HomeMy WebLinkAboutHousing Element (PA2003-130)CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item No. 5
June 19, 2003
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: Planning Department
Tamara J. Campbell AICP, Senior Planner
(949) 644 -3238, tampbell@city.newport-beach.ca.us
SUBJECT: General Plan Amendment 2003 -04, PA 2003 -130
Negative Declaration and Adoption of Updated Housing Element
APPLICANT NAME: City- initiated
ISSUES:
1) Adoption of an updated and reformatted Housing Element.
2) Certification of a proposed Negative Declaration.
RECOMMENDATION:
Recommend City Council approval of the Housing Element and certification of the
proposed Negative Declaration.
DISCUSSION:
Background: California's Planning and Zoning Law requires cities to update their
housing elements every five years. The Newport Beach Housing Element was last
updated in 1992, Because of State budgetary limitations in recent years, funding for
regional councils of government to update Regional Housing Needs Assessments
(RHNA's) was not available, and the Legislature extended deadlines for housing
element updates. In the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG)
region, the deadline was June 30, 2000. Newport Beach was not able to meet this
deadline due to other priorities and staff changes.
When it became apparent that the City could not meet the State deadline with in -house
staff, an outside consultant (Hogle- Ireland, Inc.) was retained to prepare the update.
Their initial assignment was to complete a simple update of the existing element.
However, as staff reviewed early drafts, it became apparent that a more comprehensive
General Plan Amendment 2003 -04
PA2003 -130 Negative Declaration
Updated Housing Element
June 19, 2003
Page 2
revision, including policy refinement, would make the element easier to use and
implement. These revisions are discussed below.
The Planning Commission reviewed an earlier draft of the Housing Element in June
2001 and discussed its major provisions. The noticed study session was intended to
provide an opportunity for public comment and early Commission review. Minutes of
that meeting are attached as Exhibit A. During the same month, City staff submitted
the element to the State Housing and Community Development Department (HCD).
Since June 2001, staff has worked with HCD staff to gain certification that our Housing
Element complies with State law. In response to HCD comments, staff revised the
element to include additional information and analysis. HCD was especially interested
in information on sites that could accommodate Newport Beach's share of the regional
housing need, including infill and redevelopment sites. Our work with HCD included a
visit to Newport Beach by three HCD staff members, during which we showed them the
sites identified in the Element, as well as the high density and quality of our existing
housing stock.
Finally, on May 8, 2003 the City received a letter from HCD indicating that the latest
draft (March 23, 2003) met the statutory requirements and that compliance had been
obtained. A copy of the letter is attached as Exhibit B. There are several conditions
that HCD is attaching to the City's "certified" status. One is that the City play a proactive
role in ensuring that buildout of the Lower Bayview Landing project will provide a
minimum of 120 housing units affordable to lower- income households. Another
condition is that the City rezone the Avocado /MacArthur site to a designation that will
allow development of 56 multi - family units within one year of certification of the Housing
Element. One last condition set forth by HCD is that the City commit to providing the
necessary development incentives that will encourage and facilitate the development of
affordable housing on the Banning Ranch site. The City will be required to report its
progress to HCD by October 1 of each year.
It is important to note that substantial changes to the Element at this point will require
resubmittal to HCD for further review and could impact the City's current "certified"
status.
Analysis: As directed by HCD, the Element has been revised to include: 1) additional
information pertaining to the development of land available for new housing
construction, 2) an expanded analysis of governmental constraints, and 3) revised
housing programs to strengthen the City's commitment to further its housing goals.
Another major amendment was the result of annexing Newport Coast in January 2002.
Annexation necessitated further revisions to the Element, including the addition of
General Plan Amendment 2003 -04
PA2003 -130 Negative Declaration
Updated Housing Element
June 19, 2003
Page 3
relevant census /demographic data and a description of housing conditions and
opportunities. Of greater significance, a LAFCO condition of the annexation was that
the City adopt the Newport Coast RHNA allocation - of 95 low- income units and 850
above - moderate units. The new Housing Element reflects this allocation.
As staff was revising the Element to meet HCD's requirements, we noticed that its five -
year housing plan had some redundancies and confusion that had been carried over
from the previous certified Element. Therefore, many of the housing programs have
been reorganized and renumbered to ensure consistency with related goals and
policies. In addition, some policies have been combined to eliminate redundancy,
facilitate reader comprehension, and to assist the City in its administration of the
Element.
Housina Needs
The Housing Needs subsection includes the RHNA numbers for Newport Beach, which
are the City's housing development goals for the 1998 -2005 time period. (The goals are
retrospective due to the hiatus in State funding of the RHNA program.) Newport
Beach's overall goal is 1,421 new housing units, with nearly 25% of these units for very
low (86), low (148) and moderate (83) income households. In addition to
acknowledging these goals, the Housing Needs subsection makes reference to the
"special needs" population most in need of affordable housing, senior citizens. This
sets the stage for the Inventory of Land Suitable for Residential Development
subsection and Housing Plan sections that follow.
Inventory of Land Suitable for Residential Development
One of the State's strongest requirements for housing elements is to identify. sufficient
sites to accommodate the housing units identified in the RHNA. As a community that is
nearly built out, this is a challenge for Newport Beach. Nonetheless, three sites have
been identified that, together, could accommodate 582 housing units. With a density
bonus of 25 %, a total of 727 units could be developed. Banning Ranch is shown to
accommodate 406 dwelling units while the Avocado - MacArthur site is shown to
accommodate 56 units. Lower Bayview Landing is identified as being able to
accommodate 120 dwelling units (150 with a density bonus). The City recently
approved Lower Bayview Landing for 150 very low- income senior housing units. The
project is now before the Coastal Commission where issues pertaining to wetlands and
landform alteration have been raised. The City is pursuing approval of the project.
The potential for redevelopment or "infill" is greater than for new development, with
1,100 housing units possible. As the few remaining vacant sites in the City are
developed, infill potential will become more important in the future.
General Plan Amendment 2003 -04
PA2003 -130 Negative Declaration
Updated Housing Element
June 19, 2003
Page 4
It will be important to consider implications to the City's ability to provide for future
housing needs when conducting the General Plan Update. For example, if the City
reduces residential density in any area, we will need to find other places to provide for
equivalent housing opportunities.
Housing Plan
Rent Subsidies: During the discussion of the Housing Element in June 2001, the
Planning Commission asked staff to explore the possibility of using the City's affordable
housing in -lieu fund to subsidize existing apartments, instead of focusing affordable
housing efforts on new construction. The Commission should understand that State law
requires that Housing Elements include identification of sites to accommodate regional
need, and Newport Beach's recent certification is conditioned on our pursuing
development of the sites we have identified. For these reasons, staff does not
recommend that the City substitute a subsidy program for new construction.
Nonetheless, staff agrees with the Commission that subsidies to make some of Newport
Beach's large number of rental units more affordable could be an effective program in
addition to new construction. With assistance from the Administrative Services
Department, staff analyzed the potential effectiveness of a City subsidy program.
Market rents in Newport Beach are generally within the definition of affordable for
moderate - income households, so the analysis included only low- and very low- income
households.
Newport Beach's need in these income categories (including Newport Coast) is 148
low- income households and 86 very low- income households. The City's affordable
housing in -lieu fund has approximately $2.5 million, but $1.0 —1.5 million (depending on
whether prevailing wages will be required) is committed to the Lower Bayview Landing
senior project. Optimistically assuming a remaining fund of $1.5 million earns 3%
interest per year, and assuming full subsidy of all low- and very low- income households
identified in the City's needs analysis, the fund would last only fifteen months.
Approaching the analysis from another point of view, the City's fund would be sufficient
to subsidize rent for sixty households for about five years. This analysis does not
include any costs for administration of the program.
By comparison, the City's contribution of $1.0 — 1.5 million to the Lower Bayview
Landing senior project will yield 150 units affordable to very low- income households for
55 years. This is because, with a new construction project, the City's money can be
leveraged with federal, state and county resources such as tax - exempt bond proceeds,
tax credits and redevelopment funds set aside for affordable housing.
General Plan Amendment 2003 -04
PA2003 -130 Negative Declaration
Updated Housing Element
June 19, 2003
Page 5
Staff's conclusion is that Newport Beach would be able to meet more of its housing
needs and maintain better compliance with State law through new construction
programs than with rent subsidies. Although staff does not believe a direct subsidy
program is one the City should pursue, we have included in the Housing Element a
program (1.2.2) to explore the possibility of extending affordability covenants on existing
units that were developed with rent restrictions to satisfy earlier inclusionary
requirements. As these affordability covenants expire, the City will need to address the
feasibility of extending them in future Housing Element updates.
Goals, Policies and Programs: The housing goals, policies and programs in the
attached Housing Element have been modified since June 2001. The original list is
included as Exhibit E, for comparison.
Some programs have been deleted if found to be outdated or completed. Some
programs have been added, and many have been rewritten for clarification and /or
renumbered. The policies discussed below have been either amended or added.
Policies that have been only rewritten and /or renumbered are not explained below. A
complete explanation of changes is included in the letter to HCD of September 16, 2002
(Exhibit C).
2.2.2 — Amended based on recent direction from the Affordable Housing Task Force to
revise and clarify when in -lieu housing fees should be collected. It should be noted that
the City does not have an existing policy to follow when evaluating proposed projects.
3. 1.1 — Amended to reference the City's one -stop permit processing center. Processing
times for all building permits have shortened dramatically when the procedure is
implemented, thereby assisting developers when housing projects are proposed.
3.2.2 — Amended to include specific requirement for `low- income" seniors.
3.2.3 — Modified to delete income level in hopes of getting any kind of Senior Housing.
As HCD requested, this program has been amended to include a one -year time limit for
the rezoning of the Avocado /MacArthur site.
3.2.4 — Amended to create a separate program (3.2.5).
3.2.5 — Added to reflect the fact that the City is conducting an economic study as part of
its General Plan Update in an effort to identify appropriate sites for residential zoning.
Please note that this study has been completed and that the program will be re- written
to reflect that the study will be used to evaluate sites for residential zoning located within
the Coastal Zone as part of the General Plan Update process. This change to the
Element will occur prior to City Council consideration on July 22.
5
General Plan Amendment 2003 -04
PA2003 -130 Negative Declaration
Updated Housing Element
June 19, 2003
Page 6
3.2.6 - Added to reflect that the City is pursuing participation in a regional effort for the
purpose of financing and administering a lease /purchase program for first -time
homebuyers.
Goal 4 — Amended to exclude reference to rental housing and expanded to include all
levels of lower- income groups (0. very low, low and moderate - income).
Program 5.1.3 — Amended to provide clarification on the City's role in cooperating with
the Orange County Housing Authority to establish a Senior /Disabled or Limited Income
Repair Loan and Grant program.
5.1.10 renumbered to 4.1.4 — Amended to reflect City's intent to use in -lieu fees for new
construction of affordable housing units which may or may not be specific to special
needs groups.
5.1.9 — Added as a result of SB 520 relating to housing intended for persons with
disabilities and includes a deadline of January 2003.
Environmental Review: Negative Declaration (attached as Exhibit D). 30 -day review
period May 29, 2003 to June 30, 2003.
