIED GOALS DISTRIBUTED BY INCOME
1989-1994
VeaLow Lower Moderate Hi&h TDW
272 284 647 1,168 7,371
11.5% 12.0% 27.2% 493% 100%
HOUSING PROGRAMS
The following housing programs represent a five year schedule of actions to implement
and achieve the goals,policies and quantified objectives of the Housing Element. Within
the general context of Section 65583 (c) of the Government Code, and the previously
described community assessment,the following housing programs and implementation ac-
tions are adopted and the implementing responsibilities are assigned.
PROGRAMI:
CONSISTENT WITH SOUND PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARDS, THE CITY
SHALL ENIABLE THE CONSTRUCTION OF NEW HOUSING UNITS SUFFICIENT TO MEET THE
CITY'S QUANTIFIED GOALS BY IDENTIFYING ADEQUATE SITES FOR THEIR CONSTRUC-
TION.
1. Implementation Actions: The following activities shall be undertaken in support of
this program:
a. The Cityidentifies the following sites as adequate siteswhichwill be made avail-
able through appropriate zoning and development standards and with public
services and facilities needed to facilitate and encourage the development of a
variety of types of housing for all income levels to meet the City's housing goals
as identified pursuant to Government Code Section 65583(b). The following
sites are sufficient to meet the City's housing goals as identified pursuant to
subdivision(b):
-88-
TABLE57
Gen.Plan L.C.P. Zoning D.U.
Sim ZQW paw 12aW Capad
San Diego Creek South MFR MFR P-C 300
Freeway Reservation
East SFA not in P-C 76
coastal zone
Newporter North SFA SFA P-C 212
Newport Center, MFR not in P-C 245
Block 800 coastal zone
Villa Point Remnant MFR MFR P-C 90
Castaways SFD SFD P-C 151
CalTrans West SFA SFA P-C 152
Newport Ranch SFA SFA P-C 272
Multi-Family TFR& TFR& R-1.5,2,&3 375
Infill Areas MFR MFR
*SFA: Single Family Attached
TFR: Two Family Residential
MFR: Multi-Family Residential
P-C: Planned Community
b. When requested by property owners, the City shall continue to approve the
rezoning of developed or vacant property from non-residential to residential
uses when appropriate. These rezoned properties shall be added to the list of
sites for residential development.
2. Responsible Official/Agency:
Action la: Planning Department, Planning Commission, and City Council..
Action 1b: Planning Department, Planning Commission, and City Council.
-89-
PROGRAM 2
TO ENCOURAGE THE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT INDUSTRY TO RESPOND TO THE
HOUSING NEEDS OF THE COMMUNITY AS WELL AS THE DEMAND FOR HOUSING AS
PERCEIVED BY TRE INDUSTRY.
1. hnplementation Actions: The following activities shall be undertaken in support of
thisprogram:
a. The City of Newport Beach shall take all feasible actions, through the use of
development agreements, expedited review of subdivision approvals, and ex-
pedited processing of grading,building and other development permits,to en-
courage the constructionand occupancy,at the earliest practicable opportunity,
of projects approved with low and moderate income housing requirements.
b. Given the considerations-of proper general planning, the California Environ-
mental Quality Act,project characteristics incentives, and government flnan-
cial assistance,the Planning Commission,in proposed new developments of 10
or more units,shall continue to allocate,where feasible,at least 20% ofthean-
nual production to housing affordable to low income households, Proposed
new developments with fewer than 10 units shall notbe subject to the negotiated
development process and are exempt from the affordable housing criteria.
Through the negotiated development process up to 1001yo of the total units in
a residential project may be affordable to low and moderate income
households, either on or off site. The percentage of low andmoderate income
units and their proportionate mixwithin a development shallbe determined by
such factors as project location,size,density,incentives,such as density bonuses
granted under Government Code Section 65915 and/or government financial
assistance,whether the units are on or off site and if they are off site the charac-
teristics of the project in which they are being provided. These units may be
rental or ownership at the option of the property ownpr/developer. All affor-
dable units,shall be on site unlessapproved at an off-site location approved by
the City.
