HomeMy WebLinkAboutHousing Element (PA2003-130)CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item No. 6
7/17/03
TO: I PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: Planning Department
Tamara J. Campbell AICP, Senior Planner
(949) 644 -3238
tcampbell@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, with amendments, and
certification of the proposed Negative Declaration.
DISCUSSION:
Background: On June 19, 2003, the Planning Commission considered the Housing
Element and voted to continue making a final recommendation until July 17, 2003 to
allow additional time for review and discussion. Commissioner Selich requested the
additional time, and he met with staff to review the element.
On July 7, City staff gave a presentation to the General Plan Advisory Committee
focusing on State Housing Element Law, and GPAC discussed the draft element.
Minutes from the GPAC meeting are attached.
As a result of staffs meeting with Commissioner Selich and GPAC's discussion, staff is
proposing one amendment to the Housing Element. This change is considered
relatively minor and staff does not believe it would jeopardize the City's certification
status with State HCD.
General Plan Amendment 2003 -04
PA2003 -130 Negative Declaration
Updated Housing Element
July 17, 2003
Page 2
Commissioner Selich noted that there may be more potential affordable housing
locations than staff identified in the draft Housing Element, in places like Newport
Center and the Airport Area. Because allowing housing development on these sites
would be a change in land use planning, and because these areas have been identified
for special study in the General Plan update, staff suggests adding a program for the
City to explore housing and mixed use development opportunities in these areas.
Specifically, staff suggests adding the following language to page 74 of the Housing
Element:
Program 2.3.1: As part of the General Plan update, investigate the potential of housing
and mixed use development in areas such as Newport Center, Santa Ana Heights, Bay
Knolls and John Wayne Airport.
The City also received a letter from George Basye, Vice President of Aera Energy LLC,
one of the owners of Banning Ranch. The letter provides comments and questions on
the Negative Declaration, although some of the comments are not related to
environmental review but rather the Housing Element itself. A copy of the letter and
staffs response to the comments are attached as Exhibits B and C. The proposed new
program described above also responds to one of Mr. Basye's comments.
Environmental Review: Negative Declaration attached as Exhibit D (30 -day review
period May 29, 2003 to June 30, 2003).
Public Notice: Public Hearing Notice (1/8"' page ad) published in Daily Pilot June 7,
2003. Negative Declaration notice posted /published May 29, 2003.
Prepared by:
Tamara J. Ca bell, Senior Planner
Submitted by:
va4'9�-- - l
Sharon Z. Wood, istant City Manager
Attachments: Exhibit A (GPAC Minutes (6/23/03))
Exhibit B (Letter from George Basye)
Exhibit C (Response to comments)
Exhibit D (Negative Declaration)
4
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Minutes of the General Plan Advisory Committee Meeting held on Monday,
June 23, 2003, at the Police Department Auditorium.
Members Present:
Roger Alford
Louise Greeley
Phillip Lugar
Phillip Bettencourt
Tom Hyans
Marie Marston
Carol Boice
Mike Ishikawa
Catherine O Hara
Karlene Bradley
Kim Jansma
Charles Remley
John Corrough
Mike Johnson
Larry Root
Grace Dove
Bill Kelly
James Schmiesing
Nancy Gardner
Donald Krotee
Jan Vandersloot
Members Absent:
Patrick Bartolic
Bob Hendrickson
John Saunders
Gus Chabre
Alex Kakavas
Ed Siebel
Laura Dietz
Todd Knipp
Jackie Sukiasian
Florence Felton
Lucille Kuehn
Jennifer Wesoioski
Ernest Hatchell
Carl Ossipoff
Ron Yeo
Staff Present:
Sharon Wood, Assistant City Manager
Patricia Temple, Planning Director
Tamara Campbell, Senior Planner
Woodie Tescher, EIP Consultant
Debbie Lektorich, Executive Assistant
Members of the Public Present:
Allan Beek
I. Call to Order
Phillip Lugar called the meeting to order.
II. Approval of Minutes
Mr. Lugar pointed out a correction to the minutes on Page 2, under III, last line
in the fourth paragraph; the word "successful" should be changed to
"accessible ". The minutes of the June P meeting were approved with this
correction.
III. Discussion of the Draft Housing Element
Tamara Campbell reviewed a Power Point presentation outlining the laws and
requirements of Housing Elements. The presentation is attached. During and
after the presentation the following questions were raised.
Nancy Gardner asked about the RHNA numbers and if other considerations (such
as land availability) were taken into account before assigning them. Patty
Temple explained that land availability and cost have no impact on the allocation.
Jan Vandersloot asked if it had to be open land or if we could incorporate
existing apartments. Ms. Temple explained that RHNA numbers must be met
with construction of new units; however it does not have to be on vacant sites,
rezoning is an option. Sharon Wood added that the RHNA numbers include all
income levels, so they are not just low income units. The City focuses on the
low income units because it is difficult to meet that need. Charles Remley asked
if rezoning was restricted to industrial /commercial areas or if housing areas could
be rezoned also. Ms. Temple said all areas could potentially be looked at.
Tom Hyans asked for more explanation on how employment affects the RHNA
numbers. Ms. Temple indicated the State's goal is to provide housing for
everyone who lives and works here, if a city has a lot of growth projection in
jobs then the city will be expected to provide housing for those people. Ms.
Gardner asked about the penalties if a city did not meet the goals. Ms. Temple
indicated litigation and possible loss of building permit authority. Woodie
Tescher added that legislation is pending which would add substantial financial
penalties to communities that don't meet the needs.
John Corrough pointed out that it is important to get the State housing people to
visit and see the landscape in the area to show them some areas on maps are
not suitable for building. Ms. Temple indicated that we did have HCD visit and
tour our City.
Mr. Remley asked what would happen if our RHNA numbers were reduced,
would some other area be increased? Ms. Wood indicated that if Orange County
numbers were reduced, the numbers would be increased in another county, such
as Riverside County. Mr. Vandersloot asked if this need for housing is taken into
account by Council when looking at a jobs rich development like Newport Center
and requiring the developer to add affordable housing in the area. Ms. Wood
1
2
indicated that it is an accepted practice to place the responsibility for affordable
housing on residential developers instead of the commercial developers. In the
case of Newport Center, the major residential developer in the area is also the
developer of Newport Center so The Irvine Company was required to provide
affordable units due to the residential building they were providing. Mr. Hyans
asked if this polity had been affective in Newport Beach. Ms. Wood said yes it
had been. Don Krotee asked if GPAC could suggest a policy requiring
commercial developers to provide affordable housing. Ms. Wood said that would
be possible and she had heard of in -lieu fees paid by commercial developers.
Her preference would be to discuss this further during the General Plan Update
process. Mr. Tescher indicated he would do some research and report back on
what other communities have done.
Mr. Hyans asked if there were any affordable housing units currently in the City
because he had not noticed any. Ms. Wood indicated that was the plan; the
units don't look any different, the rents are just lower. Ms. Campbell indicated
there was a table in the Housing Element with the locations of the affordable
units (page 15). Ms. Wood added there is a problem with some of the current
units because covenants are expiring. Mr. Lugar asked about what happens
after the covenant expires. Ms. Wood indicated that when updating the housing
element all of this information is analyzed and the numbers end up reappearing
in our RHNA numbers eventually. Kim Jansma asked about the resale price on
affordable units. Ms. Temple indicated that most of the City's units are rentals,
however with the few "for sale" units we have, there are covenants restricting
their resale price as well as requiring the purchaser to be income qualified.
Ms. Gardner asked if there is anything that helps teachers and /or City employees
live here? Ms. Temple indicated that most City employees and teachers would
fall into the moderate income which would be 80 -120% of the County median
income for a family of four. Ms. Wood indicated she just did a rental survey
looking at market -rate rents for two bedroom units and most would meet the
standard for moderate income households. Our focus, with the programs we are
developing, is for units affordable to low and very low income households.
Mr. Hyans asked about the amount of assistance government is required to
provide to create these units. For example, the hotels create jobs and revenue
for the City, however if the money is then going out toward affordable housing,
the City is not seeing benefit from the business. Ms. Wood pointed out that the
money used to help with the Lower Bayview project is not General Fund or tax
dollars, the fund is entirely money paid by developers of market -rate housing.
Ms. Gardner asked if Banning Ranch is identified as a future site for affordable
housing and then the City buys the property, can the units be shifted to another
location. Ms. Wood said yes, however we would have to find a site large enough
7
3
to accommodate the same number of units. Mr. Vandersloot pointed out that
the airport area had been discussed by this committee as an area that might
work for affordable units. Ms. Wood added that during the General Plan Update
process we could look at that area. Mr. Lugar asked if we had 5 years to build
the units listed in this element. Ms. Wood explained we only have until 2005.
Mr. Lugar asked if we have to build out all 1,400 units by then. Ms. Wood stated
that more than half of the units are above market -rate units and the ongoing
development of Newport Coast would take care of most of those. In addition, if
the Lower Bayview project is successful there will be another 150 units and if we
can do another project and /or use in -lieu funds to extend affordability on some
existing units we would show a lot of progress.
Mr. Corrough asked about Pages 46-48, which indicate many of .the pre- 1950's
areas of the City are designated as "Residential Infill Sites ". Ms. Temple
indicated the analysis is intended to show areas where current zoning would
allow additional housing capability which would show the State we can meet our
housing needs. Bill Kelly asked if the opposite is actually true where multi- family
lots are being rezoned to R -2. Ms. Temple explained that we haven't done a lot
of rezoning. Some adjustments were made after the 1988 General Plan Update
to correct districts zoned R -3 but where the lot size only allowed one unit.
Catherine O'Hara asked how the City could convince developers to extend the
covenants on affordable units. Ms. Wood indicated the City would pay them for
the extension. Mr. Remley asked if that money would be from the in -lieu funds.
He felt the money should be used to get additional units built. Ms. Wood pointed
out that we would do some analysis to see if it made sense before we did it.
Mr. Vandersloot asked if the City had considered a program used by Huntington
Beach where a developer could purchase an apartment house away from the
new development and use it for the affordable units. Ms. Temple said our
program could accommodate that concept. However Ms. Wood stated it would
have some disadvantages because it would not be considered a new unit and
would not count toward our RHNA.
Ms. Gardner asked about Newport Coast and if that area counted toward the
County's numbers or the City's. Ms. Wood indicated the RHNA numbers covering
that area are incorporated into our housing element.
Ms. O Hara asked if there were any policies requiring developers of office or
commercial buildings to contribute to housing requirements. Ms. Wood said
there was nothing in place; however she would be open to talk about it.
�i
E
Mr. Corrough asked about government programs to encourage developers to
build below market housing. Ms. Wood indicated there is not as much money as
there used to be, however money and programs are available.
Louise Greeley asked if the in -lieu fees affected RHNA numbers. Ms. Wood
explained that the number is only reduced when a unit is built. The in -lieu fees
make sense on the smaller developments where under 10 units of affordable
housing would be provided. Ms. Greeley asked if mixed -use areas would be
appropriate for affordable housing. Ms. Temple said yes, and indicated that the
28th Street Marina was an example. Mr. Lugar asked how the City monitors the
affordability. Ms. Temple answered that we send out annual questionnaires
which are required to be completed and returned with documentation.
Carol Boice asked if the in -lieu funds from One Ford Road were still available.
Ms. Wood said we had all of those funds plus money collected from two other
developers. Ms. Boice also asked how long the City can retain the funds. Ms.
Wood didn't think there was a time limitation. Mr. Kelly asked how the in -lieu
fee was calculated. Ms. Wood stated it has not been a formalized program and
staff is still working on that along with an economist who specializes in
affordable housing issues. Mr. Kelly asked if the City could force developers to
build affordable housing instead of taking the in -lieu fees. Ms. Wood stated that
if that were the case it would increase the monitoring burden on us and by
allowing in -lieu fees for the smaller developments it gives the City funds to use
as incentives to larger affordable housing projects. Ms. Jansma asked if the One
Ford Road development didn't want affordable units included because it would
reduce the value of their project. Ms. Temple indicated she did not work on the
project, however said the decision was made by the City Council to accept the in-
lieu fees.
Mr. Hyans asked if the City would consider rezoning areas where there are
buildings not being used (PacBell building on the Peninsula) to allow for housing.
Ms. Wood said that kind of idea is what we need to talk about during the General
Plan Update, so we've got a more realistic list of sites for the next update of the
Housing Element. Ms. Temple added that she and Ms. Wood had talked to 40 or
50 different groups regarding housing on Superior when the property was
available but no one was interested in developing housing there.
Mr. Johnson asked about trailer parks and if it was the most efficient way to use
the land. Ms. Wood indicated she had referred people to the owners of the
properties on Coast Highway however they have not met with success. Also,
there is a whole body of State law surrounding the closure of a mobile home
park.
5
Mr. Lugar asked if we could add a requirement for residency in affordable units.
Ms. Wood indicated we cannot do that, the only criteria that can be used is
income. Ms. Gardner asked why we are focusing on a senior housing project if
we are not supposed to give bonuses for people who live here and are we sure
that seniors are in need of affordable housing. Ms. Wood indicated that seniors
are one of the defined special needs groups in the State housing law and the
census data backs up the fact that we have a large number of seniors that are at
low and very low income levels and are overpaying for their housing.