Public Notice: Public Hearing Notice (Ile page ad) published in Daily Pilot June 7,
2003. Negative Declaration notice posted /published May 29, 2003.
Prepared by:
Tamara J. Campbell, Senior Planner
Submitted by:
aron Z. Wood ssistant City Manager
Attachments: EXHIBIT A - Planning Commission Minutes (June 21, 2001)
EXHIBIT B - Letter of Conditional Certification from HCD
EXHIBIT C - Letter from HCD (Sept. 16,2002)
EXHIBIT D - Negative Declaration
EXHIBIT E - Draft Housing Element Programs (June 2001)
EXHIBIT F — Certified Housing Element (March 2003)
oil
EXHIBIT A
(Planning Commission Minutes 6/21/01)
q
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
June 21, 2001
SUBJECT. Draff Housing Element
Review and discussion of proposed draft Housing Element.
Commissioner Tucker asked to hear testimony and then ask a few questions
about the main issues in this area.
Public comment was opened.
James Quigg of Costa Mesa spoke as a member of the Sierra Club noting that
the Club is adamantly opposed to any development on the Banning Ranch. He
stated that he had talked to Ron Tibets from the County and that primarily that
location is within the jurisdiction of the County of Orange. The caveat being that
the privately owned property, exclusive of the School district and Transit Authority,
is a small piece of property. If that is the item that is being referenced to in the
reading materials, they have alluded to 292 residential units going on that
property, I guess the City of Newport has the right to do so. Otherwise, they
overstep their jurisdiction.
Public comment was closed.
Commissioner Tucker then asked staff for an overview of the issues. This meeting is
held to receive public input, of which we have gotten very little, and to review a
draft of the requested revisions. Tell us what we are supposed to be seeing.
Ms. Wood noted that the Housing Element is the one Element of the General Plan
that there are a number of state regulations on. There are guidelines that have
been promulgated by the staff of the State Housing and Community
Development Department that we need to comply with. We need to update
the General Plan every five years and we need to have the State HCD certify the
Element as complying with State Law. Those regulations require a lot of detail, a
lot of information and so probably the first two- thirds of the Element are really just
a lot of Census information, information on trends of development, how much
housing development we have seen. We are using the 1990 Census data
because that is what everyone agreed to when the extension was done
because of the State budget situation. We thought about using some of our new
2000 census data as it is starting to come in, but then we would have different
sources and mismatched data.
The really important things to see out of the data and analysis is to try to find out
what Newport Beach's real housing needs are, especially in the special housing
needs populations. We think that the information we have shows that our senior
citizens are the ones we should be concentrating on the most. When we get into
the quantified housing objectives, the Regional Housing Needs Assessment
(RHNA) those are the numbers that State Law requires that the Council of
governments, which in our case is SCAG, to produce. They take into account
employment projections, vacancy rates, amount of vacant land remaining, the
INDEX
Item No. 1
Continued to date
uncertain
till
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
June 21, 2001
capacity of that remaining vacant land and they assign a certain new
construction need for each community. That is broken down by income group
and the idea is to make sure that the responsibility for providing housing for all
income groups is shared among all communities within the State. The low
requires that we use those numbers as our quantified objectives unless we wish to
challenge them and develop our own, which is a very complicated process. We
think these numbers are fair and reasonable for Newport Beach. Our staff has
been involved in the regional population and employment projections for a long
time so that we feel comfortable that these really do reflect what we expect to
happen in Newport Beach.
It would be important for the Commission to look at the sites that we have
identified for future housing development. One of the other requirements is that
you must identify sites that can accommodate all of the needs shown in your
RHNA numbers. We have shown three sites including the Banning Ranch and the
gentleman who spoke is correct that the majority of that site is still
unincorporated County area, some of it is within the City limits, but if is within our
Planning Area and we are supposed to plan for that area as part of our General
Plan. We think it is appropriate to show that site. With those three sites, Banning
Ranch, AvOcad0 /MocArihur and Lower Bayview Landing we believe that we
can accommodate the units that are projected for us. For the next update of
the Element in five years, hopefully our need numbers will be lower because that
is the trend we are seeing as we are approaching build out. Whatever the need
is, 1 think we are going to have more of a challenge to find sites for those units
and we will probably be looking more at the infill and redevelopment area. Our
estimate from a review of the development and General Plan potential is that
we have approximately 1,100 units that could be produced in that fashion. We
would like the Commission to look at those three sites and tell us if you think that is
the direction we should be going.
The Housing Plan includes our goals, policies and programs to get there. Cities
are not required to actually produce affordable housing, but we are supposed to
adopt policies and programs that will facilitate the development of housing as
shown in our Regional Housing Needs Assessment. We have kept the some
programs that the existing Housing Element has had. We have done some
simplification to eliminate the sliding scale, but kept the overall goal that on
overage over the next five years, 20% of the units produced should be affordable
to very low, low and moderate income households. The biggest change is
adding the option of contributing a fee in lieu of actually producing affordable
housing for people who are developing market rate housing. This is something
we have actually done for a couple of developments in the post, but it is not
provided for in our Housing Element. We think it is a good option for us to provide,
particularly for smaller developments. That will make it easier and more feasible
for the developer and easier for City staff to monitor the affordable units that we
have in the future. If you just have two or three units here and there, then the job
becomes harder for u. But we did not want that option to be available to very
large housing developers because then the City would be in the position of
holding a large of sum of in -lieu fees and be responsible for producing the
INDEX
0
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
June 21, 2001
housing and that is not the business that we are in.
The last change in policy was to require that affordable units have covenants
that require the affordability be maintained for 30 years. In the earlier days of
developing affordable housing in Newport Beach, some of those covenants
were only ten years. With time and experience, they got longer so that our
actual standard recently has been 30 years, but we wanted to write that into the
Element.
The consultants who prepared the Element for us from Hogle Ireland, Mike Thiele
and Albert Armijo, are here to answer questions particularly on data sources.
Commissioner Gifford asked about the Avocado /MacArthur site. It says here it
would require a zone change to add multiple family residential use. But, to allow
the proposed construction of 56 residential units, is there a particular parcel there
or set of parcels that is being contemplated in this site?
Ms. Wood answered that it is north of San Miguel, between Avocado and
MacArthur. We do not mean the Newport Village site.
Ms. Temple added that looking at the map following page 44, there is a
depiction of the property in question that is now vacant. The building would be
based on 20 units per acre, which is the standard multi - family density.
Commissioner McDaniel noted that he is a numbers person. He said that in
looking at these documents with several different sources moving through this
data that sometimes the similar numbers are quoted differently. Continuing, he
noted that he has tried to track that, and I think it is our duty to point out a few of
these things. Page 5 - the chart states that there are 271 units per year added
from 1990 to 2000. Looking at those numbers, I get 269.25. The figure for 1990 is a
two -year number and you don't know which one to divide by. The data isn't
bad, and the conclusions are close enough as for as I can see, but it does
concern me when I look at other conclusions that someone might make at
looking at these charts. Page 12, we talk about vacancy at 10.1 in 1980 and 11.5
in 1990; try to define what vacancy is, I am not sure we have a handle on that. In
other words, when a person owns a piece of property here, but also has a piece
of property in Lake Tahoe and spends 6 months here and 6 months there, is that
really a vacancy or not? Maybe it doesn't matter, but I just don't think we have
a good handle on that. I looked at things like page 17 where it talks about the
population in Newport beach in the year 2000 as 76, 772 and then on the next
page we show a population of 75,627. 1 guess I am not too worried about this,
but I look at some of these things and realize that there are different sources that
these numbers come from. I did not find that the conclusions were distorted
because of some of these. I just think that there are probably other conclusions
based on a data that you might want to look for and find.
Commissioner Tucker then asked about the timing for providing for the housing
that is identified as need housing, is that something that needs to be supposedly
4
INDEX
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
June 21, 2001
in place over the next five years?
Ms. Wood answered, yes. When we update again in five years, one of the things
we have to do is report on our progress in implementing this Housing Element just
as this one is talking about our progress in implementing the lost. Of course, the
more we have been able to accomplish, the closer we are to our goals, the
better it looks to HCD when they're doing their certification review. There are no
clear -cut consequences to the City if we do not meet our goals. HCD might
comment that the programs are not adequate and ask that we be more
creative or more specific in programs. If the Element is not certified, the City has
the option of self - certifying. The council must make findings that the City believes
that the Element does meet the requirements of the State Law despite what the
HCD staff recommends. There is some risk in that because the City might be a
more likely target for a lawsuit from an affordable housing advocacy group who
thinks that because it is not certified by the State, it might not be adequate. We
have been sued in the past and what we have done in the course of working
through that litigation was to start to get more housing developed and improve
the Housing Element. The State Law does not say that the City is required to
produce affordable housing; the City is required to have a plan that facilitates
that happening.
Commissioner Tucker noted the three sites designated to take care of the need.
Banning Ranch obviously has some issues because we have still not seen the
project or an environmental document. Avocado /MacArthur area, which to me
is going to need a lot of retaining walls to get the 56 units or some height.
Bayview Landing, which is a nice piece of property, have we talked to any of the
property owners about our goals for their property?
Ms, Wood answered that the City is working with The Irvine Company, that owns
the Lower Boyview Landing site and we are working to develop a project for
seniors that is affordable on that site. That site is a very realistic site. The potential
developer of Banning Ranch has just last week responded to the City's Request
for Proposals for senior affordable housing projects. In our discussions with them in
the early planning for the development, we have always talked about the
potential for affordable housing as part of that development.
At Commission inquiry, Ms. Wood explained that the procedure for helping the
developers could happen in a number of ways. For a larger market rate housing
development, we would require some percent of the total number of market
rate units to be provided as affordable units. We are saying an average of 20%
over the next five years. We might say we want 20% of your total number of units
to be affordable. The developer can produce those units as part of his project
and that was done earlier in some of our apartment projects; some percent of
those units were developed as affordable, side by side with the market rate ones.
Or, they can develop an affordable project somewhere else in the City to meet
that requirement. If it is a smaller project, they can opt to pay the in -lieu fee.
Commissioner Tucker asked for a description on how the deal with the Lower
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
June 21, 2001
Boyview Landing would work. The Irvine Company, I am assuming, has no other
big housing developments in the City and has a piece of property and you have
identified it as a location for affordable housing. How does that actually come
into production as affordable senior housing?
Ms. Wood answered in that case, it is the City's position that The Irvine Company
has an obligation to produce approximately 120 affordable units because when
we did the CIOSA Agreement they developed market rate housing without
providing affordable units. In other cases, the developer might come to the City
and request some of our in -lieu funds to assist with acquiring the
Avocado /MacArthur site or they might go to the State and apply for tax credits
to develop affordable housing, they might get low interest loans for affordable
housing from the State Housing Finance Agency or they might obtain financing
through the Federal Housing and Urban Development Department.
Commissioner Tucker noted that we have collected a lot of money from the One
Ford Road Project (a little over 2 million dollars). At what point do we have an
obligation to spend some of that money?
Ms. Wood answered the sooner the better and that was the reason the City
issued the request for proposals for senior affordable housing.
Commissioner Tucker, referring to page 48, noted the reference of the City
having identified areas vAth potential for redevelopment and /or intensification of
under - utilized residential properties (in- fill). There is a Figure 4 that shows generally
areas that might have some additional housing capacity. Are the properties that
have been identified presently general planned for that intensification, or do we
have to go through a General Plan Amendment?