Forpurposes of defining income groups the Housing Element uses the income
table prepared by the State of California in accordance with Health and Safety
Code Section 50093 (50093 Table).The 50093 Tableuses the following income
groups:
Very low income: 0 - 50% of the HUD Median family income adjusted for
family size as shown in the 50093 Table.
Lower income: 50 - 80% of the HUD Median family income adjusted for
family size as shown in the 50093 Table. In areas of higher income, such as
Orange County,the lower income family of four does not exceed the higher of
the national medianfamily income or the State non-metropolitan medianfami-
ly income. _90-
Low income is the combination of the very low and lower income groups.
Medianincome: 80- 100%of the HUD Median family income adjusted for
family size as shown in the 50093 Table.
Moderate income: 100- 120%of the Hud Median family income adjusted for
family size as shown in the 50093 Table.
Upper income: 120% + of the HUD Median family income,not shown in the
50093 Table.
The following affordability standards shall apply to rental and ownership housing:
For rental housing the maximum tenant income shall be determined by the number
of persons in a family or household and the income shall be in conformance with the
50093 Table. The rent for low income households and families shall be in accord-
ance with the Section 8 Fair Market Rent(FMR)Table. A requirement for preferen-
tial acceptance of Section 8 certificate and voucher holders shall accompany Fair
Market Rent units. Rents for median and moderate income households shall be no
more than 30%of the income in the 50093 Table as follows:
an efficiencywnit as if occupied by one person; a one bedroom as if oc-
cupied by two persons; a two bedroom as if occupied by four persons; a
three bedroom as if occupied by six persons; and afour bedroom as if oc-
cupied by eight.
For ownership housing the maximum buyer's income shall be no more than the in-
come standard identified in one of the six ownership allocation criteria below. These
maximum buyer income limitations shall be taken from the 50093 Table and be ap-
plied to the units as follows:
an efficiency unit as if occupied by one person; a one bedroom as if oc-
cupied by two persons, a two bedroom as if occupied by four persons, a
three bedroom as if occupied by six persons, and afour bedroom as if oc-
cupied by eight persons. The selling price of an ownership unit shall be
no more than 3 times the buyer's income. Units may be sold to buyers
with qualifying incomes for the limited sales price without regard to the
number of persons in the family.
In projects of 10 to 25 units,to the extent feasible,units shall be allocated in accord-
ance with the following criteria.
1) Rental developments with minimal development incentives and includ-
ing density bonuses of 25%or less and without governmental financial as-
sistance shall provide up to 10% of the total units in the project to low
income families and individuals at FMR for a minimum of 20 years.
_91-
2) Rental developments with significant development incentives including
density bonuses greater than 25% and without government financial as-
sistance shall provide 10%-50%of the total project units to low income
families and individuals at FMR for a minimum of 30 years.
3) Rental developments assisted with CDBG funds shall provide at least
51%of the total project units to low income families and individuals for
a minimum of 30 years. 1
4) Ownership developments with minimal development incentives includ-
ing density bonuses of 2517o or less and without governmental financial as-
sistance shall provide up to 10% of the total project units to moderate
income fan-dlies and individuals for a minimum of 20 years.
5) Ownership developments with significant development incentives includ-
ing density bonuses greater than 259o' and without government financial
assistance shall provide 10%-50%of the total project units to moderate
income families and individuals for a niffiftnum.of 30 years.
6) Ownership developments assisted with CDBG funds shall provide at least
51%of the total project units to low income families and individuals for
a n-dnimum of 30 years.
In projects of 25 or more units,to the extent feasible,units shall be allocated in
accordance with the following criteria:
7) Rental developments with minimal development incentives including
density bonuses of 259o' or less and without governmental financial assis-
tance shall provide at least 15-25%of the total units in the project to low
income families and individuals at FMR for a minimum of 20 years.
8) Rental developments with significant development incentives including
density bonuses greater than 25% and without government financial as-
sistance shall provide 25 - 509o' of the total project units to low income
families and individuals at FMR for a mi'minium of 30 years.