Mr. Hyans pointed out that it seems like the terminology "Senior Housing" and
"Affordable Housing" are interchangeable in the document. Ms. Wood indicated
that was not the intent and she would look into it. Once we get the Lower
Bayview project done we will be focusing on a family project, which is also the
message from HCD.
Mr. Lugar asked about the in -lieu fees paid by the Cannery Lofts project. Ms.
Temple pointed out that the project was designed as individual lots, each
building will house one commercial and one residential unit, so in -lieu fees
seemed to make sense with this project. Ms. Wood added that because this
development is in the coastal zone, we had the developer do an economic
feasibility study which showed affordable housing was not feasible because of
the very high property value.
Ms. Boice asked about the Domingo Drive apartments and whether the
affordability will be extended beyond 2005. Ms. Wood indicated that unless the
owner agrees to extend it, the covenant expires and the City has no authority to
force its continuance.
Ms. Gardner asked about Page 52 where it refers to buildings higher than three
stories. Ms. Wood indicated the point we were making is that for Newport Beach
higher density, which often means going up, doesn't necessarily make for
greater affordability like it does in other communities.
Mr. Johnson asked if the word was out about the Lower Bayview project or if it
was being quietly marketed locally. Ms. Wood explained that the word was
probably out and by law you can't restrict those units to people who already live
here, although the developer has indicated they will focus marketing efforts in
Newport Beach to draw the greatest pool of applicants from this area.
Ms. Jansma asked if the view would be blocked with the Lower Bayview project.
Ms. Wood pointed out that the housing project and view park would be done
simultaneously and the view will actually improve after the projects are
complete.
6
Ms. Boice asked about Appendix 2, and wanted to know why the Assistance
League of Newport -Mesa was not listed. Ms. Wood said we didn't know about it
and asked Ms. Boice to provide some information to Tamara so it can be added.
Ms. Greeley asked for a revision of the zoning for Banning Ranch, she feels it is
out of date. Ms. Wood said this was a little premature at this time. Banning
Ranch will be discussed during the upcoming studies, as well as when we get
into alternative land use scenarios. Ms. Temple pointed out that language
recommended by GPAC is being forwarded to the LCP Committee regarding
Banning Ranch.
Phillip Bettencourt asked to go on record that he would not be a participant in
any action this Committee may take on the Banning Ranch due to his
professional relationships.
IV. Public Comments
Allan Beek stated he thought the focus is wrongly being placed on supplying
housing instead of population control. He feels a requirement for the affordable
housing units should be employment in Newport Beach instead of only income
level.
5
7
EXHIBIT B
(LETTER FROM GEORGE BASYE)
Jun 30 03 03:44p Aera Energy 7145779149 p•Z
June 30, 2003
VIA FACSIMILE & E -MAIL
Ms. Tamara J. Campbell, AICP
City of Newport Beach
P.O. Box 1768
Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915
SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT REVISIONS
(PROPOSED)
Dear Ms. Campbell:
I am writing on behalf of the Newport Banning Ranch concerning the city staff
sponsored Housing Element Update, particularly as it applies to the Newport
Banning Ranch, and the proposed Negative Declaration posted May 22, 2003.
As you know, Newport Banning Ranch is a 412 -acre site located near the mouth of
the Santa Ana River. Currently, Orange County has jurisdiction of 87% of the site,
with the balance within the City of Newport Beach. The Newport Mesa Unified
School District owns an 11.4 -acre parcel in the middle of the eastern boundary of
the project. The entire property is within the California Coastal Act zone.
For the past 50 years, the site has been used for an operating oil field, and today,
remnants of old wells and pipelines coexist with operating pumps and processing
facilities. At this time, approximately 100 active oil wells are on the site.
The owners of the property are Aera Energy LLC and Rancho Santiago
Partnership. Oil operations are conducted for the owners by West Newport Oil
Company.
A draft Local Coast Program and accompanying program Environmental Impact
Report proposing a master plan development of not more than 1,750 homes,
encompassing a wide range of housing opportunities, and an Integrated Resource
Conservation Plan were prepared covering the property. These plans were filed
/2
Aero Energy LLC • 3030 Saturn Street, Suite 101 • Brea. CA 92821 • (714) 577 -9154
Jun 30 03 03:44p Hera Energy 7145779149 p.3
City of Newport Beach
June 30, 2003
Page 2 of 3
with both the County and the City but are temporarily on hold at this time at the
request of the property owners.
Ouestions Concerning Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration
• What is the current median family income for Newport Beach for the
purpose of qualifying today's eligible renters and/or purchasers?
• Under the current median family income category, what are the permissible
monthly rent rates and housing sales prices allowed under the existing and
the proposed Element?
• Are there opportunities for further affordable housing within the annexable
areas of Santa Ana Heights and/or the Bay Knolls neighborhoods not
discussed in the update?
• Would the city have an easier time facilitating affordable housing within the
boundaries of the existing redevelopment project area within Santa Ana
Heights?
• The revised Element promotes affordability mandates for 30 years and
appears to lengthen the time of mandatory affordability from 20 years in the
existing Element. Is that true?
• The city staff indicates that current available unpledged affordable housing
in lieu of funds are not more than $1.5 million_ Is your forecasted 3 %n
annual earnings estimate realistic in today's interest rate environment?
• What is your estimate of funds that will be accrued over the next 5 years
available to assist developers of affordable housing?
• What is the current rental vacancy rate in the city, and at what times has the
city's vacancy factor been greater than 5 % over the last 10 years?
• Assuming state HCD approval of the current amendment, when would the
Element again be subject to review under the state cycle?
• Does the density bonus suggested in your analysis allow the city to penetrate
General Plan unit thresholds if they exceed the Greenlight limits?
• In your discussion of the Banning Ranch you indicated that the Banning
Ranch is... "a company formed as a partnership of two independent oil
companies, neither of which are real estate developers. Discussions related
to development usually include a third -party development company."
• We respectfully suggest that this characterization is not true for either the
skills or capabilities for the current property owners, and that it is not
MN318101
Jun 30 03 03:44p Rera Energy 7145779149 p.4
City of Newport Beach
June 30, 2003
Page 3 of 3
relevant to either the proposed environmental determination or the policy
choices within the draft Element.
Very truly yours,
George asye 77
Vice President
GLB:mep
MPM8101
EXHIBIT C
(Staff Response to Comments) iir
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS RECEIVED REGARDING THE NEWPORT
BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION
July 11, 2003
1) The attached table provides information on the Orange County median income
and the criteria for qualifying eligible renters and /or purchasers for "affordable
housing units."
2) The attached table provides information on the Orange County median income
and the criteria for qualifying eligible renters and /or purchasers for "affordable
housing units." The eligibility criteria for the proposed Housing Element are the
same as in the previous element.
3) There may be opportunities for further affordable housing with the recently
annexed Santa Ana Heights and Bay Knolls. Page 49 of the Housing Element
explains that once these areas are annexed, the City will explore opportunities
for increasing the City's housing supply in these areas. The proposed element
was submitted to HCD in March 2003, before the annexation occurred. It is now
the City's intent, as part of the General Plan update to move forward with
analyzing opportunities in these areas. This is reflected in proposed program
2.3.1 in the Housing Element.
4) As specified above, the Santa Ana Heights area will be examined for
affordable housing opportunities with the comprehensive update of the City's
General Plan.
5) The increase from 20 years to 30 years is based on the current mandate of
Federally Funded Affordable Housing projects and reflects current planning
practices.
6) The $1.5 million balance in the City's affordable housing in -lieu fund reflects
the City's agreement to loan $1 million to the developer of the Lower Bayview
Landing senior affordable project. The Housing Element makes no projection of
how this fund may grow due to interest earnings. The staff report for the
Planning Commission meeting of June 19 assumed annual earnings of 3 percent
solely for the purpose of analyzing the potential to use that fund for rent subsidies
rather than contributions to new construction. Staff recognizes that a rate of 3
percent may not be realistic today, but it was our intent to be optimistic for
purposes of that analysis.
7) It is impossible to estimate the amount of funds that could be accred over the
next five years since no one knows what projects will be proposed or how they
will satisfy their affordable housing requirements.
8) Page 17 of the Housing Element indicates that according to the Orange
County Progress Report in 2000, the vacancy rate for Newport Beach was 11.48
//�7
percent which is indicative of a highly seasonal population. An overall vacancy
rate of 10 percent through the year 2010 has been projected. We do not have
specific data on the times that the vacancy factor has been over 5 percent over
the last ten years. However, we can assume that the vacancy rate has not been
below 5 percent at any time we know about. This is because the City, since its
inception, has always had a high number of dwelling units used as seasonal or
second homes. Documentation supporting this statement is found by examining
the vacancy rates for each decennial census, where the vacancy factor is usually
about 12 percent. We believe the projection of 10 percent for the future is
reasonable, as there could be a slow migration of second homes to primary
residences over this time frame.
9) State Housing Element Law would mandate another update in 2005. This may
change depending on the State budget for funding for the Regional Housing
Needs Assessment figures.
10) Page 96 of the City's current Land Use Element contains provisions for an
additional 200 dwelling units citywide for the purpose of accommodating potential
density bonuses, "second dwelling units" and "granny" units.
11 and 12. The characterization of Banning Ranch as a "company formed as a
partnership of two independent oil companies, neither of which are real estate
developers" was included as a result of HCD's interest in why there has been no
development on the site. It is in no way a reflection of staffs opinion regarding
the skills or capabilities for the current property owners. In addition, the
description is part of the Housing Element text, descriptive in nature and is not
included in the environmental determination nor in any policies. Staff would be
happy to work with the property ownership on a more accurate characterization
that provides the information HCD is seeking.
/ ;'
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
HOUSING AFFORDABILITY TABLE
(JULY, 2003)
Income level
Income
Rent (per
Sale Price
month)
Very low-
$37,800
$945
$113,400
income
Low - income
$60,480
$1,512
$181,440
Moderate-
$90,720
$2,268
$272,160
income
rS
EXHIBIT D
(NEGATIVE DECLARATION)
1�
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
3300 Newport Boulevard - P.O. Box 1768
Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915
�^tc„�w�'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:
Public review period: May 29, 2003 — June 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
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 environment. �-�//
A copy of the Initial Study containing the analysis supporting this finding is L+3 attsched 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.
9) 2 oZD
Date S -1 °7
Planner
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
❑ TransportationfCirculation
❑ Biological Resources
❑ Energy & Mineral Resources
❑ Hazards
❑ Noise
DETERMINATION: ON THE BASIS OF THIS EVALUATION:
• Public Services
• Utilities & Service Systems
• Aesthetics
• Cultural Resources
❑ Recreation
DE,...-
Title: Senior Planner
Date: 5122103
p
CBECKLIST
Page 2
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment
and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I 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.
❑
DE,...-
Title: Senior Planner
Date: 5122103
p
CBECKLIST
Page 2
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
INITIAL STUDY AND ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
1. Project Title: General Plan Amendment 2003 -04: Housing Element Update
2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Newport Beach
Planning Department
3300 Newport Boulevard,
Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915
3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Tamara J. Campbell, AICP
Senior Planner
Planning Department
(949) 644 -3238
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
1Z
CHECKLIST
Page 1
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
Issues and Supporting Data Sources Potentially Less 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,
❑
❑
❑
Il
including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a
state scenic highway?
C) Substantially degrade the existing visual
❑
❑
❑
0
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
aesthetic/scenic resources.
II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland,
❑
❑
❑
El
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
❑
❑
❑
D
use, or a Williamson Act contract?
23
CHECKLIST
Page 2
Issues and Supporting Data Sources
Potentially
significant
Less than
slgnificam
Less than
significant
No impact
impact
impactwith
impact
mitigation
C) Involve other changes in the existing
❑
❑
❑
m
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
❑
❑
❑
the applicable air quality plan?
b) Violate any air quality standard or
❑
❑
❑
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
❑
❑
❑
0
pollutant concentrations?
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a
❑
❑
❑
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:
,2v
CBECxusr
Page 3
Issues and Supporting Data Sources Potentially Less than Less than No Impact
significant significant significant
Impact Impact with 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?
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
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:
❑ ❑
L
L4
7
7
Is
❑M
❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑
N
5
F121
M
Cf- IECKLrsT
Page 4
Issues and Supporting Data Sources
potentially
significant
Less than
significant
Less than
significant
No Impact
Impact
impactwith
Impact
mitigation
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
❑
❑
❑
0
significance of a historical resource as
defined in §15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
❑
❑
❑
0
significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to §15064.5?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
❑
❑
❑
paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature?
d) Disturb any human remains, including those
❑
❑
❑
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
❑
❑
❑
0
substantial adverse effects, including the
risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
El
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?
❑
❑
❑
0
❑
❑
❑
0
iii) Seismic-related ground failure,
including liquefaction?
11
El
iv) Landslides?
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss
❑
❑
❑
of topsoil?