Ms. Temple answered that those numbers represent areas that are currently
either general planed and zoned for multi - family residential or for
residential /commercial mixed use. The growth numbers, a total of approximately
1100 units, we find within the various multi - family residential areas scattered
around Newport Beach and the commercial areas which include residential
mixed use. They are all entitled currently and it would be a matter of building out
to what the zoning would allow.
Commissioner Agajonian referring to pages 70, 71 and 72 lists over the past five
years where the City has allocated its affordable housing, or actually housing
assistance money. I don't see anything that helps housing per se. I can see how
we have helped some programs that do help some housing, but it seems to me
that the bulk of the money was with the removal of architectural barriers in 1996-
1997 with $308,000 and neighborhood revitalization in 1997 - 1998 with $304,750
and public facilities in 1999 -2000 with $339,902. These contributions seem to be
substantially administrative types of assistance. Is there anything we do to
actually create the seed or push forward any kind of other affordable housing
assistance?
DEX
�a
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
June 21, 20DI
Ms. Wood answered that in going further back, the City did allocate the bulk of
our Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) to assisting the development
of affordable housing projects. We assisted with purchase of the land and with
the interest rates on a number of projects. Then there was a shift in the time
period that is shown in this Element as we started to focus more on the removal of
architectural barriers, making public facilities compliant with the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA), which is an eligible use of these funds. We also started
focusing on our revitalization effort for the Balboa Peninsula. The CDBG funds are
not limited to housing. They must be used to benefit persons of low and
moderate income. On the Peninsula is the only neighborhood in the City where
we have a concentration of lower income households, so that we are able to
use our CDBG funds on public improvements and revitalization strategy with
greater latitude than we could in any other part of the City.
The only other funds that the City has to assist with affordable housing is our in -lieu
fund that was. contributed to by the One Ford Road project and the Sail House
project. Those cities that have redevelopment agencies are required to set aside
20% of their funds to develop affordable housing, but without an agency we do
not have that resource. One of the expenditures of the CDBG, the funding to the
Fair Housing Council, is a requirement of the grant.
Commissioner Agajanian asked when we seek the in -lieu fees, why is the City
leaning upon new development to help contribute towards affordable housing
when the City itself outside of its CDBG money is not contributing anything for its
existing needs? It seems that new development is the only source of monies
outside of CDBG for housing, is that correct?
Ms. Wood answered that is true locally, but that there are other County, State
and Federal Programs that developers of affordable housing can access. The
focus on new construction to satisfy the need is because of the way the State law
is written. if we were to use some of our 2 million dollars of in -lieu fees to help
rehabilitate housing units and then apply an affordability covenant on them for
some period of time, that would not count towards satisfying our need as shown
in the housing needs assessment numbers.
Commissioner Agajanian referring to Goal 3, Policy 3.1 noted that, .....to mitigate
potential governmental constraints to housing production and affordability by
increasing the City of Newport Beach role in facilitating construction of moderate
and upper income ownership housing...... Why are we supporting upper income
housing? Is there any other group we can find that has any need here other
than upper income seniors?
Mrs. Wood answered because that is approximately half of our need. We
probably do have some need for large families and single headed households
families, but our analysis from looking at the numbers was that the group that has
the greatest need was the senior citizens.
Continuing, Commissioner Agajanian referring to Housing Program 5.1.6, the
INDEX
6
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
June 21, 2001
policy that reads, 'consistent with development standards in multiple- family and
commercial areas, the City of Newport Beach shall continue to permit
emergency shelters and transitional housing....' Does the current zoning allow
this in multi family areas?
Ms. Temple answered that for most transitional housing and emergency shelters,
many of which are considered group homes, under the state law the City is
preempted from controlling them in any case. The City does have a wide variety
of group homes that are considered transitional housing, particularly in the
Balboa Peninsula, West Newport area. There is a tremendous number of
substance abuse recovery operations going on. We also hove some troubled
teen shelters scattered in commercial districts. The state law preempts the City
from regulating them.
Following a brief discussion, it was decided that the words, multiple family, would
be replaced by residential in that section to be consistent with the intent.
Commissioner McDaniel asked what substandard condition is and what the
requirement is to deal with it?
Ms. Wood noted that there is not a specific requirement to deal with that. If in
the process of going through the analysis of all these needs you saw that you had
a large number of substandard units, then perhaps one of your programs would
be to focus your resources on rehabilitation as opposed to new construction or in
addition to new construction. As to the definition of a substandard unit, 1 would
ask one of the consultants for that information.
Albert Armijo of Hogle Ireland noted that there are various components to the
definition of substandard units. One of them being, the State has chosen in the
jurisdictions to focus on units that are more than 30 years old. The State has also
chosen to examine complaints, for instance issues raised by renters, homeowners
of things that are dilapidated with the building in which they are living or in a
neighborhood or something that they drive through on their way to work. The
important thing to note is that there is not a strict definition of what makes a unit
substandard. The State is involved with impressions, age and certainly any
changes after a natural occurrence such as on earthquake. When we
examined potential areas of the City, it was the older areas of the City that are
undergoing a lot of development, particularly in the peninsula area and Balboa
island.
Chairperson Selich noted that from reading this, the City has accumulated
around 2.5 million dollars in housing money. One of things I am curious about is
why are we focusing so much on building new projects rather then taking the
money we have accumulated and creating some kind of endowment and using
income off it to subsidize units to an affordable level, particularly since we have
such a high percentage of rental units in town already, I think there are
something like 7,000 units and some 40% of the housing is rental units right now.
Staff seemed to indicate that the State requires it because of the needs
INDEX
`A
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
June 21, 2001
assessment, I wonder how that works. Is it a function of how you do your needs
assessment? What happens if you have a City that is completely built out and
there is no place to build any additional units? The only way you can provide
any affordable housing is to go back and to deal with existing units.
Ms. Wood answered that we do not do the needs assessment; we are given the
numbers by SCAG through a method that is approved by State HCD. It is only
the production of new units that counts against that need when you go to do
your review of progress in the next Housing Element update. I know some cities
that are built out and have indicated that they would satisfy their new
construction need by second units on existing lots. So, they were able to identify
the correct number there. The State is essentially forcing cities to build new
rentals even if they are built out. You could as a city have a policy that you
would take the in -lieu fees or redevelopment monies or whatever resources you
had and use them to assist existing rental stock. You can demonstrate that you
had assisted so many households over the course of the five years, but you still
would not hove produced units. We also need to remember that the Regional
Housing Needs Assessment addresses not just the lower income group, but upper
income groups.
At Commissioner inquiry, Ms. Wood added the needs are based on population
and employment projections. So as long as that continues to grow, the need in
the region will grow and that is distributed. I do not know how they distribute it by
income.
Commissioner Gifford noted that certain parts of the total need like the segment
of middle to upper income, we do not have a real issue with if we would not
meet that goal. If the assessment showed we had lowered the need, then in
terms of the new construction to meet that goal, the goal could theoretically be
zero. Is that correct?
Ms. Wood answered that over time it could work out.
Chairperson Selich asked if we could subsidize, how much would we have to
subsidize per unit, say for the moment there were no restrictions?
Ms. Temple added that the purpose of the Housing Element and the goal of the
State is the production of housing, it is not necessarily the assistance of individuals.
There are other programs that are designed to do rental subsidy and other forms
of assistance to individuals who are in need of financial assistance. I think that if
you look at the reason for a housing element, it is to assure that there is sufficient
housing to sustain the State of California.
Chairperson Selich noted that he understands but that he is focusing on the
affordable component of the housing element and not the housing production
aspect of it. Going back to my basic concern, is that we are focusing
completely on finding new sites to build new housing, which is not easy to do just
given the sites that have been selected. We have already got 7,000 rental units
INDEX
1h
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
June 21, 2001
in town that could be subsidized to provide the affordable housing. It seems like
we are forcing a square peg in a round hole.
Ms. Wood answered that we could come back with some analysis on this, and
take a look at what the rent limits should be for the lower income categories that
we should be serving and the average rents for the various size units and
therefore how far we could get with our in -lieu fund of 2.5 million. We can also
talk to the HCD staff about this as we work with them on the review of the draft.
Albert Armijo stated that what we could do is compare the fair average market
rent for various sizes of apartments to what the affordability or what an area -wide
affordability index would be. We could see what the difference would be for the
subsidization of those units.
Chairperson 5elich added just to give us an idea if we endowed 2.5 million
dollars, how many units could be subsidize with that? He then asked staff when
this would be coming back for review.
Ms. Wood answered that it would be at least 45 days because that is the period
of time HCD has to review the draft. It depends on what their comments are and
how many revisions we need to make.
Commissioner Gifford asked to also look at if we flex the range for in -lieu fees to
be collected on new development. How much, based on what kind of new
development you think is coming through could be added to that fund over the
next five years?
Commissioner McDaniel noted that the City is charged with having affordable
housing, not to subsidize housing so that it now becomes affordable. I am
concerned and I am worried that we may be using funds that may or may not
dry up at some point. Have we made the mark? Subsidized housing is a 30 -year
project.
Commissioner Gifford then asked about the annexation of Newport Coast and
how that would relate to this issue.
Ms. Wood answered that these numbers are above and beyond what occurs on
the Coast.
INDEX
Giabman Residence (PA2001 -063) Item No. 2
2315 Pacific Drive Use Permit No. 3684
• ance No. 2001 -002
Modific . Permit No. 2001 -060
Request for a variance to permit an addition to an exis i le family residence Continued to
of which a portion of the new construction exceeds the 24- r ht limit, 07/1412001
ranging from approximately 2 feet to 11.4 feet. The proposal inclu
10
I6
EXHIBIT B
(HCD Letter of Conditional Certification)
11
Zte Ui.�'ALIFORNIA - BUSINESS THnNCVORTATION AND HO iCINC A F' V CRnY DAVIC C
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING A- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Division of Housing Policy Development
1800 Third SbwL Sure 430
P. O. Box 952053
Sum w, CA 94252 -2053
,,l,d.ro.e -,
(916) 323 -3176) FAX: 327 -2643
May 8, 2003
Ms. Patricia Temple, Planning Director
City of Newport Beach
Newport Beach City Hall
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, California 92663 -3884
Dear Ms. Temple:
RECEIVED BY
PLAN ::Nc.pnnP TrnEAC(H
GITY 0
AM MA1 1 4 2M3 Phi
7181910 illi12i1�2�3��1Si6
it
RE: Review of the City of Newport Beach's Revised Draft Housing Element
Y lk
3 N w
D�
Thank you for submitting revisions to Newport Beach's housing element, received for our review on
April 1, 2003. In accordance with Government Code Section 65585(b), the Department of Housing
and Community Development (Department) is required to review draft housing elements and report
our findings to the locality. A November 13, 2002 visit. to Newport Beach, along with a series of
telephone conversations with Ms. Tamara Campbell, Senior Planner, helped facilitate the review.
We are pleased to find the revised draft element addresses the statutory requirements raised in the
Department's August 17, 2001 letter. The element now reflects stronger commitment on the City's
part to facilitate the development of housing affordable to lower - income households. For example,
the City will now play a proactive role in ensuring that buildout of the Bayview Landing project will
provide a minimum of 120 housing units affordable to lower- income households (Program 3.2.2).