9) Rental developments assisted with CDBG funds shall provide at least
51% of the total project units to low income families and individuals at
FMR for a mm' imum.of 30 years.
10) Ownership developments with minimal development incentives includ-
ing density bonuses of 25%or less and without governmental financial as-
sistance shall provide 15-25% of the total project to moderate income
families and individuals for a minimum of 20 years.
_92
11) Ownership developments with significant development incentives includ-
ing density bonuses greater than 25%and without government financial
assistance shall provide 25% -50% of the total project unitsfor a mini-
mum of 30 years in the following proportions:
0 - 50%to median income families and individuals
50- 1009o' to moderate income families and individuals
12) Ownership developments assisted with CDBG funds shall provide at least
51%of the total project units to low income families and individuals for
a minimum of 30 years.
C. Within 30 days of receiving the periodic income revisions from the State of
California, Health and Safety Code Section 50093 a report comparing "affor-
dable"rents to market rate rents shall be prepared and distributed to the City
Council and Planning Commission.
2. Responsible Official/Agency:
Action 2a: City Council; Planning Department.
Action 2b: Planning Commission.
Action 2c: Planning Commission.
Action 2d: Planning Department
PROGRAM3
TO PROMOTE AND ASSIST IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF HOUSING FOR LOW AND
'MODERATE INCOME HOUSEHOLDS.
1. Implementation Actions : The following activities will be undertaken in support of
this program:
a. The City shall continue to apply for,and use the majority of its entitlement funds
under the Community Development Block Grant program to facilitate the
development and construction of housing for lower and very low income
households. To the extent that developers and landowners are willing to
cooperate in this-endeavor,the highest priority for the use of these.funds shall
be for the development and construction of housing affordable to"very low in-
come"households. This may be accomplished by using the City's current and
future Community Development Block Grant funds for the acquisition of land
for the development of housing for very low income households,or by"writing
-93-
down!'the cost of land for developers who have agreed to develop low income
housing. In this regard, the Newport Beach Planning Department shall
negotiate with the interested landowners and developers to determine the
availability of appropriate sites for potential acquisition as very low income
housing sites.
b. 7be City shall continue to participate with the County of Orange in the issuance
of tax-exempt mortgage revenue bonds to facilitate and assist in the financing,
development and construction of housing affordable to low and moderate in-
come households. City staff shall encourage the developers of the remaining
residential sites to use tax exemptmortgage revenue bonds to facilitate the con-
struction of low and moderate income housing on these sites.
c' The City shall continue to participate as a memb er.of the OCHA Advisory Com-
mittee and work in cooperation with the Orange County Housing Authority to
provide Section 8 Rental Housing Assistance to residents of the community.
The City shall,in cooperationwith the OCHA,recommend and request the use
of the modified fair market rent limits to increase the number of housing units
within the City which will be eligible to participate in the program. The New-
port Beach Planning Department further shall prepare and implement a
publicity program both to educate and encourage landlords within the City to
rent their units to Section 8 Certificate holders, and to make very low income
households aware of the availability of the Section 8 Rental Housing Assistance
Program.
d. For new developments proposed in the Coastal Zone areas of the City (com-
prising approximately 409o' of Newport Beach), the City shall require the
provision of housing affordable to persons or families of low and moderate in-
come,where feasible in projects of 10 or more units. Whenever practicable,
the City shall require the units be located on-site; alternatively, the City may
permit the developer to locate the units off-site but within the Coastal Zone,
or within three (3) miles of the Coastal Zone (within Newport Beach). All
residential developments of three units or more within the Coastal Zone shall
require a Coastal Residential Development Permit. Determinations of
feasibility,and the procedures relating to the provision of low andmoderate in-
come housing within the Coastal Zone, shall be governed by Newport Beach
City Council Policy P-1.
e. The City Council shall have the discretion to review and waive planning and
park fees, and modify development standards (e.g. parking, setbacks, lot
coverage,etc.)for developments containing low and moderate income housing
in proportion to the number of low and moderate income units in the entire
project.
f. When a developer of housing agrees to construct housing for persons and
families of low and moderate income, the City shall either (1) grant a density
-94-
bonus or (2) provide other incentives of equivalent financial value,in accord-
ance with the provisions of Government Code Section 65915, et seq.
g. When it is determined tobe of benefit,the City shall participate in other hous-
ing assistance programs that assist the production of housing.