CHECKLIST
Page 5
Issues and Supporting Data Sources
Potentially Less than
significant significant
impact impact with
mitigation
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
❑ ❑
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
❑ ❑
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:
Less than
significant
Impact
C
0
No impact
FM
J
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or ❑ ❑ ❑ 0
the environment through routine transport,
use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or ❑ ❑ ❑ 0
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?
❑ ❑
5
12 �,
CHECKLIST
Page 6
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?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private
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?
Potentially Less than
significant significant
impact impactwith
mitigation
�M
❑ ❑
❑ ❑
h) Expose people or structures to a significant ❑
risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland
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.
Vlll. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste ❑
discharge requirements?
J
0
Lessthan
significant
impact
❑■
01
No Impact
A
28
J
J
u1
J
J
CHECKLIST
Page 7
Issues and Supporting Data Sources
Potentially Less than Less than
No Impact
significant significant significant
impact impact with Impact
mitigation
b)
Substantially deplete groundwater supplies
❑. ❑ ❑
0
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
❑ ❑ ❑
0
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
❑ ❑ , ❑
0
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
❑ ❑ ❑
E
would exceed the capacity of existing or
planned stormwater drainage systems or
provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff?
f)
Otherwise substantially degrade water
❑ ❑ ❑
0
quality?
g)
Place housing within a 100 -year flood
❑ ❑ ❑
0
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
❑ ❑ ❑
0
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?
❑ ❑ ❑
0
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 ❑ ❑ ❑
community?
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, ❑ ❑ ❑
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 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0
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 speck environmental review.
X. MINERAL RESOURCES.
Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known ❑ ❑ ❑
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- ❑ ❑ ❑
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
ranlaramont hni minn arcawharo?
CHECKLIST
Page 9
Issues and Supporting Data Sources Potentially Lass 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 0
Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of ❑ ❑ ❑ 0
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 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0
excessive groundbcme vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
C) A substantial permanent increase in ambient ❑ ❑ ❑ 0
noise levels in the project vicinity above
levels existing without the project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase ❑ ❑ ❑ 0
in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity
above levels existing without the project?
e) For a project located within an airport land ❑ ❑ ❑ 0
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?
0 For a project within the vicinity of a private ❑ ❑ ❑ 0
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, groundbourne 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.
31
CHECKMT
Page 10
Issues and Supporting Data Sources Potentially Lass than Less than No impact
significant significant significant
impact impact with impact
mitigation
XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING.
Would the project:
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 ❑ ❑ ❑ El
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.
XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES
Would the project:
a) Would the project result in substantial ❑ ❑ ❑ p
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? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0
CtMCKLIST
Page 11
Issues and Supporting Data Sources
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
Potentially
Less than
Less than
significant
significant
significant
Impact
impactwith
impact
mitigation
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
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
intpmpntinns)?
FM7.
U
FM-
0
0
No impact
0
a
0
KI
J
J
CHECKLIST
Page 12
33
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
❑ ❑
❑
0
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,
❑ ❑
❑
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)?
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
❑ ❑
❑
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity?
❑ ❑
❑
B
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or
❑ ❑
❑
Bj
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
❑ ❑
❑
of the applicable Regional Water Quality
Control Board?
b) Require or result in the construction of new
❑ ❑
❑
0
water or wastewater treatment facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
3�
CHECKLIST
Page 13
Issues and Supporting Data Sources
Potentially
Less than .
Less than No impact
significant
significant
significant
impact
impact with
Impact
mitigation
C) Require or result in the construction of new
❑
❑
❑ Q
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
❑
❑
❑ Q
serve the project from existing entitlements
and resources, or are new or expanded
entitlements needed?
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater ❑ ❑ ❑ Q
treatment provider, which serves or may
serve the project that it has adequate
capacity to serve the project's projected
demand in addition to the provider's existing
commitments?
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient ❑ ❑ ❑ Q
permitted capacity to accommodate the
project's solid waste disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, state, and local ❑ ❑ ❑ Q
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.
CHECKLIST
Page 14
Potentially less than Less than No impact
significant significant significant
impact impact with Impact
mitigation
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF ❑ ❑ ❑ Q
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 ❑ ❑ ❑ [(
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.
}
CHECKLIST
Page 17
0
0
EXHIBIT A
• (PLANNING COMMISION MINUTES JUNE 21, 2003)
k
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes •
June 21, 2001 INDEX
SUBJECT: Draft Housing Element Item No. 1
Review and discussion of proposed draft Housing Element. Continued to date
uncertain
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
Bement-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 •
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 law
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 it is within our
Planning Area and we are supposed to plan for that area as part of our General
Plan. We think if is appropriate to show that site. With those three sites, Banning
Ranch, Avocado /MacArthur and Lower Bayview Landing we believe that we
con 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, I 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
average 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 past, 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
3
INDEX
�i
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes •
June 21, 2001 INDEX
housing and that is not the business that we are in.
The lost 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 far 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 of 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
•
11
i
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 Bement just
as this one is talking about our progress in implementing the last. 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 Bayview 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
5
INDEX
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes •
June 21, 2001 INDEX
Bayview 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 with 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 Agajonion 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?
•
R
City of Newport Beach
• Planning Commission Minutes
June 21, 2001
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 hove 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
2D` o 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 -!ieu 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
r.
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 have 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, I would
ask one of the consultants for that information.
Albert Armijo of Bogle 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 an earthquake. When we
examined potential areas of the City, it was the older areas of the City that ore
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
i
I' \
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 co 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 have 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 it 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
9
INDEX
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 for 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 Selich 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.
SUBJECT' Glabman Residence (PA2001 -063)
2315 Pacific Drive
-- Variance No. 2001 -002
Modification Permit No. 2001 -060
Request for a variance to permit an addition to an exisfing single family residence
of which a portion of the new construction exceeds the 24 -foot height limit,
ranging from approximately 2 feet to 11.4 feet. The proposal includes a
10
INDEX
item No. 2
Use Permit No. 3684
Continued to
07/19/2001
•
�J
0
EXHIBIT B
(GPAC - MINUTES JUNE 23, 2003)
�x
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Minutes of the General Plan Advisory Committee Meeting held on Monday,
June 23, 2003, at the Police Department Auditorium.
Members Present:
Roger Alford
Louise Greeley
Phillip Lugar
Phillip Bettencourt
Tom Hyans
Marie Marston
Carol Boice
Mike Ishikawa
Catherine O'Hara
Karlene Bradley
Kim Jansma
Charles Remley
John Corrough
Mike Johnson
Larry Root
Grace Dove
Bill Kelly
James Schmiesing
Nancy Gardner
Donald Krotee
Jan Vandersloot
Members Absent:
Patrick Bartolic
Bob Hendrickson
John Saunders
Gus Chabre
Alex Kakavas
Ed Siebel
Laura Dietz
Todd Knipp
Jackie Sukiasian
Florence Felton
Lucille Kuehn
Jennifer Wesoloski
Ernest Hatchell
Carl Ossipoff
Ron Yeo
Staff Present:
Sharon Wood, Assistant City Manager
Patricia Temple, Planning Director
Tamara Campbell, Senior Planner
Woodie Tescher, EIP Consultant
Debbie Lektorich, Executive Assistant
Members of the Public Present:
Allan Beek
I. Call to Order
Phillip Lugar called the meeting to order.
0
•
Ix
• II. Approval of Minutes
Mr. Lugar pointed out a correction to the minutes on Page 2, under III, last line
in the fourth paragraph; the word "successful" should be changed to
"accessible ". The minutes of the June 9"' meeting were approved with this
correction.
III. Discussion of the Draft Housing Element
Tamara Campbell reviewed a Power Point presentation outlining the laws and
requirements of Housing Elements. The presentation is attached. During and
after the presentation the following questions were raised.
Nancy Gardner asked about the RHNA numbers and if other considerations (such
as land availability) were taken into account- before assigning them. Patty
Temple explained that land availability and cost have no impact on the allocation.
Jan Vandersloot asked if it had to be open land or if we could incorporate
existing apartments. Ms. Temple explained that RHNA numbers must be met
with construction of new units; however it does not have to be on vacant sites,
rezoning is an option. Sharon Wood added that the RHNA numbers include all
income levels, so they are not just low income units. The City focuses on the
low income units because it is difficult to meet that need. Charles Remley asked
if rezoning was restricted to industrial /commercial areas or if housing areas could
• be rezoned also. Ms. Temple said all areas could potentially be looked at.
Tom Hyans asked for more explanation on how employment affects the RHNA
numbers. Ms. Temple indicated the State's goal is to provide housing for
everyone who lives and works here, if a city has a lot of growth projection in
jobs then the city will be expected to provide housing for those people. Ms.
Gardner asked about the penalties if a city did not meet the goals. Ms. Temple
indicated litigation and possible loss of building permit authority. Woodie
Tescher added that legislation is pending which would add substantial financial
penalties to communities that don't meet the needs.
John Corrough pointed out that it is important to get the State housing people to
visit and see the landscape in the area to show them some areas on maps are
not suitable for building. Ms. Temple indicated that we did have HCD visit and
tour our City.
Mr. Remley asked what would happen if our RHNA numbers were reduced,
would some other area be increased? Ms. Wood indicated that if Orange County
numbers were reduced, the numbers would be increased in another county, such
as Riverside County. Mr. Vandersloot asked if this need for housing is taken into
account by Council when looking at a jobs rich development like Newport Center
• and requiring the developer to add affordable housing in the area. Ms. Wood
2 15
indicated that it is an accepted practice to place the responsibility for affordable
housing on residential developers instead of the commercial developers. In the •
case of Newport Center, the major residential developer in the area is also the
developer of Newport Center so The Irvine Company was required to provide
affordable units due to the residential building they were providing. Mr. Hyans
asked if this policy had been affective in Newport Beach. Ms. Wood said yes it
had been. Don Krotee asked if GPAC could suggest a policy requiring
commercial developers, to provide affordable housing. Ms. Wood said that would
be possible and she had heard of in -lieu fees paid by commercial developers.
Her preference would be to discuss this further during the General Plan Update
process. Mr. Tescher indicated he would do some research and report back on
what other communities have done.
Mr. Hyans asked if there were any affordable housing units currently in the City
because he had not noticed any. Ms. Wood indicated that was the plan; the
units don't look any different, the rents are just lower. Ms. Campbell indicated
there was a table in the Housing Element with the locations of the affordable
units (page 15). Ms. Wood added there is a problem with some of the current
units because covenants are expiring. Mr. Lugar asked about what happens
after the covenant expires. Ms. Wood indicated that when updating the housing
element all of this information is analyzed and the numbers end up reappearing
in our RHNA numbers eventually. Kim Jansma asked about the resale price on
affordable units. Ms. Temple indicated that most of the City's units are rentals, •
however with the few "for sale" units we have, there are covenants restricting
their resale price as well as requiring the purchaser to be income qualified.
Ms. Gardner asked if there is anything that helps teachers and /or City employees
live here? Ms. Temple indicated that most City employees and teachers would
fall into the moderate income which would be 80 -120% of the County median
income for a family of four. Ms. Wood indicated she just did a rental survey
looking at market -rate rents for two bedroom units and most would meet the
standard for moderate income households. Our focus, with the programs we are
developing, is for units affordable to low and very low income households.
Mr. Hyans asked about the amount of assistance government is required to
provide to create these units. For example, the hotels create jobs and revenue
for the City, however if the money is then going out toward affordable housing,
the City is not seeing benefit from the business. Ms. Wood pointed out that the
money used to help with the Lower Bayview project is not General Fund or tax
dollars, the fund is entirely money paid by developers of market -rate housing.
Ms. Gardner asked if Banning Ranch is identified as a future site for affordable
housing and then the City buys the property, can the units be shifted to another
location. Ms. Wood said yes, however we would have to find a site large enough •
3 ��
•to accommodate the same number of units. Mr. Vandersloot pointed out that
the airport area had been discussed by this committee as an area that might
work for affordable units. Ms. Wood added that during the General Plan Update
process we could look at that area. Mr. Lugar asked if we had 5 years to build
the units listed in this element. Ms. Wood explained we only have until 2005.
Mr. Lugar asked if we have to build out all 1,400 units by then. Ms. Wood stated
that more than half of the units are above market -rate units and the ongoing
development of Newport Coast would take care of most of those. In addition, if
the Lower Bayview project is successful there will be another 150 units and if we
can do another project and /or use in -lieu funds to extend affordability on some
existing units we would show a lot of progress.
Mr. Corrough asked about Pages 46 -48, which indicate many of the pre- 1950's
areas of the City are designated as "Residential Infill Sites ". Ms. Temple
indicated the analysis is intended to show areas where current zoning would
allow additional housing capability which would show the State we can meet our
housing needs. Bill Kelly asked if the opposite is actually true where multi- family
lots are being rezoned to R -2. Ms. Temple explained that we haven't done a lot
of rezoning. Some adjustments were made after the 1988 General Plan Update
to correct districts zoned R -3 but where the lot size only allowed one unit.
Catherine O'Hara asked how the City could convince developers to extend the
• covenants on affordable units. Ms. Wood indicated the City would pay them for
the extension. Mr. Remley asked if that money would be from the in -lieu funds.
He felt the money should be used to get additional units built. Ms. Wood pointed
out that we would do some analysis to see if it made sense before we did it.