Further, Program 3.2.3 commits the City to initiating a rezone of the 3.5 -acre Avocado/MaCArtbur
site to a designation that will allow development of 56 multifamily units. This rezone will be
initiated within one year of certification of the housing element.
Our finding of compliance is conditioned on the effective and timely implementation of multifamily
development and rezone strategies (Programs 3.2.2 and 3.2.3), along with the City's commitment to
provide the necessary development incentives that will encourage and facilitate the development of
housing affordable to. lower income households on the Banning Ranch site. This 45.2 -acre site is
zoned P -C (Planned Community) and can theoretically be developed at densities significantly less
those described in calculating the potential unit capacity (i.e, 406 multifamily family units as
described on page 41 of the element). While we acknowledge that development of the entire site is
not necessary for the City to accommodate its RHNA for the 2000 -2005 planning period, it is critical
that Newport Beach take the appropriate actions to ensure that a sufficient portion of the site (that is
not subject to identified permit processing constraints as described in the element) is designated at
densities that will encourage and facilitate development for lower- income households (commensurate
with its remaining need of 58 units). Using its general plan implementation progress report, required
pursuant to Government Code Section 65400, Newport Beach should report on actual buildout
yields, including acreage, density, and affordability within Banning Ranch. The aforementioned
statute requires the housing implementation component of the progress report to be submitted to this
Department by October 1 of each year.
I
Ms. Patricia Temple, Planning Director
Page 2
If by November 2004, such reporting determines development has not proceeded with densities
sufficient to accommodate housing affordable for lower- income households the element would no
longer identify adequate sites and require amendment. The City would need to amend the element
to identify alternative sites with minimum densities of no less than 26 dwelling units per acre
(consistent with the Bayview Landing project), or otherwise demonstrate the adequacy of its site
strategy.
Newport Beach's housing element now reflects a stronger commitment to meet the housing needs
of its lower- income residents through a variety of development strategies and programs. Effective
implementation of these strategies will assist Newport Beach in overcoming the development
challenges and obstacles that face many coastal communities in Orange County. The element will
be in compliance with State law when adopted (with all revisions) and submitted to this
Department for review pursuant to Government Code Section 65585(g). We appreciate the insight
Ms. Campbell provided during the course of our review, and look forward to receiving Newport
Beach's adopted housing element. If you have any additional questions, please contact
Don Thomas, of our staff, at (916) 445 -5854.
We are also pleased to report, as a result of the passage of Proposition 46, a historic increase in
funds available, on a competitive basis, through the Department to assist in addressing housing and
community development needs. Information on these programs, including Notices of Funding
Availability (NOFA), will be posted on the Department's website. For program information and
funding availability, please consult our homepage at www.hcd.ca.Q —,o
In accordance with requests pursuant to the Public Records Act, we are forwarding copies of this
letter to the persons and organizations listed below.
Sincerely,
764�wd
Cathy E. s ell
Deputy Dir ctor
cc: Tamara Campbell, Senior Planner, City of Newport Beach
Mark Stivers, Senate Committee on Housing & Community Development
Suzanne Ambrose, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, AG's Office
Terry Roberts, Governor's Office of Planning and Research
Nick Cammarota, California Building Industry Association
Marcia Salkin, California Association of Realtors
Marc Brown, California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation
Rob Weiner, California Coalition for Rural Housing
John Douglas, AICP, Civic Solutions
11
Ms. Patricia Temple, Planning Director
Page 3
Deanna Kitamura, Western Center on Law and Poverty
S. Lynn Martinez, Western Center on Law and Poverty
Alexander Abbe, Law Firm of Richards, Watson & Gershon
Michael G. Colantuono, Colantuono, Levin & Rozell, APC
Ilene J. Jacobs, California Rural Legal Assistance, Inc.
Ralph Kennedy, Orange County Housing Coalition
Crystal Simms, Legal Aid Society of Orange County
Jean Forbath, Orange County Human Relations
Kenneth W. Babcock, Public Law Center
Ellen Winterbottom, Attorney at Law
Jonathan Lehrer - Graiwer, Attorney at Law
Dara Schur, Protection & Advocacy, Inc.
Greg Spiegel, Western Center on Law and Poverty
David Booher, California Housing Council
Ana Marie Whitaker, California State University Pomona
Veronica Tam, Cotton, Bridges and Associates
Lynne Fishel, Building Industry Association
Joe Carreras, Southern California Association of Governments
Scott Darrell, Kennedy Commission
Dara Kovel, Mercy Charities — Housing California
Janet Falk, Mercy Housing California
Maya Dunne, St. Joseph Health System
Mark A. Gordon, Public Law Center
Christine Diemer Iger, Manatt, Phelps & Phillips
Won Chang, Attorney at Law, Davis and Company
Jacob Lieb, Southern California Association of Governments
Karen Warner, Karen Warner Associates
John Douglas, AICP, Civic Solutions
E
EXHIBIT C
(HCD LETTER 9/16/02)
�I
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
P.O. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658 -8915
September 16, 2002
Ms. Cathy Creswell, Deputy Director
California Housing and Community Development
Division of Housing Policy Development
1800 Third Street, Suite 430
Sacramento, CA 94252 -2053
RE: City of Newport Beach Draft Housing Element (re- submittal)
Dear Ms. Creswell:
The City of Newport Beach is pleased to provide you with its revised draft of the
Year 2000 Housing Element. Comments, direction and suggestions from your
letter dated August 17, 2001 have been considered and, wherever possible,
incorporated into the attached Element. As directed, the Element has been
revised to include: 1) additional information pertaining to the development of
available land for new housing construction, 2) an expanded analysis of
governmental constraints, and 3) revised housing programs to strengthen the
City's commitment to further its housing goals.
We have taken the opportunity of responding to your comments to do a more
thorough review of the Element. As a result, many of the housing programs have
been reorganized and renumbered to ensure consistency with related goals and
policies. In addition, some policies and programs have been combined to
eliminate redundancy, facilitate reader comprehension, and to assist the City in
its administration of the Element.
It is recommended that the revised draft be evaluated in comparison with the
previously submitted draft for ease of re- evaluation.
Please note that on January 1, 2002 the City annexed Newport Coast, a 7,700 -
acre area located between Corona del Mar and Laguna Beach. Although
Census data for the area is not available since development did not exist in 1990,
City staff compiled as much demographic and statistical information as possible
for inclusion in this Housing Element. in addition, data pertaining to the Regional
Housing Needs Allocation for Newport Coast has been included.
3300 Newport Boulebard, Newport Beach � a
In response to the passage of SB 520 relating to housing intended for persons
with disabilities, a new program has been added. Housing Program 5.1.9
ensures that by January 2003, the City will conduct an evaluation of constraints
on the development, maintenance and improvement of housing intended for
persons with disabilities. The program also specifies that if such constraints are
found, the City will initiate actions to remove them within six months of
completion of the evaluation.
The following is a brief summary of the major changes that City staff completed
as a result of HCD's letter and an update of the previously submitted draft:
A. Housing Needs. Resources, and Constraints
1. Units at risk. The Element has been revised to include a discussion of the
Seaview Lutheran Plaza. Page 14 explains that the project was approved by the
City of Newport Beach as an affordable, senior citizen housing facility only; and
that it may not be converted to any other form of use without explicit approval (a
new Use Permit or an amendment to the existing Use Permit) by the City of
Newport Beach. The expiration date identified on page 15 indicates that the
project could change to market rate rents as early as 2002. It is important to note
that this is the date the Section 202 loan financing is over. The project will not be
converted and is at no risk of converting, given the City's discretionary review
process. A footnote has been added to provide clarification.
2. Housing Conditions Survey. The Element has been revised to clarify the City's
need for 2000 Census data prior to analyzing and identifying the number of
substandard housing units. Your letter indicated that the City needs to estimate
the number of units needing rehabilitation and the number of units needing
replacement within the current planning period. To meet this requirement, page
11, second paragraph, explains that there were only 4 properties in need of
repair during the year 2000. in addition, the Element explains that extremely
high property values and the lack of code enforcement cases indicate that
property owners within Newport Beach, are, for the most part, conscientious
about maintaining their properties. Substandard housing does not appear to be a
problem for Newport Beach at this point in time.
It should be noted that if information in the Census reveals substandard units
exist, the City will attempt to differentiate the number in need of repair versus
those in need of replacement. An amendment to the Housing Element will be
proposed to include such information if necessary.
3. Inventory of land suitable for residential development. Table 29, Page 41 has
been revised to include zoning designations and density standards for 3 sites
suitable for residential development. Status reports describing the potential for
residential development have also been included. As requested, infill sites have
been identified on page 48, figure IV.
2
oF-�
S. Quantified Objectives.
Establish the maximum number of housing units, by income category that can be
newly constructed, rehabilitated, or conserved (preserved) over a five -year time
frame.
As you requested, page 66 of the draft Housing Element has been amended to
include a matrix showing the number of housing units to be constructed,
rehabilitated and /or conserved.
C. Housing Programs
1. Include a five -year schedule of actions the local government is undertaking to
implement the policies and achieve the goals and objectives of the housing
element through the administration of land use and development controls,
provision of regulatory concessions and incentives, and the utilization of
appropriate federal and state financing and subsidy programs (Section 65583 (c)
HCD staff commented that the Element should include definite timelines for all
applicable programs. Additionally, HCD requested that a number of the City's
programs be strengthened and /or clarified and that greater commitment be made
to implementation. City staff has re- evaluated all the housing programs and
policies and modified them where possible. These changes are described in the
following paragraphs. Notations have been made where no changes occurred.
1.1.1 - rewritten for clarification
1.1.2 - rewritten for clarification
1.1.3 - deleted. Program was completed.
1.1.4 - rewritten for clarification, renumbered to 1.1.3
rewritten for clarification, renumbered to 1. 1.4
1. 1.6 — combined with 1.1.1
1. 1.7 - Moved to Goal 2, renumbered to 2.1.1, rewritten for clarification
1.1.8: This program has been eliminated since the City is undergoing a
comprehensive General Plan Update which will likely result in a new land use
designation for mobile home park protection. When the General Plan Update
process is complete, the City will propose map changes to its zoning district
3 I
maps to be consistent with the General Plan. This process is expected to be
completed by 2004.
1.1.9 — rewritten for clarification, renumbered to 1.1.5
1.1.10 — rewritten for clarification, renumbered to 1. 1.6
1.2.1 - The previous draft included Housing Program 1.2.1 that specked staff
would track residential development proposals from submittal through
recordation of subdivision maps and issuance of permits. Upon re- evaluation,
we decided to eliminate this program since it has not been effective in furthering
our goal of developing new affordable housing. It is important to note that the
City is almost completely builtout with very little subdivision potential.
Furthermore, the City already evaluates residential projects for potential
affordable housing agreements as part of the subdivision and environmental
review procedures currently in effect. In addition, tracking of residential projects
is already done annually and provided to the Department of Finance. This
information will be used to track housing development in the future and will be
assimilated for use in subsequent Housing Elements. The housing programs
have been renumbered to reflect this change
1.2.2 - renumbered to 1.2.1. Renumbered program 1.2.1 specifies that the City
will report on the status of its housing programs, on an annual basis, every
January. The program has been amended to specify who shall receive the report
and references delivery by US Mail.