2. Responsible Official/Agency:
Action 3a: City Council;Planning Director.
Action 3b: City Council;Advance Planning.
Action 3c: City Manager; Planning Director.
Action 3d: Planning Commission;Planning Director.
Action3e: City Council.
Action 3f. City Council.
Action 3g: Planning Department; City Council
PROGRAM 4
TO APPROVE, WHEREVER FEASIBLE AND APPROPRIATE, MIXED RESIDENTIAL AND
COMMERCIALM4DUSTRIAL USE DEVELOPMENTS THAT IMPROVE THE BALANCE BE,
TWEEN HOUSING AND JOBS.
1. Implementation Actions: The following activities shall be undertaken in support of
this program:
a. The City and the developer of proposed major commercial/industrial projects
shall assess the housing impact of such projects during the development review
process. Prior to project approval, a housing impact assessment shall be
developed by the city, with the developer's active involvement. Such assess-
ment shall indicate the magnitude of jobs to be created by the project,where
housing opportunities are expected to be available,and what measures-public
and private-are necessary,if any,to ensure an adequate supply of housing for
the projected labor force of the project.
b. In major projects involving commercial and industrial uses, the City shall re-
quire wherever feasible, the development of housing that is geared to the af-
fordability range of the projected labor force.
-95-
2. Responsible Official/Agency:
Action 4a: Planning Department
Action 4b: Planning Commission and City Council
PROGRAM 5
TO IMPROVE THE EFFICIENCY OFTHE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT PROCESS.
1. Implementation Actions : The following activities shallbe undertaken in support of
this program.
a) The Current Planning Manager is designated to coordinate the review and
decision-making with respect to, and to provide information regarding the
status of,all permits and applications required for residential developmentsby
the City.
b) The Planning Department shall periodically review its development approval
process and make revisions when necessary. The Department shall also revise
appropriate Development Procedural Guides to-reffect any changes.
2. Responsible Official/Agency:
Action 5a: Current Planning Manager.
Action5b: Planning Department.
PROGRAM 6
TO CONSERVE,REHABILITATE,IMPROVE,AND REDEVELOP THE W(ISTING HOUSING IN-
VENTORY.
1. Implementation Actions: The following activities'shall be undertaken in support of
this program.
a) The City shall vigorously enforce all building and zoning codes in order to con-
serve the habitability of the existing housing stock.
b) rfbe City shall maintain rental opportunities by restricting conversions of rent-
al units to condominiums unless the vacancy rate in Newport Beach for rental
housing is 5%or higher for four consecutive quarters, and unless the property
owner complies with the condominium conversion regulations contained in
Chapter 20.73 of the Newport Beach Municipal-Code.
-96-
c) - 'ne City shall continue to evaluate mobile home parks to determine which ad-
ditional mobile home parks should be rezoned with the Mobile Home Park
Zone overlay designation (Chapter 20.20 of the Newport Beach Municipal
Code), in order to preserve mobile home park land uses.
d) The City'shall require the replacement of housing demolished within the Coas-
tal Zone areas of Newport Beach when the housing to be demolished is, or
within the immediately preceding 12 months has been, occupied by low and
moderate income households. The City shall further require that no such
demolitionbe accomplished unless a Coastal Residential Development Permit
has been issued. The specific provisions implementing these replacement unit
requirements are contained in Newport Beach City Council Policy P-1. .
e) With the approval of HUD the City and the Orange County Housing and Com-
munity Development Program Office shall participate in a cooperative
program for adrulimistration of the HUD Rental Rehabilitation Program in
NewportBeach. Energy efficient products shall be required when appropriate.
f) As long as the need exists,the City shall continue to use a portion of its CDBG
money to fund its emergency home repair program. Energy efficient products
shall be required when ever appropriate.