•
Mr. Vandersloot asked if the City had considered a program used by Huntington
Beach where a developer could purchase an apartment house away from the
new development and use it for the affordable units. Ms. Temple said our
program could accommodate that concept. However Ms. Wood stated it would
have some disadvantages because it would not be considered a new unit and
would not count toward our RHNA.
Ms. Gardner asked about Newport Coast and if that area counted toward the
County's numbers or the City's. Ms. Wood indicated the RHNA numbers covering
that area are incorporated into our housing element.
Ms. O'Hara asked if there were any policies requiring developers of office or
commercial buildings to contribute to housing requirements. Ms. Wood said
there was nothing in place; however she would be open to talk about it.
4 ti
Mr. Corrough asked about government programs to encourage developers to •
build below market housing. Ms. Wood indicated there is not as much money as
there used to be, however money and programs are available.
Louise Greeley asked if the in -lieu fees affected RHNA numbers. Ms. Wood
explained that the number is only reduced when a unit is built. The in -lieu fees
make sense on the smaller developments where under 10 units of affordable
housing would be provided. Ms. Greeley asked if mixed -use areas would. be
appropriate for affordable housing. Ms. Temple said yes, and indicated that the
28th Street Marina was an example. Mr. Lugar asked how the City monitors the
affordability. Ms. Temple answered that we send out annual questionnaires
which are required to be completed and returned with documentation.
Carol Boice asked if the in -lieu funds from One Ford Road were still available.
Ms. Wood said we had all of those funds plus money co"•acted from two other
developers. Ms. Boice also asked how long the City can retain the funds. Ms.
Wood didn't think there was a time limitation. Mr. Kelly asked how the in -lieu
fee was calculated. Ms. Wood stated it has not been a formalized program and
staff is still working on that along with an economist who specializes in
affordable housing issues. Mr. Kelly asked if the City could force developers to
build affordable housing instead of taking the in -lieu fees. Ms. Wood stated that
if that were the case it would increase the monitoring burden on us and by •
allowing in -lieu fees for the smaller developments it gives the City funds to use
as incentives to larger affordable housing projects. Ms. Jansma asked if the One
Ford Road development didn't want affordable units included because it would
reduce the value of their project. Ms. Temple indicated she did not work on the
project, however said the decision was made by the City Council to accept the in-
lieu fees.
Mr. Hyans asked if the City would consider rezoning areas where there are
buildings not being used (PacBell building on the Peninsula) to allow for housing.
Ms. Wood said that kind of idea is what we need to talk about during the General
Plan Update, so we've got a more realistic list of sites for the next update of the
Housing Element. Ms. Temple added that she and Ms. Wood had talked to 40 or
50 different groups regarding housing on Superior when the property was
available but no one was interested in developing housing there.
Mr. Johnson asked about trailer parks and if it was the most efficient way to use
the land. Ms. Wood indicated she had referred people to the owners of the
properties on Coast Highway however they have not met with success. Also,
there is a whole body of State law surrounding the closure of a mobile home
park.
•
5 �{�
• Mr. Lugar asked if we could add a requirement for residency in affordable units.
Ms. Wood indicated we cannot do that, the only criteria that can be used is
income. Ms. Gardner asked why we are focusing on a senior housing project if
we are not supposed to give bonuses for people who live here and are we sure
that seniors are in need of affordable housing. Ms. Wood indicated that seniors
are one of the defined special needs groups in the State housing law and the
census data backs up the fact that we have a large number of seniors that are at
low and very low income levels and are overpaying for their housing.
Mr. Hyans pointed out that it seems like the terminology "Senior Housing" and
"Affordable Housing" are interchangeable in the document. Ms. Wood indicated
that was not the intent and she would look into it. Once we get the Lower
Bayview project done we will be focusing on a family project, which is also the
message from HCD.
Mr. Lugar asked about the in -lieu fees paid by the Cannery Lofts project. Ms.
Temple pointed out that the project was designed as individual lots, each
building will house one commercial and one residential unit, so in -lieu fees
seemed to make sense with this project. Ms. Wood added that because this
development is in the coastal zone, we had the developer do an economic
feasibility study which showed affordable housing was not feasible because of
• the very high property value.
Ms. Boice asked about the Domingo Drive apartments and whether the
affordability will be extended beyond 2005. Ms. Wood indicated that unless the
owner agrees to extend it, the covenant expires and the City has no authority to
force its continuance.
Ms. Gardner asked about Page 52 where it refers to buildings higher than three
stories. Ms. Wood indicated the point we were making is that for Newport Beach
higher density, which often means going up, doesn't necessarily make for
greater affordability like it does in other communities.
Mr. Johnson asked if the word was out about the Lower Bayview project or if it
was being quietly marketed locally. Ms. Wood explained that the word was
probably out and by law you can't restrict those units to people who already live
here, although the developer has indicated they will focus marketing efforts in
Newport Beach to draw the greatest pool of applicants from this area.
Ms. Jansma asked if the view would be blocked with the Lower Bayview project.
Ms.' Wood pointed out that the housing project and view park would be done
simultaneously and the view will actually improve after the projects are
• complete.
6 0
Ms. Boice asked about Appendix 2, and wanted to know why the Assistance •
League of Newport -Mesa was not listed. Ms. Wood said we didn't know about it
and asked Ms. Boice to provide some information to Tamara so it can be added.
Ms. Greeley asked for a revision of the zoning for Banning Ranch, she feels it is
out of date. Ms. Wood said this was a little premature at this time. Banning
Ranch will be discussed during the upcoming studies, as well as when we get
into alternative land use scenarios. Ms. Temple pointed out that language
recommended by GPAC is being forwarded to the LCP Committee regarding
Banning Ranch.
Phillip Bettencourt asked to go on record that he would not be a participant in
any action this Committee may take on the Banning Ranch due to his
professional relationships.
IV. Public Comments
Allan Beek stated he thought the focus is wrongly being placed on supplying
housing instead of population control. He feels a requirement for the affordable
housing units should be employment in Newport Beach instead of only income
level.
•
7 �b
0
0
•
EXHIBIT C
PC MINUTES 6/19103, 7/17/03
�l
Planning Commission Minutes 06/19/2003
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
Planning Commission Minutes
June 19, 2003
Regular Meeting - 6:30 p.m.
DRAFT
Page 1 of 9
file: / /F: \USERS \PLN \Shared \ginger \2003PC \0619.HTM 07%07/2003
0
•
CJ
Ali
INDEX
ROLL CALL
Commissioners Toerge, McDaniel, Kiser, Gifford, Selich and Tucker - All present.
STAFF PRESENT:
Sharon Z_ Wood, Assistant City Manager
Patricia L. Temple, Planning Director
Robin Clauson, Assistant City Attorney
Rich Edmonston, Transportation/Development Services Manager
Gregg Ramirez, Associate Planner
Jull Ramirez, Department Assistant
Ginger Varin, Planning Commission Executive Secretary
SUBJECT: Minutes of June 5, 2003
ITEM NO.1
Minutes
Motion was made by Chairperson Kiser and voted on, to approve the minutes of
June 5, 2003.
Approved
SUBJECT: General Plan Initiation
ITEM NO.2
Initiation of amendments to the General Plan (GPI 2003 -004) and the Zoning
Code Amendment (CA2003 -006) relating to the annexation of West Santa Ana
Approved
Heights.
Motion was made by Commissioner Kiser to approve the Consent Calendar.
Ayes:
Toerge, McDaniel, Kiser, Gifford, Selich and Tucker
Noes:
None
Absent:
None
Abstain:
None
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
PUBLIC
COMMENTS
None
None
POSTING OF THE AGENDA:
POSTING OF
THE AGENDA
The Planning Commission Agenda was posted on Friday, June 13, 2003.
SUBJECT: Senk Residence (PA2003 -091)
ITEM NO. 3
file: / /F: \USERS \PLN \Shared \ginger \2003PC \0619.HTM 07%07/2003
0
•
CJ
Ali
Planning Commission Minutes 06/19/2003 19 1 11 Page 2 of 9
207 Evening Canyon 1 PA2003 -091
. Appeal of the approval of Modification Permit No. 2003 -038 for the construction Appeal was denied
of a new, single - family dwelling with an entry trellis structure that will encroach 4
feet into the 15 -foot front yard setback and a second floor planter box to encroach
2 -feet 6- inches into the 15 -foot front yard setback.
Temple gave a visual presentation noting the following:
. Original request was for an encroachment into the front yard setback for a
trellis -type structure that would encroach 6 feet into the 15 foot front yard
setback.
. The Modifications Committee considered the request and determined that
findings for approval could be made if the structure was reduced to a total
encroachment of 4 feet 6 inches. (referenced the site plan)
. The Modifications Committee determined that the modification was minor
in nature and the trellis and planter were limited to the entry and not across
the entire width of the structure and that there is an increased setback
between the residence and their neighbors.
. The source of the appeal is representation from the Homeowners
Association who say that encroachments are not allowed by their CC and
R's.
. The Modifications Committee makes their decision based on the findings in
the Newport Beach Municipal Code, and the presence of an objection by a
homeowners association relating to their CC and R's is not part of the
consideration.
. CC and R's are private covenants and agreements between the property
owners and their association. The City should not be, and is not, involved in
the enforcement of those covenants.
. Continuing, she noted additional views of the existing residence and noted
that it may be demolished and replaced.
. At Commission inquiry, she noted that modifications for these types of
designs have become quite common. The designs are usually centered
around some enhancement on the front entry. The Committee looks at these
proportionally and allow less encroachment into a 15 feet setback than they
would consider if the setback was 30 feet as there is an interest in making
sure that the buildings do not come very close to the sidewalk or streetscape.
Public comment was opened.
•Alex Villalpando, of CJ Lights, Architects, spoke representing the Senks. He
stated that the site plan shows a proposed basketball court and swimming pool.
file: / /F: \USERS \PLN \Shared \a,inger \2003PC \0619.HTM 07/07/2003
Planning Commission Minutes 06/19/2003 AFT ._
Ms. Temple noted that a letter was received from Ms. Rudat, two letters from tl
Shore Cliffs Homeowners Association and one from the Emmons Company th
relayed information pertaining to the review of the project by the architectur
committee of the association. She distributed the letters for Commission review.
,e Rudat, 254 Evening Canyon, spoke as a member of the board of directors
Shore Cliffs Property Homeowners Association and noted the following:
. The homeowners had been welcomed to the community and notified
they must conform to the CC and R's when they purchased their home
past year.
• This modification for an encroachment is still a variance and should
required to meet the test of a variance.
• Any modification or variance granted has far reaching affect.
. The Association was founded in 1951 in support of the conditions a
restrictions that were recorded with the County Recorder in 1946 as part
the development of this tract.
. The restrictions established within this community need to be pres€
especially within a community that has well established CC and R's
have been legally recorded by the Secretary of State..
. The character of the community is at risk when the Mod
Committee grants an encroachment into the front yard setback to
who wants to enlarge a kitchen.
. This granting is critical if it impairs the ocean view. Any encroachment
the stage for significant changes in the neighborhood character due to
cumulative effect of such encroachments.
Shore Cliffs does have a legally established set of CC and R's that iden
a well established set back design that is specific for each lot. This
disregarded by the Modifications Committee during their review.
. Purchasers are given a copy of the CC and R's as part of the
requirements.
. During the review by the architectural committee was clear that
encroachment was not acceptable and did not conform with the setback
that lot and that the Senks would have to adjust their plans to conform v
the setback and resubmit for review.
. He noted that notices should be sent out to a 300 foot radius on these
of notification as noted in the Code.
• He then discussed findings for a variance and concluded by asking that
modification be denied.
file: /!F:AUSERS \PLN\ Shared \2inger \2003PC \0619.HTM
Page 3 of 9
CJ
•
•
07/07/2003 0
Planning Commission Minutes 06/19/2003 DRAFT Page 4 of 9
Chairperson Kiser noted that the -Commission is not dealing with a variance up
•City Codes. The findings having to do with a variance are not the findings that
City needs to make for minor encroachments such as in this application. Neil
the Modifications Committee or the Planning Commission will get into an anal:
of the CC and R's. That is a private document that is recorded for the mu'
benefit of the owners of the properties. They are not something that the (
interprets. It is irrelevant to the Modifications Committee whether something
been reviewed by an architectural committee and approved or not as it is not to
into consideration. The City's decisions are independent of that.
missioner Gifford noted that in one of the letters submitted by the Shora
s Homeowners Association there was reference made to a trellis and deck.
that a mis- statement or could this turn into a deck?
-ferring to the site plan, Ms. Temple answered that the design does not look as
could become a deck as there is a door and the planter box is in the way.
Costa, 216 Evening Canyon Road asked if the vertical height was a matter
speak about tonight. He was answered that only the decision on
achment is being discussed tonight. Mr. Costa noted that there are rules a
ations within the community association. The 300 foot radius notificati
d be adhered to reach more neighbors of the event.
Commissioner Tucker asked how the encroachment affects his property.
• Mr. Costa noted that next to this property there is a private gate that every
has a key to go down to Little Corona beach. Witnessing this encro
getting closer to the street doesn't fit.