1.2.3 - renumbered to 1.2.2
1.2. 4 — combined with 4.1.2
1.2.5 - deleted. restated as 1.2.2
1.3.1 — rewritten for clarification
1.3.2 — rewritten for clarification
Policy 1.4 — changed to Policy 2.3
1.4.1 — renumbered to 2.3.1 Note: This program was not revised since it is the
City's intent to establish the fee and its implementation as part of the analysis
discussed in the program. This analysis will occur when a project is proposed on
a case -by -case basis. This will ensure that the City has the maximum flexibility
in negotiating for appropriate job /housing imbalances mitigation.
Policy 1.5 —now Policy 1.4
4 )✓
1.5.1 — rewritten for clarification, renumbered to 1.4.1
1.5.2 — deleted. This program was re- evaluated for effectiveness and found to
be unnecessary since it already staffs practice to use updated data
whenever an update is conducted.
1.5.3 — rewritten for clarification, renumbered to 1.4.2
Policy 1.6 — renumbered to .1.5
1.6.1 — rewritten for clarification, renumbered to 1.5.1
1.6.2 — rewritten for clarification, renumbered to 1.5.2
1.5.3 — second half of 1.6.2, separated out for emphasis and numbered 1.5.3
Policy 2.1: amended to refer to "preservation" as well as "provision ".
2.1.1 — rewritten for clarification, renumbered 2.2.5. This program has been
revised to specify that landowners and developers will be contacted regularly to
solicit new housing construction. Although staff resources limit the City's ability
to set up a specific schedule for notification, the Affordable Housing Task Force
will be asked to complete this task. This has been added as a separate Housing
Program (2.2.6)
2.1.2 — rewritten for clarification, renumbered to 2.1.4
2.2.1 — rewritten for clarification, renumbered 2.1.2
2.2.2 — rewritten for clarification, renumbered 2.2.1. HCD's letter requests more
detail on when and how the City will implement and monitor the requirement that
20 percent of all new housing units are to be affordable to very low- and low -
income households, especially in developments of 50 or fewer units.
The City's application, development review and permitting process will ensure
that these units are required, constructed and maintained or in -lieu fees
collected. Staff will apply conditions of approval and enter into affordable
housing agreements when any residential project of four or more units is
proposed and if in -lieu fees are not selected as mitigation. These units will be
monitored on an annual basis by City staff.
It appears that HCD's comments only apply to 2.2.2 and 2.2.3. If revisions are
requested to 2.2.4, please advise.
2.2.3 — rewritten for clarification, renumbered to 2.2.2
5 �6
2.2.4 — no change
3.1.1 — This program has been amended to reference the City's new "one -stop
permit" processing center. Processing times for all building permits will shorten
dramatically when the procedure is implemented, thereby assisting developers
when housing projects are proposed.
3.2.1 - no change
3.2.2 — modified to include specific requirement for "low- income" seniors
3.2.3 — modified to delete income level in hopes of getting any kind of Senior
Housing. As HCD requested, this program has been amended to include a
one -year time limit for the rezoning of the Avocado /MacArthur site.
3.2.4 —This program has been amended. A separate program has been created
as 3.2.5.
3.2.5 — Added Program. The City is currently conducting an economic study as
part of its General Plan Update in an effort to identify appropriate sites for
residential zoning.
3.2.6 — Added Program. The City is interested in pursuing participation in a
regional effort for the purpose of financing and administering a lease /purchase
program for first -time homebuyers.
Goal 4: This goal has been amended to exclude reference to rental housing and
expanded to include all levels of lower- income groups (i.e. very low, low and
moderate- income).
4. 1.1 — rewritten for clarification and renumbered 1.2.3
4.1.2 — rewritten for clarification and renumbered 1.5.3
4.1.3 — rewritten for clarification and renumbered 2.2.5
4.1.4 — rewritten for clarification and renumbered 4.1.5
4.1.5 — rewritten for clarification and renumbered 2.1.5
4.1.6 — rewritten for clarification and renumbered 3.2.7
4.1.7 - rewritten for clarification and renumbered 2.2.3
4.1.8 — rewritten for clarification and renumbered 2.1.3.
6 ) I
4.1.9 — rewritten for clarification and renumbered 3.1.2
4.1.10- rewritten for clarification and renumbered 2.2.8
Policy 4.2 is now 4.1
4.2.1 - renumbered to 4. 1.1
4.2.2 - renumbered to 4.1.2
4.2.3 - renumbered to 4.1.3
5.1.1 -no change
5.1.2 -no change
5.1.3: -This program was revised to provide clarification on the City's role in
cooperating with the Orange County Housing Authority to establish a
Senior /Disabled or Limited Income Repair Loan and Grant program.
5.1.4 — no change
5.1.5 — no change
5.1.6 — no change
5.1.7 — no change
5.1.8 - This program has been deleted since it was determined to be a
duplication of 5.1.3
5.1.9: - renumbered to 5.1.8. Note: this program was not changed since upon re-
evaluation, the program is to be implemented on a continual basis, therefore
establishing a time -line does not seem appropriate.
5.1.10 - renumbered to 4.1.4. Note: this program was revised since the City
intends to use in -lieu fees for new construction of affordable housing units which
may or may not be specific to special needs groups.
5.1.9 - Added Program. This program has been added as a result of SB 520
relating to housing intended for persons with disabilities and includes a deadline
of January 2003.
2. Identity adequate sites which will be made available through appropriate
zoning and development standards...
7 �/
a). HCD commented that absent a complete land inventory, it was not possible to
evaluate the adequacy of the City's sites. Since its last submittal, the City has
revised its Element to address HCD's concerns.
Housing Programs 3.2.2 — 3.2.4: These programs have been revised as
described above.
The City has updated and revised the land inventory to describe the following:
• Provide the status of development on the Bayview and Banning Ranch
sites. (See pages 41 — 42),
• Provide amount of vacant land for Banning Ranch (See Table 29, page
41).
• Establish a date for the rezoning of the Avocado /MacArthur site. (See
page 42).
• Identify the total residential capacity for the 3 vacant sites (See Table 29,
page 41).
• Provide information on any pending annexations and the availability of
additional appropriate sites. (See pages 46 and 49).
• Expand the discussion of underutilized land. (See page 46).
Rec_yclinp /Infill
• Identify land available for recycling /infill. (See Table 30, on page 47 and
page 48)
• Discuss impacts of Measure S on infill sites. (See page 53)
• Provide an expanded discussion on second units. (See pages 12 and 55)
• Provide an expanded discussion on mixed -use commercial/residential
development (See page 40).
Land Use Controls
a) Provide information on Measure S (see page 53)
b) Table 32 — Page 55 describes how the City's density standards are
established. Parking requirements are also specified. Zoning Code provisions
that facilitate affordable housing are also specified on page 55.
Permit Processing and Procedures
a) Describe the Coastal Commission development permit and the City's
residential development permit process. (See pages 56, 57, and 58).
HCD's letter indicates that the City could consider committing surplus in -lieu fees
as an additional subsidy to affordable housing projects on identified sites. it is
staffs opinion that this is a given. Any qualified developer of any type of
8 0��
affordable housing should be eligible for in -lieu housing funds. Obviously, the
funds would be available for identified sites on our inventory. They would also be
available for any other project that furthers the City's goals to provide affordable
housing.
3.2.4 has been revised to include reference to the reduction of commercially
zoned property.
Updated information on the in -lieu housing fund is provided on page 64.
b) The City has the ability to allow emergency shelters and transitional housing in
multi - family and commercial zones subject to a Use Permit. Facilities with less
than 7 individuals are allowed in single - family zones without a Use Permit. Such
flexibility optimally facilitates the development or conversion of existing facilities
to emergency shelters. The Element has been modified to reflect this provision.
(See page 36).
3. Remove Government Constraints to the maintenance, improvement and
development of housing.
HCD indicated that without a complete constraint analysis, it was not possible to
evaluate the previous element for adequacy of the City's program to remove or
mitigate governmental constraints to housing government.
Since Newport Beach staff has made revisions to the "Land Use Controls'
discussion pertaining to Measure S (as directed by HCD) it is anticipated that this
will no longer be a problem.
4. Promote equal housing opportunities for all persons regardless of race,
religion, sex, marital status, ancestry, national origin or color.
1.3.1: As requested, this Program has been revised to identify the City's fair
housing service provider who in turn, describes how fair housing complaints from
City residents are handled. The Program also describes where and how Fair
Housing information is distributed.
5. Preserve affordable housing developments that have received some type of
financial housing assistance or other incentive.
1.2.3 — 1.2.5 and 4.2.1: Upon re- evaluation, it was determined that the City has
no units at risk of being converted to market rate during this planning period.
Nonetheless, we continue to explore the use of in -lieu fees to ensure the long-
term affordability of existing units that may revert to market rate rents during
future Housing Element planning periods.
9 36
D. Public Participation
Page 4 of the Housing Element describes how the City solicits and incorporates
input on the draft Housing Element from all economic segments of the
community.
Thank you for reviewing our Housing Element once again. Hopefully, with the
recommended changes and further refinements that we have been able to
incorporate, your concerns will be resolved. As a final note, 1 would like to
extend an offer to meet with you in person at your convenience (in your office), if
you think it would be beneficial.
If you have any questions or need any additional information, please call Tamara
Campbell, Senior Planner at (949) 644 -3238.
Sincerely,
Sharon Z. Wood
Assistant City Manager
10 hl
EXHIBIT D
(Negative Declaration)
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
3300 Newport Boulevard - P.O. Boa 1768
+, Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915
rtyr����r (949) 644 -3200
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
To:
Office of Planning and Research
P.O. BOX 3044
Sacramento, CA 95812 -3044
County Clerk, County of Orange
Public Services Division
P.O. Box 238
Santa Ana, CA 92702
From: City of Newport Beach
Planning Department
3300 Newport Boulevard - P.O. Box 1768
Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915
(Orange County)
Date received for filing at OPR/County Clerk:
L Public review period. May 29, 2003 —,Lune 30, 2003 '
Name of Project: City of Newport Beach Housing Element Update (General Plan Amendment 2003-
04, PA2003 -130)
Project Location: Citywide
Project Description: The City of Newport Beach proposes an update of its Housing Element, in accordance with
State Law, which provides citizens and public officials with an understanding of the housing
needs of the community, establishes the City's strategy to preserve and enhance the
community's residential character and to expand and preserve housing opportunities. The
updated Housing Element includes a housing needs assessment, identifies resources and
constraints that impact the provision of housing provides an analysis of the effectiveness of
the City's previous housing program, and sets forth goals and policies intended to assist the
City in meeting the housine needs of the community.
Finding: Pursuant to the provisions of City Council K -3 pertaining to procedures and guidelines to implement the
California Environmental Quality Act, the City of Newport Beach has evaluated the proposed project and determined that the
proposed project would not have a significant effect on the envirorment // �—�
A copy of the Initial Study containing the analysis supporting this finding is M attached WJ on file at the Planning
Department The initial Study may include mitigation measures that would eliminate or reduce potential environmental impacts.
This document will be considered by the decision- maker(s) prior to final action on the proposed project. If a public hearing will
be held to consider this project, a notice of the time and location is attached.