2. Responsible Official/Agency:
Action 6a: Planning Department; Building Department.
Action 6b: City Council;Planning Coniniission.
Action 6c: City Council;Planning Department.
Action 6d: Planning Commission;Planning Director.
Action 6e: Planning Department; City Council.
Action 6f. Planning Department; City Council.
PROGRAM 7
TO PROMOTE HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES FOR ALL PERSONS REGARDLESS OF RACE,
RELIGION,SEY,MARITAL STATUS,ANCESTRY,NATIONAL ORIGIN,OR COLOR.
1. Implementation Action : The following activity shall be undertaken in support of
this program:
-97-
a. The City shall continue to retain and support a Fair Housing service acceptable
to the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development to con-
duct its Fair Housing Program and manage its landlord/tenant complaints.
2. Responsible Official/Agency:
Action 7a: Planning Department;City Council.
PROGRAM 8
TOPROMOTEAGREATER,CHOICEINHOUSING OPPORTUNITIES FORELDERLYRESIDENTS
OFTHECOMMUNITY.
1. Implementation Actions : The following activities shall be undertaken in support of
this program:
a. The City shall continue to permit the development of senior citizen housing
facilities in all residential and commercial zoning districts persuant to Zoning
Code Sections 20.10.020(c) and 20.20.020(b).
b. Where appropriate,the-City shall continue to permit the developmentof"gran-
ny"units in single family areas of the City.
2. Responsible Official/Agency:
Action 8a: Planning Department;Planning Commission.
Action 8b: Planning Department;Planning Commission.
PROGRAM 9
TO PROVIDEFORTHE DEVELOPMENT OFA VARIETY OFHOUSING TYPES AND PRODUCTS
FOR ALL INCOME LEVELS OF THE COMMUNITY.
1. ImplementationActions: The following activities shall be undertaken in support of
this program:
a. Adequate sites are identified in this Housing Element to meet the City's quan-
tified objectives.
b. The City will continue to permit the installation of mobilehomes,factor�ybuilt
housing,orany other construction technology,provided thatsucliproduct com-
plies with the development standards of the community and is compatible with
-98-
the planning, aesthetic, and other applicable considerations of the specific
neighborhood in which such product is proposed.
C. Consistent with development standards in multi-fainfly and commercial areas,
the City will continue to permit emergency shelters and transitional housing.
2. Responsible Official/Agency:
Action 9a: City Council.
Action 9b: Planning Commission.
Action 9c: Planning Commission.
PROGRAM10
TO REVIEW THE HOUSING ELEMENT ON AN ON-GOING BASIS TO DETERMINE THE AP-
PROPRIATENESS OF GOALS AND PROGRAMS AND THE PROGRESS OF THE CITY IN HOUS-
ING ELEMENT IMPLEMENTATION.
1. Implementation Actions: The following activities shall be undertaken in support of
this program:
a. The City Planning Department will monitor progress on each of the objectives
in the Housing Element prograiri, and when appropriate,report its findings to
the Planning Commission and the City Council.
b. Revision of the Housing Element will be imitiated on the basis of the monitor-
ing reports and will incorporate the most current data on housing and
household characteristics, as well as housing market trends.
-2. Responsible Official/Agency:
Action 10a: Planning Department.
Action 10b: City Council.
PROGRAM11
TO ENSURE THAT THE PROGRAMS SET FORTH IN THE HOUSING ELEMENT WILL CON-
TINUE TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE OTHER ELEMENTS OF THE NEWPORT BEACH
GENERAL PLAN, AS WELL AS THE CODIFIED GOALS OF THE CITY.