Gifford asked if someone mis- stated that this was a trellis
Temple answered that it appears that reference in the letter is the rear
deck area.
Villalpando clarified that the architect went through the modification
has pulled the trellis back four feet as agreed. They eliminated the
mns and he then offered exhibits for the Commissioners review.
Kiser noted that there is a complete set of plans in the staff report.
comment was closed.
irperson Kiser noted his concern with the notification error in the Code
this item should be continued to give the notice.
Conunissioner Tucker noted that the same modification notices have been g
for years. There was no intent to change it and would go ahead and act on
item tonight.
A3
file: //F:\ USERS \PLI�l \Shared \ginger \2003PC \0619.HTM 07/07/2003
Planning Commission Minutes 06119/2003
®RAFT
Jerson Kiser then asked for a straw vote of whether to continue this item
for additional notification.
anissioner McDaniel noted that the homeowner associations are all aware o:
and they have notified everybody that needed to be noticed about this issue.
association would have made it clear to anybody who needed to know an(
Ports acting on this meeting tonight.
person Kiser noted that those disputing the Modifications Committf
stand that if and when this comes back for a hearing, there is no right to
absent either a City Ordinance, a deed restriction or an agreement betwec
wners for a view easement. We do not consider the CC and R's.
in was made by Chairperson Kiser to continued this item to July 17th
for noticing to 300 feet.
Toerge, Kiser and Gifford
McDaniel, Selich and Tucker
failed.
- mmissioner Tucker noted that it is not unusual for Codes to be less restricti',
m CC and R documents. This proposal fits within the nature of modificatiol
it the City sees routinely. It is these types of structures that are involved. Thee
some discussion at the Council level as to whether they want to continue wi
s same policy or not. We have a committee that handles these and doesn't see
ed to overrule their decision.
was made by Commissioner Tucker to deny the appeal of
Lion Permit No. 2003 -038 and affirm the decision of the Modifica
issioner McDaniel noted that if this was noticed to the rest of the City,
not be anything that would change his vote.
vote: Concur with the Modifications Committee - McDaniel, Selich,
Toerge, McDaniel, Gifford, Selich and Tucker
Kiser
Absent: None
Abstain: None
Legere General Plan Amendment (PA2003 -099)
813 East Balboa Boulevard
uest for a General Plan Amendment and Local Coastal Program to change th
I use designation on a single lot from Retail and Service Commercial to Tw
lily Residential and a Code Amendment to change the zoning designation c
subject property from Specific Plan No. 9 (RSC) to Specific Plan No. 8 (R -2).
file: / /F:AUSERSIPLN\ Shared \sin2er \2003PC \0619.HTIv1
Page 5 of 9
ITEM NOA
PA2003 -099
07/07/2003
•
•
a�
Planning Commission Minutes 06119/2003 Page 6 of 9
Public comment was opened. DURAFT
• Public comment was closed.
Motion was made by Chairperson Kiser to recommend approval of the
applications to the City Council by adopting the attached draft resolution for
General Plan Amendment 2003 -003, Local Coastal Program Amendment No.
2003 -002 and Code Amendment No. 2003 -005.
Ayes: Toerge, McDaniel, Kiser, Gifford, Selich and Tucker
Noes: None
Absent: None
Abstain: None
tBJECT: Housing Element (PA2003 -130) ITEM NO.5
PA2003 -130
accordance with the State of California General Plan and Zoning Laws, the City
Newport Beach has prepared a Draft Housing Element. The Element is an Continued to
date and re- format of the existing Housing Element and includes updated 07117/2003
gional Housing Needs Assessment figures as mandated by State Law,
Commissioner Selich noted that he would like to see this item continued to
next meeting as he would like an opportunity to review this more thoroughly
understand it better.
• Commissioner McDaniel noted that if this is postponed, it will be a different g
of Commissioners and maybe they need to have an opportunity to look at it.
nmissioner Tucker noted that he is ready to discuss this tonight and that he
be in attendance the next two meetings. He then noted:
• Meetings of June 2001 minutes were impressive and he appreciated
background information.
Is the formatting of this element the same as anticipated for the
Plan, so that this fits in with the other plan?
Most of it is informational and then you get to the goals. It should have
same formatting and look like the rest of the General Plan.
Ms. Wood answered that the formatting of the proposed and existing Housir.
Element are different from the formatting of most of the other elements in tl
General Plan. Some of the Housing Element formatting is driven by the thin/
that state law requires be covered and a desire to make it easy for the reviewers
State Housing and Community Development Department, (HCD) to find tl
things they are looking for. We will have to update this again in 2005 and at th
point we could easily put it in whatever format we used for the General Plan as
• whole.
to page A Commissioner Tucker asked for clarification on math)
2
file: /, /F:\ USERS \PLN \Shared \ginger \2003PC \0619.HTM 07/07/2003
Planning Commission Minutes 06/19/2003 CRAFT
;gating to percentage of overpaying households enumerated in the 1990 Census
anent City population. Referring to page 8, he asked for clarification on Table
[ousing Tenure; page 68, Housing Program 1.1.3 - enforcement preventi
wners of rental housing from claiming depreciation, etc, and referring to page i
.1.5 - regarding replacement of housing demolished within the Coastal Zc
then housing is occupied by low and or moderate income households within
recedine 12 months.
Wood noted that these issues will be clarified in the Element and reported
the next meeting.
[s. Clauson noted that the provisions
:Clare a property owner a slumlord.
-ohibit them from making deductions.
procedure to enforce those provisions.
of the tax code refers to a procedure
(on can invoke provisions of that code
It is not meant to deny rights, but specil
on Kiser asked about substantial changes to the Element would
31 to HCD for further review and could impact the City's
status. Can the Planning Commission make any changes?
Wood answered that the City is limited to changes that can be made and sti:
lain the certification. If we eliminated any sites identified for futur
truction or reduce the density on any of those sites, or delete a program, c
then the timing of a commitment where we said we would do something then
t HCD would have a concern with that. As mentioned, we have been given
litional certification. We would need to be very careful about any changes w
e at this point.
mmissioner Selich then noted his concern with review of this element if nothing
i be done about it. One of his issues is with the Banning Ranch designation.
: expressed that he has other ideas within the City and would like to discus:
:m. There are some opportunities in Newport Center other than the Avocado
that we can be looking at to identify. The Planning Commission is suppose(
be part of the Housing Element and there is all this work that goes on that w,
presented with and we end up with our own analysis. We should be involves
Us as it is very important.
missioner Tucker noted that he doubts that the number of units allocated
Avocado/Macarthur site by the draft Housing Element would actua
ically fit on that site.
Wood noted that if there are other sites to be identified to accommodate
number of units that is a change that could be submitted to HCD and
Id take more time to certify again.
followed on:
. Potential site on Avocado and MacArthur;
. Lower Bayview Landing;
file: //F :\U SERS \PLN \Shared \gingerQ003 P C\0619. B TM
Page 7 of 9
07/07/2003
•
•
•
de(o
Planning Commission Minutes 06/19/2003
URArT
• Potential impact of not meeting requirements.
• Council submittal timing.
• Possibility of potential risk to the City if not in certified status resulting
possibly not being able to issue permits for development in the City.
Public comment was opened.
comment was closed.
was made by Commissioner Selich to continue this item to July 17, 2003
Ayes: Toerge, McDaniel, Kiser, Gifford, Selich and Tucker
Noes: None
isent• None
stain: None
ADDITIONAL BUSINESS:
a. City Council Follow -up - Ms. Temple noted the City Council: adopted new
Councilmanic Districts; approved a professional services agreement to
prepare an EIR for the St. Andrews Church project, and a professional
services agreement and budget amendment for the General Plan Update and
• the EIR; the item regarding City Council and Planning Commission calls for
review was continued to June 24th.
b. Oral report from Planning Commission's representative to the Economic
Development Committee - Commissioner Selich noted that at the last
meeting the Local Coastal Plan was reviewed, EDC has about 30 areas of
concern and recommends that the City hire a legal expert who knows the
laws and has expertise in these plans and expertise in lobbying and getting
something through the Coastal Commission.
c. Report from Planning Commission's representatives to the General Plan
Update Committee - a meeting is scheduled June 23rd to appoint two new
members to the vacancies that have occurred. Ms. Wood added that
technical studies have been reported, as well as the Local Coastal Program
Land Use Plan, Housing Element and biological and hazards study for the
General Plan will be analyzed and discussed.
d. Report from Planning Commission's representative to the Local Coastal
Plan Update Committee - Ms.. Temple reported that comments are to be
back from Coastal Commission on the 27th of June and several comments
from EDC, EQAC, GPAC and several individual comments have been
received as well.
• e. Matters which a Planning Commissioner would like staff to report on at a
subsequent meeting - none.
Page 8 of 9
ADDITIONAL
BUSINESS
Al
file: //F: \USERS\PLN \Shared \ginger\2003PC \0619.HTM 07/07/2003
Planning Commission Minutes 06/19/2003
Page 9 of 9
s a�
f Matters which a Planning Commissioner may wish to place on a
agenda for action and staff report - none.
g. Status Reports on Planning Commission requests - Ms: Temple noted 1
the owner of Malarkey's is inactive in pursuing resolution of his s
violation and therefore, it has been placed in the overall amortizai
program for the Balboa Sign overlay. The City has retained the firm of R
to prepare a comprehensive sign code update which will include the mi
analysis and a further report on the dedication of rights of way will
presented at the next meeting.
h. Project status - none.
i. Requests for excused absences - Commissioner Tucker asked for excuse
dates of July 17th and August 7th; Commissioner Toerge asked for ex(
for the meeting of July 17th.
ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Gifford gaveled the meeting to adjournment ADJOURNMENT
is her last official act of a distinguished eleven year career as a Planning
- ommissioner. 7:50 p.m.
PATRICIA L. TEMPLE, SECRETARY EX-OFFICIO
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION
file: /!F:AUSERS \PLN\ Shared \ginger \2003PC,0619.HT \,I 07/07/2003
•
•
E
2b
Planning Commission Minutes 07/2,1./2003 Page 1 of 5
SUBJECT: City of Newport Beach ITEM NO. 6
Housing Element (PA2003 -130) PA2003 -130
• In accordance with the State of California General Plan and Zoning Laws, the Recommended
City of Newport Beach has prepared a Draft Housing Element. The Element to City Council
is an update and re- format of the existing Housing Element and includes for Approval
updated Regional Housing Needs Assessment figures as mandated by State
mior Planner Tamara Campbell noted that this item was contim
am the last meeting in June and proceeded to bring the Commiss:
to date. Ms. Campbell commented that she received some comme:
id questions from Commissioner Selich and had some responses
veral of his questions. In addition, Ms. Campbell said that staff gf
presentation to the General Plan Advisory Committee who also I
.me comments and questions, which she included in the staff rep
r review. Also, Ms. Campbell said that they received a letter fr
r. Basye, who is the vice president of AERA Energy, one of i
vners of Banning Ranch, which she included in the staff report as a
the City's response to his comments.
Ms. Campbell said, in response to Commissioner Selich's questions did
research with the Center for Demographic Research at Cal Stati
•Fullerton. Specifically Commissioner Selich was interested in al
explanation for the demolition adjustment figure that we show on pag(
38 of the Housing Element. Dr. William Gayke, who is the senior staf
member at the Center, explained that the demolition adjustment i;
primarily a replacement need calculation, which is derived fron
previous data on County wide trends and assumptions that a certain
number of housing units will be lost either from conversion to anothe:
use, some will be demolished, some may be destroyed by disaster an(
some will be condemned. Ms. Campbell said that the Souther
California Association of Governments (SCAG) gives the County ai
estimate for what they perceive they think will be an estimated loss
then they ascribe a certain percent that is based on the total housing
supply. If SCAG determines that two percent of the County's tota
housing is projected to be lost or in need of replacement, cities an
handed down that two percent for their existing housing stock as thei:
demolition adjustment.
Ms. Campbell said that Commissioner Selich had a question on page
pertaining to the prescribed number of units to be conserved and
question was, "What does this conservation figure mean ?" I
Campbell said this was a very good question but that no one was a
•to answer it. Dr. William Gayke said that this was a big
controversial number and the number is handed down by the State, 1
that it is not a part of the regional housing needs assessment. In of
file: //F: \USERS \PLN\ Shared \ginger\2003PC \copy %20mn0717.htm 1 07/30/2003 P
Planning Commission Minutes 07/21/2003
we have no real obligation to provide that as part of
tion. Dr. Gayke suggested if we wanted to do more. research,
contact the State and perhaps get more information there.