Additional plans, studies and/or exhibits relating to the proposed project may be available for public review. If you
would like to examine these materials, you are invited to contact the undersigned.
If you wish to appeal the appropriateness or adequacy of this document, your comments should be submitted in writing
prior to the close of the public review period. Your comments should specifically identify what environmental impacts you
believe would result from the project, why they are significant, and what changes or mitigation measures you believe should be
adopted to eliminate or reduce these impacts.. There is no fee for this appeal. If a public hearing will be held, you are also
invited to attend and testify as to the appropriateness of this document.
Planner
Date s1 �Z_ 1o?, �q
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one
impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
• Land Use Planning
• Population & Housing
• Geological Problems
• Water
❑ Air Quality
❑ Agricultural Resources
• Transportation /Circulation
• Biological Resources
• Energy & Mineral Resources
❑ Hazards
❑ Noise
DETERMINATION: ON THE BASIS OF THIS EVALUATION:
❑ Public Services
• Utilities & Service Systems
• Aesthetics
• Cultural Resources
❑ Recreation
J. tlsipbell, AICP Title: Senior Planner
Date:
C MCxusT
Page 2 5
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment
and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
1 find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been
made by or agreed to by the project proponent A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
will be prepared.
❑
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment
and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
❑
1 find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact"
on the environment, or "potentially significant unless mitigated " impact on the
environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier
document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by
mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets,
if the effect is a "potentially significant impact or "potentially significant unless
mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze
only the effects that remain to be addressed.
❑
1 find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all
potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier
EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards and
(b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including
revisi ns or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project,
noth' further is required.
❑
J. tlsipbell, AICP Title: Senior Planner
Date:
C MCxusT
Page 2 5
1.
2.
3.
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
INITIAL STUDY AND ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
Project Title: General Plan Amendment 2003 -04: Housing Element Update
Lead Agency Name and Address:
Contact Person and Phone Number:
City of Newport Beach
Planning Department
3300 Newport Boulevard,
Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915
Tamara J. Campbell, AICP
Senior Planner
Planning Department
(949) 6443238
4. Project Location: Newport Beach is located on the Pacific Coast within central
Orange County. It is surrounded by the cities of Huntington Beach, Costa
Mesa, Irvine, Laguna Beach and unincorporated County lands.
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: City of Newport Beach (see above)
6. General Plan Designation: Not applicable
7. Zoning: Not applicable
8. Description of Project: The California State Legislature has mandated that all
cities and counties prepare a Housing Element as part of their General Plan that
sets forth programs and policies that promoting the State's major housing goal
of attaining a "decent home and suitable living environment for every
Californian." Section 65302 (c) of the Government Code sets forth the specific
components to be included within the Housing Element of each jurisdiction.
The Newport Beach Housing Element update includes a housing needs
assessment, identifies resources and constraints that impact the provision of
housing in the City, provides an evaluation of the effectiveness of the City's
previous housing program, and sets forth goals and policies intended to assist
the City in meeting the housing needs of the community.
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Newport Beach is surrounded by the
cities of Huntington Beach, Costa Mesa, Irvine, Laguna Beach and
unincorporated County lands.
10. Other public agencies whose approval is required: State HCD — Statutory
Review Authority
CHECKLIST
Page 1 "� (0
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
Issues and Supporting Data Sources potentially Lass than Less than No impact
significant significant significant
impact impact with impact
mitigation
1. AESTHETICS
Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a
❑
❑
❑
0
scenic vista?
b) Substantially damage scenic resources,
❑
❑
❑
0
including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a
state scenic highway?
C) Substantially degrade the existing visual
❑
❑
❑
21
character or quality of the site and its
surroundings?
c) Create a new source of substantial light or
❑
❑
❑
0
glare which would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area?
Note: Adoption of the Housing Element does not
result in any physical change to the environment.
Existing zoning standards and CEQA will apply to,
and regulate, future housing development.
Therefore, this action has no impact on
I aesthetictscenic resources.
i
11. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the project
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland,
❑
❑
❑
0
or Farmland of Statewide Importance
(Farmland), as shown on the maps
prepared pursuant to the Farmland
Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to non-
agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural
❑
❑
❑
0
use, or a Williamson Act contract?
CHECKLIST
Page 2 �sl
Issues and Supporting Data Sources
Potentially
Less than
Less than
No impact
significant
significant
significant
impact
impactwith
Impact
mitigation
c) Involve other changes in the existing
❑
❑
❑
0
environment which, due to their location or
nature, could result in conversion of
Farmland, to non - agricultural use?
Note: Adoption of the Housing Element does not
result in any physical change to the environment or
conversion of any agricultural land to non -
agricultural use,
111. AIR QUALITY
Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of
❑
❑
❑
Pj
the applicable air quality plan?
b) Violate any air quality standard or
❑
❑
❑
0
contribute to an existing or projected air
quality violation?
C) Result in a cumulatively considerable net
❑
❑
❑
0
increase of any criteria pollutant for which
the project region is non - attainment under
an applicable federal or state ambient air
quality standard (including releasing
emissions which exceed quantitative
thresholds for ozone precursors)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial
❑
❑
❑
B
pollutant concentrations?
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a
❑
❑
❑
0
substantial number of people?
Note: Adoption of the Housing Element does not
result in any physical change to the environment.
No impact to air quality will occur as a result of this
action.
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Would the project:
CHECKUST
Page 3 3
Issues and Supporting Data Sources Potentially Less than Less than No impact
significant significant signMeant
Impact impactwith impact
mitigation
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either ❑
directly or through habitat modifications, on
any species identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special status species in local or
regional plans, policies, or regulations or by
the California Department of Fish and Game
or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any ❑
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional
plans, policies, regulations or by the
California Department of Fish and Game or
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally ❑
protected wetlands as defined by Section 404
of the Clean Water Act (including, but not
limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.)
through direct removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of ❑
any native resident or migratory fish or
wildlife species or with established native
resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or
impeded the use of native wildlife nursery
sites?
p
C
IN
F
n
MA
an
J
J
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances ❑ ❑ ❑
protecting biological resources, such as a
tree preservation policy or ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted ❑ ❑ ❑ Q
Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan, or other
approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
Note: The proposed adoption of the Housing
Element will not impact or modify development
regulations or City policies intended to preserve
biological resources. Future development will be
subject to further environmental review. No impact
will result with approval of this proposal.
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the project
CHECKLIST
Page 4 31
Issues and Supporting Data Sources
Potentially
Less than
Lass than
No impact
❑
❑
significant
significant
significant
impact
impact with
Impact
mitigation
a)
Cause a substantial adverse change in the
❑
❑
❑
Q
significance of a historical resource as
defined in §15064.5?
b)
Cause a substantial adverse change in the
❑
❑
❑
Q
significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to §15064.5?
c)
Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
❑
❑
❑
Q
paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature?
d)
Disturb any human remains, including those
❑
❑
❑
Q
interred outside of formal cemeteries?
Note: Adoption of the Housing Element will not
result in any direct or indirect physical change to the
environment. Existing policies related to cultural
resources will still apply to future housing
development. Therefore, no impact will occur.
Vi. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential
substantial adverse effects, including the
risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault,
as delineated on the most recent
Alquist -Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning
Map issued by the State Geologist for
the area or based on other substantial
evidence of a known fault? Refer to
Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii) Seismic - related ground failure,
including liquefaction?
iv) Landslides?
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss
of topsoil?
❑
❑
❑
Q
❑
❑
❑
Q
CHECKLIST
Page 5 40 0
Issues and Supporting Data Sources
Potentially
Less than
Less than No impact
significant
significant
significant
Impact
impact with
impact
mitigation
C) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
❑
❑
❑ Q
unstable, or that would become unstable as
a result of the project and potentially result
in on- or off -site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in
[]
❑
❑ [�
Table 18- 1 -B of the Uniform Building Code
(1994), creating substantial risks to life or
property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately ❑ ❑ ❑ H
supporting the use septic tanks or
alternative waste water disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the
disposal of waste water?
Note: The action does not involve any direct or
indirect physical alteration to the
environment, nor increase people's
exposure to geologic hazards such as fault
rupture, seismic ground shaking,
liquefaction, landslides, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or collapse.
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS
MATERIALS
Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or ❑ ❑ ❑
the environment through routine transport,
use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or ❑ ❑ ❑ Q
the ;environment through reasonably
foreseeable upset and accident conditions
involving the release of hazardous materials
into the environment?
C) Emit hazardous emissions or handle ❑ ❑ ❑
hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one - quarter
mile of an existing or proposed school?
CHECKLIST
Page 6 ,1 ,
Issues and Supporting Data Sources
d) Be located on a site which is included on a
list of hazardous materials sites which
complied pursuant to Government Code
Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it
create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment?
e) For a project within an airport land use plan
or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport
or public use airport, would the project result
in a safety hazard for people residing or
working in the project area?
Potentially Less than
significant significant
impact impact with
mitigation
'i1MMEMIN
L.
0
Less than
significant
impact
L
X
No impact
N
fj For a project within the vicinity of a private ❑ ❑ ❑ 0
airstrip, would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in the
project area?
g) Impair implementation of or physically ❑ ❑ ❑
interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
h) Expose people or structures to a significant ❑
risk of loss, injury or death involving wildiand
fires, including where wildlands are adjacent
to urbanized areas or where residences are
intermixed with wildlands?
Note: The Housing Element Update will not involve
specific development or the use of hazardous
materials. Future development will be subject to
hazardous materials regulations.
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste ❑
discharge requirements?
J
X
0
0
a
lu
CIMCSLisT
Page 7
Issues and Supporting Data Sources
Potentially Less than
Less than
No impact
significant significant
significant
impact impactwith
impact
mitigation
b)
Substantially deplete groundwater supplies
❑. ❑
❑
or interfere substantially with groundwater
recharge such that there would be a net
deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the
local groundwater table level (e.g., the
production rate of pre- existing nearby wells
would drop to a level which would not
support existing land uses or planned uses
for which permits have been granted)?
C)
Substantially alter the existing drainage
❑ ❑
❑
�7(
pattern of the site or area, including through
the alteration of the course of a stream or
river, in a manner which would result in
substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -
site?
d)
Substantially alter the existing drainage
❑ ❑
❑
pattern of the site or area, including through
the alteration of a course of a stream or
river, or substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a manner which
would result in flooding on or off -site?
e)
Create or contribute runoff water which
❑ ❑
❑
Rl
would exceed the capacity of existing or
planned stormwater drainage systems or
provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff?
f)
Otherwise substantially degrade water
❑ ❑
❑
quality?
g)
Place housing within a 100 -year flood
❑ ❑
❑
p
hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood
Hazard Boundary or Flood insurance Rate
Map or other flood hazard delineation map?
h)
Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area
❑ ❑
❑
0
structures which would impede or redirect
flood flows?
i)
Expose people or structures to a significant
❑ ❑
❑
risk of loss, injury or death involving
flooding, including flooding as a result of the
failure of a levee or dam?
j)
Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
❑ ❑
❑
p
ct>E=sr
Page 8
Issues and Supporting Data Sources Potentially Less than Less than No impact
significant significant significant
Impact impact with impact
mitigation
Note: Since there will be no direct or indirect
physical alteration to the environment, and any
subsequent project will be subject to further CEQA
review, this action will have no impact on water
quality and water resources.