_99-
1. Implementation Action: The following activity shall be undertaken,in support of this
program:
a. Whenever land use regulations,land use designations,or housing programs are
proposed for adoption or modification,the Planning Department shall under-
take an analysis to determine that the proposed action or regulation is consis-
tent with both the Housing Element and the other elements of the Newport
Beach General Plan, as well as all adopted City Council Policies. If the Plan-
ning Department determines that the proposed program or policy is not con-
sistent, the Planning Department shall recommend to the Planning
Commission and City Council either that the proposed program or action be
modified to achieve consistency,prior to adoption,or that each potentially in-
consistent General Plan element or City Council Policy be amended in con-
junction with the approval of the proposed regulation or action. Consistency
shall be achieved whenever a regulation,action or project is approved.
2. Responsible Official/Agency:
Action1la: Planning Department.
PROGRAM12
TO PROVIDE FORTHE NEEDS OFPERSONS AND FAMILIES IN NEED OFEMERGENCYSHEL-
TER AND TRANSITIONAL HOUSING.
1. Implementation Actions: The following activities shall be undertaken in support of
this program: .
a. The City shall continue to inquire into the extent of homelessness in Newport
Beach and promote the collection of data on homeless persons.
b. The City shall allocate a portion of its Community Development Block Grant
(CDBG)funds to social service agencies that provide services to the homeless.
These funds shall be allocated in conformance with the procedures prescribed
by the CDBG program.
C. The City shall also allocate a portion-of its non-social service CDBG funds to
a County-wide CDBG matching fund for the purpose of providing housing for
the homeless. A committee or task force must be created to direct the use of
these funds andthe City must have representation on that committee or task
force. The City Council must approve the proposedprogram.or programs prior
to release of funds. Should thisimplementation action not occur, these funds
will be reallocated to a local housing program for lower income or homeless
families.
_ 100-
d. The City shall participate on the Orange County Homeless Issues Task Force.
2. Responsible Official/Agency:
Action 12a: Planning Department
Action 12b: City Council
Action 12c: City Council
Action 12d: Planning Department
PROGRAM13
PRESERVATION OF EmSTING LOW INCOME HOUSING
1. Implementation Actions: The following activities shall be undertaken in support of
this program:
a. The City shall investigate the availability of federal, state and local programs
for preservation of existing low income uses eligible to change to non-low
income uses during the next ten(10)years and maintain a list of these programs
by January 1993.
b. At the time negotiations to preserve low income units occurs, the City shall
identify and contact organizations or agencies which have the legal and
managerial capacity to acquire and manage housing units should a need arise
for such services.
c. Whenever possible, the City shall preserve existing low income units with
federal, state and local programs.
2. Responsible Official/Agency:
Action 13a: Planning Department
Action 13b: Planning Department
Action 13c: City Council/Planning Department
- 101 -
APPENDIX
- 102-
1984 Housing Element Review
State law requires that the City's Housing Element be reviewed as frequently as ap-
propriate and that it be revised as appropriate,but not less than every five years,to reflect
the results of the review. The last revision of the Housing Element occurred in 1984. When
a Housing Element is reviewed,it is required that all of the following be evaluated:
1. The appropriateness of the housing goals, objectives, and policies in contributing to
the attainment of the state housing goal.
2. The effectiveness of the Housing Element in attainment of the community's housing
goals and objectives.
3. The progress of the City in implementation of the Housing Element.
When a city has land within the Coastal Zone,the review must also take into account hous-
ing required pursuant to coastal requirements. This evaluation must include the follow-
ing:
1. The number of new housing units approved for construction within the coastal zone
after January 1, 1982.
2. The number of housing units required to be provided in new housing developments
either within the coastal zone or within three miles of the coastal zone for persons
and families of low or moderate income, as they are defined in Section 50093 of the
Health and Safety Code.
3. The number of existing residential dwelling units in the coastal zone that have been
authorized to be demolished or converted since January 1, 1982,that were occupied
by persons and families of low or moderate income, as defined in Section 50093 of
the Health and Safety Code.
4. The number of residential dwelling units required for replacement of units
authorized to be demolished or converted that were occupied by persons and families
of low or moderate income, as defined in Section 50093 of the Health and Safety
Code. The location of the replacement units, either on site, elsewhere within the
locality's jurisdiction within the coastal zone,or within three miles of the coastal zone
within the locality's jurisdiction,must also be designated in the review.