Ms. Campbell noted that there were other editorial changes they will N
making in the Response to Comments received from Commissioner
Eaton and other miscellaneous typos we would like to refine. There is
new program developed in response to Commissioner SelicM
suggestion and comments received from the General Plan Advisor3
Committee on page 2 of the staff report. Ms. Campbell said it is
Program 2.3.2, to demonstrate that it is the City's intent to investigat(
potential housing and mixed use development in areas such as Newpor
Center, Santa Ana Heights, Bay Knolls and the John Wayne Airpor
. Campbell referred to another question the Commission had, which
tained to Program 1.1.3 that referenced the City encouraging the
to Franchise Board to enforce some of the sections of its code, which
vent rental housing owners from claiming depreciation,
ortization, cost mortgage interest and property tax deductions on
it state income tax reports. Ms. Campbell said that they found out
s only applies to substandard housing therefore we could clarify it in
Housing Element by adding the statement, "substandard housing."
the future, we may want to consider removing this since we do not
m a lot of substandard units in the community.
missioner Eaton referred to the bottom of page 6 and the top 4
7 of the minutes of the last commission meeting, Commission(
er had some questions that he did not see answered in the currer
F report. Ms. Wood responded to the first question raised I
imissioner Tucker, which was a concern with the map and staff wi
;k it and if there is an error it will be corrected before it goes to tl
Council. On page 68 is Program 1.1.3, which is the one M
ipbell talked about, a State law that applies to substandai
sing. Ms. Wood referred to the question of the replacement
sing demolished within the coastal zone and said that comple
arch had not been done on that portion of State law for affordab
sing in the coastal zone at that point and staff has continued to lo(
it since then. Ms. Wood commented that if a developer wl
oves housing units from the coastal zone needs to replace affordab
sing within the coastal zone and the way that determination f
rdable in that case is made is based on the income of the tenan
has nothing to do with the rent they are paying or any covena.
.ting the rent, and if the question often comes up, "If I just did it
tenants, then I don't have anybody who is low income and am I i
,er responsible to meet this ?" Ms. Wood said that they have sin
:overed that the State law provides that if the unit is vacant for
Page 2 of 5
•
•
file: //F: \USERS \PLN\Shared\ ginger \2003PC \copy %20mn0717.htm 07/30/2003 ✓
Planning Commission Minutes 07/21/2003
year before the application for the demolition that it is assumed
the household was lower income and therefore was not an affon
• unit.
Public Hearing Opened
Hearing Closed
Commissioner Eaton commented on Single Room Occupancy (SRO) ape
noted there is no mention in the Housing Element about SRO housing.
Almost every other city in Orange County has built an SRO.
Commissioner Eaton said that SROs are very efficient in terms o.
regional housing needs assessment numbers because they can be built
at very high density and are very small, efficiency units because the3
are typically transit oriented. Commissioner Eaton said they are built
for minimal wage earners and can be built at a pretty high densit
without the normal required parking. Commissioner Eaton commenter
that Newport Beach could use an SRO in terms of being job rich.
Commissioner Eaton expressed the desire to add in Program 2.3.2, thf
first sentence after, "...the potential of housing and mixed use
development including an SRO, if feasible." Commissioner Eator
suggested that it might be feasible in the Airport Area.
•Commissioner Eaton referred to the loss of housing committed now
and it has to do with Table 12 on page 15 of the Housing Element. As
former planner and a with a personal perspective on the Housin€
Element that is going to run out before the General Plan gets redone
Commissioner Eaton asked Ms. Wood if he was correct in thinking tha
before the next update of the Housing Element that we will wait for thf
regional housing needs assessment numbers? Ms. Wood responder
that, if the General Plan Update is concluded before the regiona
housing needs assessment numbers come out and there are som(
changes to land use or identification of new sites that come out of tha
process, we probably would amend this element even if the State ha;
not funded the regional housing needs. assessment process, and the3
may run late again.
mmissioner Eaton asked if staff could suggest a little strop
rding for Program 1.2.2, which is the one that deals with attempt
maintain these units as moderate or low cost units on page 69 of
Fusing Element. Commissioner Eaton expressed that he was hop
City would take a little more proactive stance on that and actu
wide or attempt to provide some incentive to keep these units, wl
provide diversity to the City.
• Ms. Wood commented that with that program, it was not staffs im
that we would file a report somewhere and thought that some of
Page 3 of 5
file: //F: \USERS \PLN\Shared \ginger \2003PC \copy %20mn0717.htm 07/30/2003
31
Planning Commission Minutes 07/21/2003
wage in this program came out of the Planning Commissions
er study session on the Housing Element when we were asked to
3tigate the use of our in -lieu funds to extend the affordability
nants on existing apartments in the City rather than trying to
lop sites that are challenging. Ms. Wood said that while we still
to keep the sites in there and the City is not convinced that we get
best bang for the buck in a subsidy program, it still may be
ible, and it is our intention to take a serious look at using some of
e in -lieu funds for extending affordability in a situation like this.
mmissioner Selich asked if the SRO units count in the regional )
tsing needs assessment numbers? Ms. Wood responded that they do
far as she knows. Commissioner Selich commented that he thought
SRO was a great idea. Commissioner Selich said he would support
Housing Element although he does have some problems with it, and
tt this item was continued primarily so that he could meet with staff
3 discuss all of his concerns, but the City is backed into a corner as it
3 been Certified by HCD, and we are already behind getting it done
3 affordable housing is a big issue in some circles. Therefore,
mmissioner Selich expressed that not to approve the Housing
ament would put the City at risk somewhat so he supports moving it
but not something that he considers an ideal Housing Element for
City. Commissioner Selich reiterated that having something in on
.Os would be a good addition to it because it might be a more realistic
d workable solution than some of the other things we have been
king about as far as meeting the mandates that placed on the City'
the State to meet housing needs by using one formula for all. The
ty of Newport Beach suffers in how some of this is calculated,
rived, and reached at in the report. Commissioner Selich reiterated
it he supports it and Commissioner Eaton's suggestion that we
Jude the SROs.
response to query from Chairman McDaniel, Commissioner Selich
o supports the Program wording for Program 1.1.2. Commissioner
ton said for clarification that he did not recommend specific
guage but left it to staff so that it would be something they felt
afortable with. Mr. Eaton said in response to query that he would
ommend at the beginning of 1.1.2, to add after "Investigative
xilability ... and recommend, if proved feasible," so that it is a little
onger and adds more commitment than we have in the existing
oily affordable housing that we should try to preserve.
was made by Commissioner Selich to recommend to the City
approval of General Plan Amendment 2003 -04, PA2003 -130,
Declaration and adoption of the updated Housing Element
of Commissioner Eaton's suggestions.
file: //F: \USERS \PLN\Shared\ ginger \2003PC \copy %20mn0717.htm
Page 4 of 5
11
I •
07/30/2003 3;-
Planning Commission Minutes 07/21/2003
Ayes:j Eaton, Cole, McDaniel, Sehch and Kiser
Noes None
• Absent: Toerge and Tucker
Abstain: None
•
•
Page 5 of 5
file: //F:\ USERS \PLN\ Shared \ginger\2003PC \copy %20mn0717.htm 07/30/2003
�3
SLAT 0.1!' I'll RnviC
DEPARTMENT OFHOUSINC COMMUNITY DEVELOPMEPRc
Division of Housing Policy Development
1800 Third 52054 Suite 430 3F
P. O. Box 952053 Sn,nwnto. CA 94252 -2053 d5c
rrt m•
-3176 / FAX: 327 -2653
w- C_iVeD BY
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:
P LAN N I NG DEPARVE IIEN n
1i11Y nG !vrti?!D(ta_. n=ACH
PM
1 "hY 1 `� 20t}3
AM
71815 ild ;11112 tl 121314 t5 t6
RE: Review of the City of Newport Beach's Revised Draft Housing Element.
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/lviac Arthur
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 I of each year.
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(8). 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 i4Tw .hcd.ca.gov.
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,
V 16t � 66'�7adl
Cathy ll
Deputy
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
3�°
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
•
31
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
3300 Newport Boulevard - P.O. Box 1768
Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915
. (949) 644 -3200
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
To:
Office of Planning and Research
P.O. BOX 3044
Sacramento, CA 95812 -3044
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:
Public review period: May 29, 2003 — June 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 housing 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 environment �-//
A copy of the Initial Study containing the analysis supporting this finding is 03 attached 63 "'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
r
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:
Public review period: May 29, 2003 — June 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 housing 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 environment �-//
A copy of the Initial Study containing the analysis supporting this finding is 03 attached 63 "'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
r
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least ono
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
I 11l ^K1
❑ Public Services
❑ Utilities & Service Systems
❑ Aesthetics
❑ Cultural Resources
❑ Recreation
UC 1 rmwnIY/H 1 iwN . v1Y 1 nl...1ww vl
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment
and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I 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.
I 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.
I 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 is or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project,
noth further is required.
J. Abell, AICP Title: Senior Planner
Date: 5122103
1
50,
CHECKLIST
Page 2
•
l J
•
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
INITIAL STUDY AND ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
1. Project Title: General Plan Amendment 2003 -04: Housing Element Update
2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Newport Beach
Planning Department
3300 Newport Boulevard,
Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915
3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Tamara J. Campbell, AICP
Senior Planner
Planning Department
(949) 644 -3238
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 i
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST •
Issues and Supporting Data Sources
1. AESTHETICS
Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a
scenic vista?
b) Substantially damage scenic resources,
including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a
state scenic highway?
C) Substantially degrade the existing visual
character or quality of the site and its
surroundings?
c) Create a new source of substantial light or
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
aesthetic/scenic resources.
11. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland,
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
use, or a Williamson Act contract?
Potentially Less than
significant significant
impact Impact with
mitigation
Less than No impact
significant
impact
❑
❑
❑
(�
❑
❑
❑
❑ ❑ ❑ 0
❑ ❑ ❑ EI
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑ EI
CtAcxuST . 5 a
Page 2
•
•
Issues and Supporting Data Sources
Potentially
Less than
Less than
No impact
significant
significant
significant
impact
impact with
Impact
mitigation
C) Involve other changes in the existing
❑
❑
❑
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.
III. AIR QUALITY
Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of
❑
❑
❑
0
the applicable air quality plan?
b) Violate any air quality standard or
❑
❑
❑
�(
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
❑
❑
❑
Q
pollutant concentrations?
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a
❑
❑
❑
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:
CIFI=ST 63
Page 3
issues and Supporting Data sources Potentially Less than Less man
significant significant significant
Impact impact with 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?
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 ❑ ❑ ❑
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:
No impact
ID]
J
JI
J
J
CHECKLIST If
Page 4
•
•
0
Issues and Supporting Data Sources
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource as
defined in §15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to §15064.5?
C) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature?
d) Disturb any human remains, including those
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.
Vl. 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?
Potentially
Less than
Less than No impact
significant
significant
significant
impact
impact with
impact
mitigation
❑
❑
❑ ✓❑
❑ ❑ ❑ 0
❑ ❑ ❑ 0
❑ ❑ ❑ 0
❑
❑
❑
0
❑
❑
❑
0
❑
❑
❑
0
❑
❑
❑
0
❑
❑
❑
0
If
CHECKLIST � 5
Page 5
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 ❑ ❑
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?
A
9
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in ❑ ❑ ❑ 0
Table 18- 1 -B of the Uniform Building Code
(1994), creating substantial risks to life or
property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately ❑ ❑ ❑ 0
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 ❑ ❑ ❑ B
the environment through routine transport,
use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or ❑ ❑ ❑ 0
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?
J
•
CIiECKLIST JJJ J p
Page 6
•
•
•
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?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private
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?
Potentially Less than
significant significant
impact impact with
mitigation
A M
F
u
h) Expose people or structures to a significant ❑
risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland
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?
FE
Less than
significant
impact
0
R
No impact
3
J
❑
❑
0
❑
❑
0
0
J
CHECKLIST 51
Page 7
Issues and Supporting Data Sources
Potentially Less than Less than
significant significant significant
No impact
impact impact with impact
mitigation
b)
Substantially deplete groundwater supplies
❑. ❑ ❑
B
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
❑ ❑ ❑
Ef
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
❑ ❑ ❑
0
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
❑ ❑ ❑
0
would exceed the capacity of existing or
planned stormwater drainage systems or
provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff?
f)
Otherwise substantially degrade water
❑ ❑ ❑
0
quality?
g)
Place housing within a 100 -year flood
❑ ❑ ❑
0
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
❑ ❑ ❑
0
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?
❑ ❑ ❑
D
CHECKLIST
Page 8
• Issues and Supporting Data Sources Potentially Less than Less than No impact
significant significant significant
Impact impact with impact
mitigation
u
•
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
community?
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan,
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
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 -
important mineral resource recovery site
delineated on a local general plan, specific
plan, or other land use plan?
C) Displace substantial numbers of people,
necessitating the construction of
ranlar.Pment hnusinn PlcPwhPrP?
❑
❑
❑
0
❑
❑
❑
0
❑ ❑ ❑ 0
❑ ❑ ❑ 0
❑ ❑ ❑ 0
❑ ❑ ❑ 0
CHECKLIST /4
Page 9 {,� t
Issues and Supporting Data Sources
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:
Potentially Less than
significant significant
impact impact with
mitigation
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
excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
C) A substantial permanent increase in ambient
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
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?
I) For a project within the vicinity of a private
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.
❑
u
Less than
significant
Impact
IN
No impact
FM_l
n
❑
❑
0
❑
❑
0
❑
❑
0
❑
❑
0
41
CHECKLIST
Page 10 ��
•
•
•
Issues and Supporting Data Sources
XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING.
Would the project:
Potentially Less than
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?
Fol
Less than
significant
impact
❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑
J
J
n
0
0
❑I.