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING
Would the proposal:
a)
Physically divide an established
❑
❑
❑
0
community?
b)
Conflict with any applicable land use plan,
❑
❑
❑ .
0
policy, or regulation of an agency with
jurisdiction over the project (including, but
not limited to the general plan, specific plan,
local coastal program, or zoning ordinance)
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect?
c)
Conflict with any applicable habitat
❑
❑
❑
conservation plan or natural community
conservation plan?
Note: The Housing Element Update will not result in
any
direct or indirect change to the environment.
Any
subsequent housing development will be
subject to further site specific environmental review.
X.
MINERAL RESOURCES.
Would the project:
a)
Result in the loss of availability of a known
❑
❑
❑
0
mineral resource that would be of value to
the region and the residents of the state?
b)
Result in the loss of availability of a locally-
❑
❑
❑
[J7
important mineral resource recovery site
delineated on a local general plan, specific
plan, or other land use plan?
C)
Displace substantial numbers of people,
❑
❑
❑
0
necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
CIMCKLIXF
Page 9 144
Issues and Supporting Data Sources Potentially Less than Less than No Impact
significant significant significant
impact impact with impact
mitigation
Note: Adoption of the Housing Element does not
alter any aspect of the physical environment. No
impacts will occur.
XI. NOISE
Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of ❑ ❑ ❑ [.�
noise levels in excess of standards
established in the local general plan or
noise ordinance, or applicable standards of
other agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of ❑ ❑ ❑ p
excessive groundbome vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
C) A substantial permanent increase in ambient ❑ ❑ ❑ Q
noise levels in the project vicinity above
levels existing without the project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase ❑ ❑ ❑
in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity
above levels existing without the project?
e) For a project located within an airport land ❑ ❑ ❑ Bj
use land use plan or, where such a plan has
not been adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public use airport, would the
project expose people residing or working in
the project area to excessive noise levels?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private ❑ ❑ ❑ (w]
airstrip, would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
Note: Adoption of the Housing Element will not
generate any noise, groundboume vibration or
noise. No specific development is proposed;
therefore, exposing people who are residing or
working in the city to excessive noise will not be an
impact, nor will people be exposed to ambient noise
levels. Future housing development will be subject
to compliance with City policies, building regulations
and further site specific environmental review.
CHECKLIST
Page 10 q'5 5
Issues and Supporting Data Sources
XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING.
Would the project:
Potentially Lessthan
significant significant
impact impactwith
mitigation
a) Induce substantial population growth in an ❑
area, either directly (for example, by
proposing new homes and businesses) or
indirectly (for example, through extension of
roads or other infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing ❑
housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
C) Displace substantial numbers of people,
necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
Note: The proposed Housing Element Update does
not involve additional housing development
in the City since there are no site specific
projects proposed at this time. The project
will not alter the location, distribution,
density or growth rate of the City's
population. The Housing Element is a
policy document mandated by the State and
is intended to address the City's future
housing needs by encouraging housing that
provides diversity in type and cost. The
Element also provides for the preservation
and improvement of the City's existing
housing stock. The Housing Element will
not displace housing in the City; therefore,
no impact will occur.
X111. PUBLIC SERVICES
Would the project:
a) Would the project result in substantial
adverse physical impacts associated with
the provision of new or physically altered
government facilities, need for new or
physically altered government facilities, the
construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts, in order
to maintain acceptable service ratios,
response times or other performance
objectives for any of the public services:
Fire protection?
M
Less than
significant
impact
❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑
IN
W
Fol
No impact
0
v
N
CHECKLIST
Page 11 41'
Issues and Supporting Data Sources potentially
significant
impact
Police protection? [❑
Schools? ❑
Other public facilities? ❑
Note: The Housing Element update does not
include specific development and no new physical
alteration to existing facilities will be required.
Therefore, there will not be any additional demand
on the City's public services and no impact will
result.
XIV. RECREATION
a) Would the project increase the use of ❑
existing neighborhood and regional parks or
other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreational
facilities or require the construction of or
expansion of recreational facilities which
might have an adverse physical effect on
the environment?
Note: Adoption of the Housing Element will not
increase the use of existing neighborhood facilities
nor require the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities. Such impacts on recreation
facilities will be reviewed for compliance with City
standards and policies at the time of future housing
development. Therefore, there is no impact as a
result of Housing Element adoption.
XV. TRANSPORTATIONITRAFFIC
Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is
substantial in relation to the existing traffic
load and capacity of the street system (i.e.,
result in a substantial increase in either the
number of vehicle trips, the volume to
capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at
0
Less than
Less than
significant
significant
Impactwith
impact
mitigation
❑
❑
❑
❑
9
L
A
0
F@
-J
n
u
No impact
M
0
CHECKLIST
Page 12 41
Issues and Supporting Data Sources Potentially Less than Less than No impact
significant significant significant
impact Impact with impact
mitigation
b) Exceed either individually or cumulatively, a
❑ ❑
❑
p
level of service standard established by the
county congestion management agency for
designated roads or highways?
C) Result in a change in air traffic patterns,
❑ ❑
❑
0
including either an increase in traffic levels
or a change in location that results in
substantial safety risks?
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a
❑ ❑
❑
design feature (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
I
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
❑ ❑
❑
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity?
❑ ❑
❑
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or
❑ ❑
❑
p
programs supporting alternative
transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle
racks)?
Note: The Housing Element update will not
generate traffic, as no new development is proposed
at this time. Future housing development will be
reviewed for compliance with the City's
transportation and traffic standards and policies as
well as for compliance with CEQA. There will be no
impact to the environment as a result of Housing
Element adoption.
XVI. UTILITIES & SERVICE SYSTEMS
Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements
❑ ❑
❑
p
of the applicable Regional Water Quality
Control Board?
b) Require or result in the construction of new
❑ ❑
❑
[J(
water or wastewater treatment facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
CHECKLIST
Page 13 �{ b
Issues and Supporting Data Sources
C) Require or result in the construction of new
storm water drainage facilities or expansion
of existing facilities, the construction of
which could cause significant environmental
effects?
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to
serve the project from existing entitlements
and resources, or are new or expanded
entitlements needed?
Potentially less than
significant significant
impact impact with
mitigation
it M
rW
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater ❑
treatment provider, which serves or may
serve the project that it has adequate
capacity to serve the projects projected
demand in addition to the provider's existing
commitments?
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient ❑
permitted capacity to accommodate the
projects solid waste disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, state, and local
statutes and regulation related to solid
waste?
Note: Adoption of the Housing Element will not
generate wastewater or a demand for water,
nor will it increase the existing storm water
runoff, as no specific development is
proposed at this time. Therefore, no new
water facilities, storm water drainage
facilities or solid waste facilities will be
needed. Furthermore, the update will not
conflict with any federal, state or local
statues and regulations related to solid
waste.
Less than
significant
Impact
FEC
No impact
J
❑
❑
8
❑
❑
Q
❑ ❑ ❑
U
M
CHECKLIST
Page 14 t P 04
Potentially Less than Less than No impact
significant significant significant
impact impact with impact
mitigation
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF ❑ ❑ ❑ El
SIGNIFICANCE
a) Does the project have the potential to
degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or
wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self- sustaining
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or endangered
plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major period of California
history or prehistory?
Note: The Newport Beach Housing Element is a
policy document that sets forth a strategy to meet
the State's housing goal of attaining a decent home
and suitable living environment for every resident.
Adoption of the Element will not result in any direct
or indirect physical alterations to the environment.
b) Does the project have impacts that are ❑ ❑ ❑ 0
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ( "Cumulatively considerable"
means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in
connection with the effects of past projects,
the effects of other current projects, and the
effects of probable future projects.)
Note: The Newport Beach Housing Element is a
policy document that sets forth a strategy to meet
the State's housing goal of attaining a decent home
and suitable living environment for every resident.
Adoption of the Element will not result in any direct
or indirect physical alterations to the environment.
c) Does the project have environmental effects ❑ ❑ ❑ Q
which will cause substantial adverse effects
on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
Note: The Newport Beach Housing Element is a
policy document that sets forth a strategy to meet
the State's housing goal of attaining a decent home
and suitable living environment for every resident.
Adoption of the Element will not result in any direct
or indirect physical alterations to the environment.
CHECKLIST
Page 15
SOURCE LIST
The following enumerated documents are available at the offices of the City of Newport Beach, Planning
Department, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92660.
1. Final Program EIR — City of Newport Beach General Plan
2. General Plan, including all its elements, City of Newport Beach.
3. Specific Plan, District #8, Central Balboa.
4. Title 20, Zoning Code of the Newport Beach Municipal Code.
5. City Excavation and Grading Code, Newport Beach Municipal Code.
6. Chapter 10.28, Community Noise Ordinance of the Newport Beach Municipal Code.
7. South Coast Air Quality Management District, Air Quality Management Plan 1997.
8. South Coast Air Quality Management District, Air Quality Management Plan EIR, 1997,
CBECxrasr
Page 17 L'
EXHIBIT E
(Draft Housing Element Programs 6101)
5a
0 0
le
W
�W
kt,
Poo
Housing Program 1.1.4 —The City of Newport Beach, when warranted and appropriate,
shall work with the California State Franchise Tax Board to enforce
provisions of California Revenue and Taxation Code Sections §17299 and
§24436.5, which prohibit owners of substandard rental housing from
claiming depreciation, amortization, mortgage interest, and property tax
deductions of State income tax. Responsibility for realization of this
Program is that of the City Attorney.
Housing Program 1.1.5- -The City of Newport Beach shall participate in the County of
Orange Housing Authority and Housing and Community Development
Division, a rehabilitation loan and grant program for low and moderate
income homeowners and rental property landlords to encourage full
utilization of existing City housing stock so long as funds are available.
Continuing responsibility for realization of this Program is that of the
Planning Department.
Housing Program 1.1.6- -The City of Newport Beach shall enforce vigorously all
building and zoning codes to conserve habitability of existing housing
stock. Responsibility for realization of this Program is that of the
PIanning Department, Building Department and City Attorney.
Housing Program 1.1.7 --The City of Newport Beach shall maintain rental opportunities
by restricting conversions of rental units to condominiums unless the
vacancy rate in Newport Beach for rental housing is 5% or higher for four
(4) consecutive quarters, and unless the property owner complies with
condominium conversion regulations contained in Chapter 20.73 of the
Newport Beach Municipal Code. Responsibility for realization of this
Program is that of the Planning Department.
Housing Program 1.1.8- -The City of Newport Beach shall continue to evaluate mobile
home parks to determine which additional 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. Continuing responsibility for realization of this
Program is that of the Planning Department.
Housing Program 1.1.9 —The City of Newport Beach shall continue to require
replacement of housing demolished within the Coastal Zone areas of
Newport Beach when housing 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 demolition be accomplished unless a
Coastal Residential Development Permit has been issued. The specific
provisions implementing these replacement unit requirements are
contained in Newport Beach Municipal Code Section 20. Responsibility
for realization of this Program is that of the PIanning Department.