- 103 -
Housing Element General Review
In the course of administering the Housing Element and preparing the 1989 Housing Ele-
ment review and revision,the City determined that the goals and policies of the Housing
Element contribute to the attainment of the State housing goal; consequently, the goals
and policies have not been modified in this revision. Specific program objectives (hous-
ing programs) that have not been effective have been modified or deleted and some new
programs have been added.
Measured in the broad context of total units needed,as determined by the Regional Hout-
ing Allocation Model(RI-IAM),the Housing Element goals,policies,program objectives,
and quantified objectives have contributed significantly to the attainment of the State hous-
ing goal. In the Housing Element,the City extended the 1/1/83-1/1/88 RHAM one year to
1/1/89. Extending the RHAM an additional 6 months to include the time up to the cur-
rent Regional Housing Needs Assessment(RHNA), the total housing need is 2,029 new
units. According to State Department of Finance estimates of total housing units, 2,138
units were produced in the City over the 6 year period 1/1/83-1/1/89. 'Ibis 6 year produc-
tion exceeds the number of units needed for the six and one-half year period by 109 units.
When the City revised the Housing Element in 1984,it adopted new quantified objectives
for the five year period July 1, 1984 to July 1, 1989. Those quantified objectives are sum-
marized in T-able 92,page 175,of the 1984 Element. The following table shows the produc-
tion of units for the samefive year period.
- 104-
Housing Units Produced
from July 1,1984 to July 1,1989
Now Units
(Mgjor Prplects) Y= Lam Moderate UPW IDIal
Morgan 2 is 17
Spinnaker Bay(Wale) 1 9 10
Belcourt 168 168
Allred (5)* 50 50
Gfeller 4 36 40
Plummer Court 1 8 9
Morning Canyon 1 13 14
Big CanyonlO (2)* 21 21
5th&MacArthur (9)* 43 43
Big Canyon 16 (8)* 80 80
5th Avenue (10)* 100 100
Newport Seacrest 20 45 65
North Ford 23 27 520 279 849
Marguerite (5)* 47 47
NewportSeaside 25 25
Seashore Apts. 15 15
Bayview 233 233
New Units Constructed 93 72 529 1,102 1,786
Baywood 39 39
Total Units by Income 83 72 568 1,102 1;825
*Affordable units provided offske at Baywood Apts.
Development of new residential units in projects considered to be major projects by the
City totaled 1,786 units. The projected total new construction of 2,648 residential units
was not achieved because the City over projected development-on some sites and the
owners of two large properties did not construct any of the 1,085 units to which they had
General Plan entitlement. If these two projects would have been constructed 2,871 units
would have been developed over the five year period. This new unit production would
have been 223 units greater than the total quantified goal and 49 units greater than the 525
unit annual goal. To offset the units that did not get constructed, the City used Housing
Element programs that resulted in the production of units that could not have been an-
ticipated in 1984. Adjusting the 2,648 units by the 124 units over projected, the reduction
of 1,085 units should have resulted in the production of only 1,439 units. However, as
_ 105 -
shown in the table above,1,786 units were produced. Thus,347 units were�produced from
sources not anticipated in,1984.
New units constructed in small projects, including second units and,"granny" units, and
redevelopment units are estimated at approximately 375 for the period July 1, 1984-July
111989. This total development exceeds the City's quantified goal of 250 units by 125 units.
7be income groups of the occupants of these units can not be determined by the City.
Building permits for remodeling are the only source of information that the City current-
ly has on housing rehabilitation activities in the community. It is not possible to determine
which of the several thousand building permits for remodeling were for the purpose of
rehabilitating substandard units, As the community analysis data indicates, the City does
not have a significant problem with substandard units. Due to the high land values in the
community most rehabilitation is done without involvement of the City. During the last
five years the City has not been involved in a property condemnation. The City has assisted
one very low income resident repair a roof with it's CDBG emergency home repair
program. The City has not experienced a significant number of requests for rehabilitation
assistance. Until the 1990 Census i's published, the City will not know the extent of sub-
standard units in the community.