No impact
u
J
CHECKLIST
Page 11 61
Issues and Supporting Data Sources
Potentially
significant
Less than
significant
Less than
significant
impact
impact with
impact
mitigation
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
J
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. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC
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
A
RE
7
A
L'
J
0
0
FBI
No impact
0
D
0
a
JI
f
CHECKLIST
Page 12 ��
•
•
E
Issues and Supporting Data Sources Potentially Less than Less than No impact
significant sign cant significant
impact impact with impact
mitigation
b) Exceed either individually or cumulatively, a
❑ ❑
❑
0
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,
❑ ❑
❑
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
❑ ❑
❑
p
design feature (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
❑ ❑
❑
0
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity?
❑ ❑
❑
Ea
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or
❑ ❑
❑
0
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
❑ ❑
❑
0
water or wastewater treatment facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
crfficxun
Page 13 (o
Issues and supporting Data Sources
Potentially
significant
Less than
significant
Less than No impact
significant
Impact
impact with
impact
mitigation
C) Require or result in the construction of new
❑
❑
❑ 0
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?
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 project's projected
demand in addition to the provider's existing
commitments?
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient ❑ ❑ ❑ 4
permitted capacity to accommodate the
project's solid waste disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, state, and local ❑ ❑ ❑ 0
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.
•
CHECKLIST
Page 14 (n
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF
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
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
which wilt 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.
Potentially
Less than
Less than No impact
significant
significant
significant
impact
impact with
impact
mitigation
❑
❑
❑ u
❑ ❑ ❑ 0
❑ ❑ ❑ 0
CHECKLIST ' r�
Page 15 �5
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.
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.
•
CHECKLIST
Page 17 leb
0
EXHIBIT F
• (Certified Housing Element —August 2003)
0 Draft Housing Element
C
August, 2003
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY •
The Year 2000 Housing Element is an update and revision of the 1992 Element, and consists
of new technical data, revised goals, updated policies, and a series of programs and
implementing measures. The Element is designed to facilitate attainment of the City's
Regional Housing Needs Allocation, and to foster the availability of housing affordable to all
income levels to the extent possible given Newport Beach's constraints.
Newport Beach is committed to achieving its housing goals and continues to encourage the
development of additional housing units, wherever and whenever feasible. Since the 1992
Housing Element adoption, the City collected over $2,560,000 in affordable housing in -lieu
fees. Use of these fees and the subsequent construction of new affordable units is a high
priority of the City Council. To identify the most appropriate use of these funds and to
facilitate development of new affordable housing, the City Council established an Affordable
Housing Task Force to work with developers and landowners. The Task Force and staff
continually investigate and research potential affordable housing opportunities.
RHNA and City Responsibility
The City has accepted, and is committed to meeting, its RHNA allocation of providing 476
housing units during the Housing Element planning period. Achieving the RHNA is expected
through development of 3 specific sites: 1) Newport/Banning Ranch, 2) Avocado/MacArthur,
and 3) Bayview Landing. Additional opportunities also exist on infill sites as illustrated on •
Figure 4 in the document.
With the annexation of Newport Coast, an additional commitment of providing 945 units is
also part of our Housing Plan. The RHNA allocation for Newport Coast was accepted by the
City through annexation negotiations with the County of Orange. The City will fulfill its
obligation by implementing plans for Newport Coast approved by Orange County, and
monitoring newly constructed affordable units that were permitted by the County prior to the
annexation.
Constraints and Opportunities
The City is constricted in its effort to provide new housing opportunities due to many factors
beyond its control. For example, the City is almost completely built out, with very little vacant
land available for new housing construction. Not only does this situation provide limited
opportunity for new construction but, because there are no new subdivisions anticipated,
there are very few opportunities to apply inclusionary housing requirements. Furthermore,
any remaining vacant parcels are, extremely expensive due to the real estate market and the
demand for coastal properties. Still another constraint is that the City does not have a
Redevelopment Agency, which in turn means that Newport Beach does not have the
resource of housing set -aside funds, nor the power to assemble property through eminent
domain. •
3 -26 -03
• Despite these constraints, the City will continue to research the most effective ways to spend
its $2.5 million dollars of in -lieu funds, and will continue to work with developers to construct
new affordable housing units at the Banning Ranch, Bayview Landing and
Avocado /MacArthur sites and to identify potential sites for infill or redevelopment with
affordable housing.
Focus of Housing Programs
Following are the housing programs that Newport Beach believes will be the most effective in
meeting the City's housing goals. These programs will be the focus of the City's housing
efforts during the period of this Housing Element.
1) Actively encourage the development of affordable housing on the above- mentioned
sites and will assist developers with the removal of site constraints.
2) Continue to research sites and developments that could include affordable housing,
including Newport Coast and other annexation areas and infill and redevelopment
opportunities.
3) Discuss the extension of affordability covenants with owners of existing affordable
• apartments.
4) Offer incentives to developers of affordable housing, including density bonuses, fee
waivers, expedited permit processing and the use of in -lieu fees.
•
5) Participate with regional agencies (Orange County) to develop affordable housing
programs, including a joint powers agreement for a lease /purchase program, on a
regional basis.
2
City of Newport Beach
General Plan
Housing Element
(Revised Draft 8104103)
General Plan Amendment No. GP2001-001
Resolution No.
Adopted
RV
-F Og:
0
City of Newport Beach
Housing Element
City Council
Steven Bromberg, Mayor
Tod W. Ridgeway, Mayor Pro Tem
Gary Adams, Council Member
John Heffernan, Council Member
Dick Nichols, Council Member
Gary L. Proctor, Council Member
Don Webb, Council Member
Planning Commission
Steven Kiser, Chairman
Earl McDaniel, Vice Chairman
Edward Sellich, Commissioner
Michael Toerge, Commissioner
Larry Tucker, Commissioner
• Affordable Housing Task Force
Mayor Steven Bromberg
Mayor Pro Tern Tod Ridgeway
Council Member Don Webb
city Staff
Sharon Wood, Assistant City Manager
Patricia Temple, Planning Director
Tamara Campbell, AICP, Senior Planner
Daniel Trimble, Program Administrator
Robert Kain, Assistant Planner
•
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION
COMMUNITY HOUSING MARKET ANALYSES
5
HOUSING STOCK CHARACTERISTICS
5
HOUSING UNIT PROJECTIONS
17
POPULATION TRENDS
19
HOUSEHOLD CHARACTERISTICS
23
EMPLOYMENT TRENDS AND PROJECTIONS
28
SPECIAL NEEDS POPULATION GROUPS
29
HOUSING NEEDS
38
INVENTORY OF LAND SUITABLE FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
40
ENERGY CONSERVATION OPPORTUNITIES
50
NON - GOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS
51
GOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS
53
HOUSING PLAN:
GOALS, POLICIES, QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVES, AND PROGRAMS 61
1992 HOUSING ELEMENT REVIEW 62
HOUSING ELEMENT GENERAL REVIEW 63
HOUSING ELEMENT COASTAL ZONE REVIEW 65
YEAR 2000 -2005 HOUSING PLAN 66
APPENDIX
APPENDIX 1: LIST OF CDBG PROJECTS (1996 -2001) 79
APPENDIX 2: SOCIAL SERVICE PROGRAMS 82
APPENDIX 3: ORGANIZATIONS SERVING THE HOMELESS 88
APPENDIX 4: PUBLIC AND PRIVATE RESOURCES AVAILABLE FOR
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES 94
APPENDIX 5: PUBLIC AND PRIVATE NON - PROFITS 98
•
•
•
• LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1: NET ADDITIONAL AND TOTAL HOUSING UNITS, 1980 - 2000 5
TABLE 2: HOUSING UNIT MIX (2000) 6
TABLE 3: RESIDENTIAL DENSITY BY AREA 6
TABLE 4: DENSITIES OF ATTACHED HOUSING 7
TABLE 5: HOUSING TENURE 8
TABLE 6: PERCENT OF RENTER OCCUPIED UNITS 8"
TABLE 7: MAJOR RENTAL PROJECTS 9
TABLE 8: CONDOMINIUM CONVERSION, 1990(5) - 2000 10
TABLE 9: NEWPORT BEACH - OVERALL HOUSING UNIT
VACANCY RATE (1980 - 1990) 10
TABLE 10: CITY RENTAL APARTMENT VACANCY COMPARISON, 1991-1996 11
• TABLE 11: MOBILE HOME PARKS 13
TABLE 12: CRY OF NEWPORT BEACH ASSISTED HOUSING ANALYSIS 15
TABLE 13: POPULATION TRENDS, 1980 - 2000 18
TABLE 14: HOUSING TRENDS, 1980 — 2000 18
TABLE 15: POPULATION GROWTH, ORANGE COUNTY AND
NEWPORT BEACH: 1910 - 2010 19
Table 16: PERSONS PER OCCUPIED UNIT (1970 - 2000) 20
Table 17: POPULATION BY AGE, CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH: 1970 - 1998 21
TABLE 18: SCHOOL ENROLLMENT, 1970 - 2000 21
TABLE 19: RACIAL AND ETHNIC COMPOSITION 23
TABLE 20: RACIAL AND ETHNIC COMPOSITION (NEWPORT COAST) 24
TABLE 21: HEAD OF HOUSEHOLD BY ETHNICITY - NEWPORT BEACH AND
• ORANGE COUNTY, 1990 25
TABLE 22: MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOMES (1980 -1990) -ORANGE
COUNTY AND NEWPORT BEACH 25 •
TABLE 23: INCOME GROUP HOUSING EXPENDITURE,. 1990 26
TABLE 24: EMPLOYMENT - NEWPORT BEACH AND ORANGE COUNTY 28
TABLE 25: UCI OFF - CAMPUS HOUSING OFFICE HOUSING COSTS FOR
NEWPORT BEACH - 2000 30
TABLE 26: PERSONS PER HOUSEHOLD 32
TABLE 27: PROJECTED REGIONAL DEMAND IN NEWPORT BEACH, 1998 - 2005 38
TABLE 28: TOTAL CONSTRUCTION NEED BY INCOME, 1998 - 2005 39
TABLE 28.5 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION NEED BY INCOME (NEWPORT COAST) 39
TABLE 29: UNDEVELOPED RESIDENTIAL SITES 41
TABLE 30: "REPLACEMENT" AND "INFILL" HOUSING IN NEWPORT BEACH 47
TABLE 31: SUMMARY OF ZONING CODE PROVISIONS BY DISTRICT -
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 55 •
TABLE 32: COMPARISON OF PERMIT FEES - NEARBY .JURISDICTIONS -
JANUARY, 2000 59
TABLE 33: RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES IN NEWPORT BEACH 59
•
C-_Ij
INTRODUCTION
Newport Beach General Plan
California State General Plan guidelines indicate the role of a General Plan is to establish a
document that will act as a 'constitution' for development, the foundation upon which all land
use decisions are to be based. A General Plan is required to express community development
goals and to embody public policy relative to the distribution of future land use, both public and
private."
State law also requires a General Plan to include seven specific elements: Land Use;
Circulation; Conservation; Open Space; Noise; Safety; and Housing. In addition to these
seven elements, the Newport Beach General Plan includes a Growth Management Element, a
Harbor and Bay Element, and a Recreation component in the Open Space Element.
The Newport Beach General Plan is a comprehensive statement of what Newport Beach
conceives to be in its best interest. The General Plan expresses in graphic and narrative
formats the organization of physical, economic, and social resources to create a healthy and
functional living environment for City residents while managing future growth and change.
Newport Beach Housing Element
The California State Legislature has identified that the major housing goal of the State is the
attainment of a decent home and suitable living environment for every California resident. In
• 1980, the Legislature added Article 10.6 to the Government Code and incorporated into law
specific Housing Element Guidelines promulgated by the California Department of Housing and
Community Development. This was the second revision to the original (June 17, 1971) Housing
Element Guidelines. The 1980 revision was made in recognition of the significant role local
planning programs played (and continue to play) in pursuit of the State goal and to assure local
planning, effectively implements State housing policy.
The State Government Code specifies the Legislature's intent to ensure counties and cities
are active participants in attaining the State housing goal and establishes specific components
to be contained in a housing element. These components include the following: identification
and analysis of existing and projected housing needs, resources and constraints; a statement
of goals, policies, quantified objectives, and scheduled programs for preservation,
improvement and development of housing; identification of adequate sites for housing; and
adequate provision for existing and projected needs of all economic segments of the
community.
The Newport Beach Housing Element has been composed in a consistent and mutually
dependent relationship with other Elements of its General Plan. Furthermore, the Element is
in conformance with Government Code Sections §65580 — §65589.
The year 2000 updated Housing Element is a comprehensive statement of the City's housing
policies and serves as a specific guide for implementation of these policies. The Element
examines current housing needs, estimates future housing needs, and establishes goals,
policies, and programs pertaining to those needs. Housing programs are responsive to
• current and future needs. They are also constructed within the context of available
community, State and federal economic and social resources, and realistic quantified housing
objectives. State housing goals are as follows:
• Availability of housing is of vital statewide importance. Early attainment of decent
housing and a suitable living environment for every California family is a priority of the
highest order.