78 6
1 �
affordable housing units. Responsibility for realization of this Program is
that of the Planning Department.
Housing Program 1.2.5 —The City of Newport Beach, whenever possible, shall preserve
existing low- income units with Federal, State, and local programs.
Responsibility for realization of this Program is that of the Planning
Department.
Policy 1.3 To support the intent and spirit of equal housing opportunities as
expressed in the Civil Rights Act of 1886, Title VII of the 1968 Civil
Rights Act, California Rumford Fair Housing Act, and the California
Unruh Civil Rights Act.
Housing Program 1.3.1 —The City of Newport Beach shall refer all complaints regarding
equal housing opportunities to appropriate County, State, or Federal
authorities. Responsibility for realization of this Program is that of the
Planning Department, Building Department and City Attorney.
Housing Program 1.3.2 —The City of Newport Beach shall support fair housing
opportunities by applying City Community Development Block Grant
funds where necessary to enact Federal, State, and City fair housing
policies. Responsibility for realization of this Program is that of the
Planning Department.
Policy 1.4 To approve, wherever feasible and appropriate, mixed residential and
commercial/industrial use developments that improve the balance
between housing and jobs.
Housing Program 1.4.1 —The City of Newport Beach and the developer of proposed
major commercial/industrial projects shall assess housing impact(s) of
such project(s) during the development review process. Prior to project
approval, a housing impact assessment shall be developed by the City with
the active involvement of the developer. Such assessment shall indicate
the magnitude of jobs to be created by the project, where housing
opportunities are expected to be available, and what measures (public and
private) are requisite, if any, to ensure an adequate supply of housing for
the projected labor force of the project and for any restrictions on
development due to the "Greenlight" initiative. Responsibility for
realization of this Program is that of the Planning Department and
Planning Commission.
Policy 1.5 To review the Housing Element on a regularly established basis to
determine appropriateness of goals, policies, and programs, and
progress of the City of Newport Beach in Housing Element
implementation.
80 �J
Housing Program 1.5.1 —The City of Newport Beach Planning Department shall monitor
progress on each of the programs in the Housing EIement Housing Plan
and, when appropriate, shall report its findings to the City Planning
Commission and the City Council. Responsibility for realization of this
Program is that of the Planning Department.
Housing Program 1.5.2— Revision of the Newport Beach Housing Element shall be
initiated on the basis of the monitoring reports and shall incorporate the
most current data on housing, household characteristics, and housing
market trends. Responsibility for realization of this Program is that of the
Planning Department and the Planning Commission.
Housing Program 1.5.3 -- Whenever land use regulations, land use designations, or
Housing Programs are proposed for adoption or modification, the City of
Newport Beach Planning Department shall undertake an analysis to
determine that the proposed action or regulation is consistent with both the
Housing Element and other elements of the Newport Beach General Plan,
and with all adopted City Council Policies. If the Planning Department
determines the proposed Program or Policy is not consistent, the Planning
Department shall recommend to the Planning Commission and City
Council that the proposed Program or Policy be modified prior to adoption
to achieve consistency, or that each potentially inconsistent General Plan
element or City Council Policy be amended in conjunction with approval
of the proposed regulation or action. Consistency shall be achieved
whenever a regulation, action or project is approved. Responsibility for
realization of this Program is that of the Planning Department and
Planning Commission.
Policy 1.6 To maintain and preserve City housing stock and improve energy
efficiency of qualified homes, and to maintain and preserve City single
family, condominium, mobile home, and apartment housing stock.
Housing Program 1.6.1- -The City of Newport Beach shall consider applying for Federal
funds to provide technical and financial assistance, if necessary, to all
eligible homeowners and residential property owners to rehabilitate
existing dwelling units through low interest loans or potential loans, or
grants to owner- occupants of residential properties containing households
that exceed income guidelines to rehabilitate existing residential dwelling
units. This Program may be funded by one or more of the following:
Community Development Block Grant funds, HOME funds, and private
bank loan commitment (leverage). Responsibility for realization of this
Program is that of the Planning Department.
Housing Program 1.6.2 —The City of Newport Beach shall encourage maintenance and
preservation of City mobile home housing stock by informing mobile
home owners of financial assistance available from the State of California
i
81 �J
earliest practicable opportunity of projects approved with low- and
moderate- income housing requirements. Responsibility for realization of
this Program is that of the Planning Department and the City Council.
Housing Program 2.2.2 —The City's goal over the five -year planning period is for an
average of 20% of all new housing units to be affordable to very low and
low income households. Given considerations of proper general planning,
the California Environmental Quality Act, project development incentives,
and government financial assistance, the City shall require production of
housing affordable to very low and low income households for a proposed
developments of 10 or more units. All affordable units shall be on site
unless at an off -site location approved by the City. These units may be rental
or ownership, at the option of the owner /developer. Proposed new
developments with fewer than 50 units shall have an option of providing
affordable units in the development or contributing to an in -lieu fee program
established by the City to assist the development of affordable units within
the City. Responsibility for realization of this Program is that of the
Planning Department, Planning Commission and City Council.
Housing Program 2.2.3- -The number of affordable units, their level of affordability, and
their proportionate mix within a development may be determined by such
factors as project location, size, density, incentives (e.g., density bonuses
granted under Government Code Section 65915) and/or government
financial assistance. The City shall provide more assistance for projects that
provide a higher number of affordable units or a greater level of
affordability. More than 20% of units shall be affordable when assistance is
provided from Community Development Block Grant funds or the City's in
lieu housing fund. Responsibility for realization of this program is that of the
Planning Department, Planning Commission and City Council.
Housing Program 2.2.4 —All affordable units shall have restrictions to maintain their
affordability for a minimum of 30 years. Responsibility for realization of
this program is that of the Planning Department, City Attorney and City
Council.
GOAL IT IS THE GOAL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH TO EXTEND
OWNERSHIP OPPORTUNITIES TO AS MANY RENTER AND OWNER
HOUSEHOLDS AS POSSIBLE IN RESPONSE TO THE DEMAND FOR HOUSING
IN THE CITY.
Policy 3.1 To mitigate potential governmental constraints to housing production
and affordability by increasing the City of Newport Beach role in
facilitating construction of moderate- and upper - income ownership
housing.
51
M
Housing Program 3.2.4 --When requested by property owners, the City of Newport
Beach shall continue to approve 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.
Responsibility for realization of this Program is that of the Planning
Department and the Planning Agency.
GOAL IT IS THE GOAL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH TO PRESERVE AND
INCREASE AFFORDABILITY OF CITY HOUSING STOCK, THROUGH RENTAL
HOUSING, FOR VERY LOW- AND LOW - INCOME HOUSEHOLDS.
Policy 4.1 To encourage provision of housing affordable to very low and low -
income households to the extent required by law.
Housing Program 4.1.1 - -As part of its annual General Plan review, the City of Newport
Beach shall monitor existing programs designed to preserve assisted
housing developments for very low- and low- income households as
required by Government Code Section §65583(d) to determine whether
additional actions will be required to protect these developments.
Responsibility for realization of this Program is that of the Planning
Department,
Housing Program 4.1.2- -Based on provisions of Government Code Section §65863.7,
the City of Newport Beach shall require submission of a report describing
detailed impacts of any proposed mobile home park conversion to a non-
residential use concurrently with filing of any discretionary permit on such
property. Responsibility for realization of this Program is that of the
Planning Department.
Housing Program 4.I.3- -The City of Newport Beach shall attempt to ensure existing
owners and prospective developers are aware of affordable housing
development opportunities available within the City of Newport Beach on
those three sites known as Newport Banning Ranch, Bayview Landing,
and Avocado/MacArthur. Responsibility for realization of this Program is
that of the Planning Department.
Housing Program 4.1.4 —The City shall continue to apply for and use, whenever feasible,
funds under the Community Development Block Grant program to facilitate
development and construction of housing for lower- and very low- income
households. To the extent developers and landowners are willing to
cooperate . in this endeavor, the highest priority for the use of these funds
shall be for development and construction of housing affordable to "very low
income" households. This may be accomnlished by using current and future
M City Community Development Block Grant funds for acquisition of land for
development of housing for very low- income households, or by "writing
down" cost of land for developers who have agreed to develop low- income
85 5 b
setbacks, lot coverage, etc.) for developments containing low- and moderate -
income housing in proportion to the number of low- and moderate - income
units in each entire project. Responsibility for realization of this Program is
that of the City Council.
Housing Program 4.1.9 —When a residential developer agrees to construct housing for
persons and families of low and moderate income, the City shall either (1)
grant a density bonus or (2) provide other incentives of equivalent financial
value, in accordance with provisions of Government Code Section §65915,
et seq. Responsibility for realization of this Program is that of the Planning
Department.
Housing Program 4.1.10 —When it is determined to be of benefit, the City shall participate
in other housing assistance programs that assist production of housing.
Responsibility for realization of this Program is that of the Planning
Department.
Policy 4.2 To extend affordability of the ten (10) developments listed in Table 13
(City of Newport Beach Assisted Housing Analysis) of this Housing
Element beyond the years noted.
Housing Program 4.2.1 —The City of Newport Beach Planning Department staff shall
contact owners of affordable units for those developments listed in Table
27 to obtain information regarding their plans for continuing affordability
on their properties. Responsibility for realization of this Program is that of
the Planning Department.
Housing Program 4.2.2- -The City of Newport Beach shall consider utilizing CDBG
funds to maintain affordable housing opportunities in those developments
listed in Table 27. Responsibility for realization of this Program is that of
the Planning Department.
Housing Program 4.2.3 --The City of Newport Beach Planning Department staff shall
prepare written communication for tenants and other interested parties
about Orange County Housing Authority Section S renewals to assist
tenants and prospective tenants to acquire additional understanding of
housing law and related policy issues. Responsibility for realization of
this Program is that of the Planning Department.
Goal 5 IT IS THE "GOAL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH TO PROVIDE HOUSING
OPPORTUNITIES FOR SPECIAL NEEDS POPULATIONS.
Policy 5.1 To promote housing opportunities for senior citizens and other special
needs populations.
87
51
(Disabled) or Limited Income Repair Loan and Grant Program to
underwrite all or part of the cost of needed housing modifications and
repairs. Loans would be repaid or forgiven on an "ability to pay" basis.
Health and safety deficiencies would receive priority; modification for
accessibility may be appropriate. Administration of funds would be the
responsibility of the Orange County Housing Authority. Responsibility
for realization of this Program is that of the Planning Department.
Housing Program 5.1.9 —The City of Newport Beach shall make known to residential
developers upon application for a discretionary permit, and to interested
individuals and families the following Table entitled "Public and Private
Resources Available for Housing and Community Development
Activities" This table is included in Appendix 4 to this Housing Element.
Housing Program 5.1.10 —The City of Newport Beach shall investigate use of "in lieu"
fees for assisting in provision of services and housing for special needs
populations.
The Goals, Policies, and Programs established above particularly provide policy
assurance the housing and social service needs of "special needs" populations in the City
of Newport beach will be attained. Additionally, those policies and programs will ensure
that the Regional Housing Needs Assessment of 476 total new units between 2000 and
2007 will be met according to the household income categories identified in this Housing
Element.
89 b
EXHIBIT F
(Certified Housing Element 3/03)
61