The City's efforts to conserve.sources of affordable housing are achieved through applica-
tion of the Mobile Home Park Zone, the Condominium Conversion Regulations and
Council Policy P-1. During the five year period,the City has not had an application to con-
vert a mobile home park. The vacancy rate provision of the Condominium Conversion
Regulations has prohibited applications for the conversion of rental units to con-
dommiums. Council Policy P-1 has permitted the demolition of only 16 units during the
five years. None of these units had low and moderate income occupants. It is estimated
that an additional 150 units not subject to the regulations listed above, single family and
duplex units, were lost through demolition. It is not possible to determine the income
group of the occupants of these units.
From the information presented above it is clear that the Housing Element is an effective
policy tool that has resulted in the attaimnent of the City's overall housing objectives for
the development,rehabilitation,and conservation of housing. The City has also made sig-
nificant progress in the implementation of the Housing Element. This progress is
measured by the following actions taken to produce affordable housing units. As shown
in the above table, 684 housing units were produced for very low, low and moderate in-
come households. 7he City had estimated that it could produce 602 units in these income
groups. In these same income groups the RHAM showed aneed for 1,G48 units over the
six and one-half year period. As recognized by State law, this need was well beyond the
capacity of the City. In orderto achieve the 155 very low and low income units,it was neces-
sary for the City to use significant amounts of government assistance. The City took the
following actions to achieve these units,thereby implementing the program objectives of
the Element:
_ 106-
1. Redesignated three nonresidential sites for residential use and approved 824 units.
2. Granted density bonuses on three developments under Section 65915 of the Govern-
ment Code. These bonuses were on sites zoned for 20 units per acre and all three
were 509o' or greater.
3. Used$2,417,000 in CDBG funds to assist 140 of the units. This amounted to 90.19o'
of the City's CDBG allocation.
4. Waived park fees and road improvement fees.
5. Approved modifications to development standards.
6. Expedited all City processing.
7. Submitted a California low income housing tax credit application for the developers
ofone project.
8. Used rent standard incentives to promote the use of Section 8 rental assistance on
60 units.
The City further implemented the program objectives of the Housing Element by taking
the following actions to achieve the 529 units of moderate income housing. These 529 units
exceeded the City's projected goal of 432 units by 97 units.
1. The City approved an agreement for the use of tax exempt revenue bonds to assist
the development of 520 units.
2. Through the negotiated development process the City required the provision of 39
units.
3. A nonresidential site was redesignated for residential use.and 40 units were approved
for development.
4. Nine units were constructed as a result of the application of Council Policy P-1.
The City also allocated$60,800 of its remaining CDBG funds to assist agencies that provide
shelter and assistance to the homeless. When combined with the funds used for new hous-
ing,92.3%of the City's CDBG funds were used for housing purposes. The City contracted
with a fair housing agency to handle its fair housing program. Several procedural guides
were prepared to assist developers with the City's permit process.
- 107-
Housing Element Coastal Zone Review
The City of Newport Beach uses Council Policy P-1 to guide the implementation of
Government Code Section 65590 et.seq. During the period from January 1,1982,through
April 1, 1989, 13 new housing developments were approved by the City under Council
Policy P-1 for construction within the coastal zone. Of the 256 new housing units within
these developments, 37 units were required to be developed and maintained as housing
affordable to low and moderate income persons pursuant to Section 65590 and Council
Policy P-1. During this same period, the City permitted landowners to demolish 7 hous-
ing projects within the coastal,zone. Of the 29 units demolished,only 5 were occupied by
low and moderate income persons. The City required the developers and landowners to
provide 2 units of replacement housing for low and moderate income persons.The 2 new
housing units required as replacement units were provided onsite.The two replacement
units are includedin the total of 37 units required to be affordable. Forty-four of the new
housing units were approved for construction on the seven redeveloped sites. Thus,in this
87 month period,the City approved the construction of 256 units in new housing develop.
ments in the coastal zone,for a total net increase of 227 dwelling units,and net increase of
32 units affordable to low and moderate income families.
_ 108-