• Early attainment of this goal requires cooperative participation of government with the
private sector to expand housing opportunities and accommodate housing needs of
Californians of all economic levels.
• Provision of housing affordable to low- and moderate - income households requires
cooperation among all levels of government.
• Local and State governments have a responsibility to use powers vested in them to
facilitate improvement and development of housing to make adequate provision for
housing needs of all economic segments of the community.
• The Legislature recognizes in carrying out this responsibility, each local government
also has a responsibility to consider economic, environmental and fiscal factors, and
community goals set forth in its general plan. Cities must cooperate with other local
governments and the State in addressing regional housing needs.
California State law requires that Housing Elements be updated at least every five (5) years.
The City of Newport Beach has prepared the .following updated Housing Element in •
compliance with the established (extended) 2001 deadline for jurisdictions within the Southern
California Association of Governments region.
Newport Coast Annexation
On January 1 2002, the City incorporated over 7,700 acres of the land between its southern
boundary and the City of Laguna Beach. The updated year 2000 Housing Element was drafted
prior to the annexation of Newport Coast and therefore does not include a detailed analysis of
the area's demographics or an inventory of vacant lands suitable for new affordable housing.
Census data is not available for Newport Coast since it was developed after the 1990 Census.
However, wherever possible, data pertaining to Newport Coast has been included in this
Element. A more comprehensive update will be initiated at the time of the next. Housing
Element Update. It should be noted that information on the number of dwelling units, average
household size and population as of January 2002 has been included. In addition, the
Regional Housing Needs Assessment figures for Newport Coast have been included as well
as a discussion of the proposed programs intended to achieve affordable housing goals for the
area.
•
Data Sources
Various sources of information have been consulted in preparing this Housing Element. The
1990 U.S. Census provides the basis for population and household characteristics. Although the
2000 U.S. Census has been completed, at the time this element was prepared, the most
pertinent demographic information had not yet been released to the public. Therefore, the 1990
Census remains the most comprehensive and widely accepted source of information on
demographic characteristics. Furthermore, the 1990 U.S. Census must be used in this Housing
Element to ensure consistency with Regional, State, and Federal housing plans. The following
sources of information have been used to supplement and update information contained in the
1990 U.S. Census:
• Population and demographic data from the State Department of Finance.
• School enrollment information from the State Department of Education and the
Newport-Mesa Unified School District.
• Housing market information, such as home sales, rents and vacancies, as updated by
City surveys and property tax assessor files.
• Local and County public. and nonprofit agency information on special needs
populations, available services, and systemic failures.
• Housing condition information provided by the City of Newport Beach.
• Oranne County Progress Report (2000) demographic information.
Organization of the Housing Element
This Housing Element has been divided into two sections as follows:
Community Housing Market Analyses
This section presents the most current available information pertaining to the following
seven subsections: housing stock conditions, household characteristics including over-
paying, over - crowding, and; analysis and projection of population and employment;
analysis of special population groups; analysis of housing need; inventory of land suitable
for residential development; analysis of opportunities for energy conservation; non-
governmental constraints to housing production; and governmental constraints to housing
production.
11. Housing Goals and Policies, Quantified Objectives, and Programs
This section has three primary functions: 1) to establish City housing goals and policies;
2) to quantify the maximum number of housing units that can be constructed,
rehabilitated, and conserved over the five year period between January, 2000 and
January, 2005; and 3) to present City housing programs, which represent a five -year
schedule of actions to be implemented by the City to achieve goals, policies, and
quantified objectives of the Housing Element. Government Code Section §65588
• requires the review of the Housing Element as frequently as appropriate and to evaluate
effectiveness of housing goals, objectives, and policies in contributing to attainment of the
State housing goal. Additionally, the City is required to evaluate effectiveness of the •
Housing Element in attainment of community goals and objectives and its progress in
implementation of its housing goals. This section provides the required review and
evaluation of the 1989 -1994 Housing Element.
Public Participation
Opportunities for residents to recommend strategies for, and review and comment on the
Newport Beach Housing Element have been an important component of Housing Element
preparation. The Planning Commission conducted a study session on June 21, 2001 after
reviewing a draft of the updated element. Notification of the study session was posted at various
locations throughout the community and a'' /< page ad was placed in the local newspaper inviting
the public to attend. in addition, copies of the Element were made available for review at various
locations such as City Hall, the numerous libraries and the Newport Mesa Unified School District
offices. Notification was also sent to individuals and interest groups listed in the appendix as well
as Homeowner Associations and major known developers. A copy of the draft was sent to the
State Department of Housing and Community Development after comments from the Study
Session were incorporated into the draft.
After review and preliminary approval of the draft by HCD, the document will be circulated to the
City's General Plan Update Committee and the General Plan Advisory Committee. Public
hearings will be held before the Newport Beach Planning Commission and the Newport Beach
City Council for final adoption. The City will then submit the approved Housing Element to HCD
for certification. Prior to all public hearings, notification will once again be published in the focal
newspaper and will again be provided by mail to individuals and interest groups listed in the
appendix. In addition, the City will again send notice to Homeowner Associations and major •
known developers also identified in the appendix. Copies of the Draft will again be made
available for public review at Newport Beach City Hall, all public libraries in the City and the
Newport-Mesa Unified School District administrative office. The document will also be posted on
the City's website.
Time Period Covered by the Housing Element
This revised Housing Element covers the planning period between the years 2000 to 2005.
Review and Update of the Housing Element
The City of Newport Beach will review this Housing Element annually as part of its General Plan
review to evaluate appropriateness of objectives, effectiveness of programs, and progress in
implementation. The Housing Element will be revised again in 2005 in accordance with State
law.
•
In addition, many attached housing projects in the City were developed to maximize land usage.
• Existing attached projects in the City and their densities are listed in Table 4.
•
E
The trend toward higher density development within the City also is demonstrated by building
permit data. Since 1980, multi - family permits issued have exceeded single - family permits issued
in the City. This trend is opposite to the State trend, where single - family permits have exceeded
mufti- family permits in recent years.
Condominium Conversion Ordinance •
In the mid- 1990s, the City of Newport Beach adopted a new ordinance to ease restrictions on
condominium conversions. Easing restrictions on condominium conversions was intended to
promote the availability of first -time home buyer opportunities and to promote the rehabilitation
and preservation of smaller, more affordable housing units. Many rental units in certain areas of
the community were overcrowded and deteriorating due to absentee owners and the renting of
units on a weekly basis. Health and safety issues were also a concem given quality of life
impacts resulting from excessive noise, pollution and traffic in areas where weekly vacation
rentals were prevalent.
The total number of condominium conversions approved since 1995 is 167 units. The following
table identifies the number of conversions each year between 1995 — 2000.
Vacancy Rates
The overall housing unit vacancy rate of the City of Newport Beach varied between 1980 and
1990 as shown in Table 9.
10
•
•
• The discrepancy between overall vacancy rates and vacancy rates among available units may be
due to the large number of seasonal units and second homes in Newport Beach. According to
the 1990 U.S. Census, 1,207 of 4,001 vacant units were identified as "seasonal use."
To assist in administration of its condominium conversion ordinance, the City has conducted
rental vacancy surveys since 1979. From 1991 -1996, this survey included only apartment
vacancies. Results of the most recent surveys and the 2000 Census are provided on Table 10.
Housing Condition
There has not been a comprehensive survey of housing conditions in Newport Beach since the
1976 Special Census for Newport Beach. That survey indicated only 1.3% of all housing units
were deficient. Three neighborhoods in the city contained concentrations of substandard
housing.. 5.1% of all housing units on Balboa Peninsula were in substandard condition, while
2.5% and 2.6% of all units on Balboa Island and in Newport Heights respectively, were in
substandard condition. Deficient units in this regard are defined as deteriorated, dilapidated units,
as well as those units inadequate in original construction, or which were under extensive repair.
The estimated number of substandard units will not be available to the City until the findings of
the 2000 Census are published. However, it is the consensus of City staff that the condition of
housing in Newport Beach is considered to be very good. During 2000, through its ongoing code
enforcement program, the City Building Department identified only four properties in need of
repair. 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 the community at this
point in time.
Illegal Dwelling Units
Illegal or "bootleg" dwelling units have historically been a problem in Newport Beach,
experienced most often in the older, beach - oriented areas of West Newport, Balboa
Peninsula, Balboa Island and Corona del Mar. These units are found in two typical forms: the
"splitting" of a single dwelling unit into two separate occupancies, and the conversion of
garages to living space. These units usually have a higher number of health and safety code
violations than legal units, due to conversion without proper building permits and inspections.
Illegal units continue to be a problem today, but are less prevalent than in the past, due to
increased year round owner occupancy in these areas, and inspections which occur when
properties are sold. While it is difficult to estimate the number of illegal units, code
• enforcement personnel estimate that as much as five percent of the City's housing stock may
be in the form of illegal units. While not considered to be safe and adequate housing, these •
units do provide living arrangements that tend to be considered more affordable than legal
units..
Accessory Dwelling Units
The City's Zoning Code includes provisions for "granny unite (accessory, age - restricted units)
which may be approved by the Planning Commission in single and multi- family areas. Since
adoption of the City's "accessory dwelling unit" provisions, 18 age - restricted units have been
authorized and twelve constructed. Since the approval process defined by the Zoning Code
allows for little discretion to deny these requests, the Housing Element includes a program to
make this a staff -level approval in the future.
Mobile Homes
There are presently 972 mobile home spaces in ten (10) mobile home parks in Newport
Beach. Nine of these parks contain 774 spaces occupied by permanent residents. The
remaining homes are occupied by persons who use the units for vacations and weekend visits
to the area. In total, the ten parks house 1,211 permanent residents. Space rents range from
$500 to $3,000 (see Table 11).
The character of the City's ten mobile home parks varies. Three of the parks are located on or
close to Newport Harbor. These three parks appeal to retirees and a substantial number of
spaces in these parks are occupied by permanent residents. Space rents depend on location
of the space in relationship to the Bay and the size of the mobile home. One of these parks,
Bayside Village, is occupied primarily by retired persons, a large portion of whom have •
occupied their mobile homes for 20 years or more. It should be noted that recently, many
mobile homes in Cannery Village have been replaced with manufactured housing that is not
affordable to low- income and moderate - income individuals and families.
The State HCD is responsible for issuing permits for mobile home parks. The City of Newport
Beach has notified the State that mobile home units affordable to low- and /or moderate -
income households have been converted, or are in the process of converting to, market rate
status and thereby may lose their affordable status. To date, the State has taken no action
regarding this continuing loss of affordable housing.
Four mobile home parks are located either in West Newport on the north side of Pacific Coast
Highway, in the West Newport Triangle area. Space rents in these parks range upward from
$500 per month. Many of these mobile homes are older, having been in parks since their
development in the 1950s or 1960s.
It should be noted that one mobile home park, the Beach and Bay Mobile Home Park at 7204
W. Coast Highway, appears to be in substantial physical decline and could be subject to
redevelopment or replacement within this planning period.
is
12
Source: The City of Newport Beach Planning Department. .
Assisted Housing Stock
Table 12 identifies developments by project name and address, type of governmental assistance
received, earliest potential date of change from low- income uses to non low - income uses and
total number of elderly and non - elderly units that could be lost from City housing stock during
2000 — 2005. In 1997, the Newport North Apartments converted from affordable status to
market rate status, which caused the loss of affordability of fifty (50) units. Most of the assisted
units shown on Table 13 will not be lost until after 2005. The only units identified as being a
potential loss to market rate rents during the tenure of this Housing Element are the 100 (all one -
bedroom) units in the Seaview Lutheran Plaza Assisted Living Apartment complex. However,
this project was approved through a Use Permit process and a condition of approval mandates
that all of these units be for low- income elderly occupants, the segment of the special needs
population most in need of affordable housing.
It is important to note that the Seaview Lutheran project was approved by the City of Newport
Beach as an affordable senior citizen housing facility only; that is, Seaview Lutheran 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) of the City of Newport Beach. Furthermore, Caring Housing
Ministries, the Lutheran Church managing entity of Seaview Lutheran Plaza, has indicated it has •
no intention of converting the 100 low- income units to market rate units.
No other inclusionary housing units have expiring long -term use restrictions during the tenure of
this Housing Element.
The City has had policies in effect since the mid- 1980's requiring the provision of affordable
housing in association with all new residential developments where more than 4 units are
proposed. Most were provided within new or existing apartment projects. In some cases, an in-
lieu fee was assessed when the provision of housing was not feasible due to the small size of
the development. The City also facilitated the teaming of market rate and affordable housing
developers to produce required affordable housing. Over the last twenty years, this program has
resulted in the provision of 620 affordable units.
•
14
Summary •
As of the writing of this Housing Element, the City is almost completely built out with very limited
opportunity for any type of new development. This means that residential building activity
consists principally of remodeling and /or the total reconstruction of existing housing units. In
many cases, these projects result in a reduction in the number of rental single - family dwelling
units as residential reconstruction typically results in owner occupancy.
The housing stock within the City of Newport Beach is comprised of a mix of housing types that
cater to a wide spectrum of owners and renters. The City has housing densities and rental
opportunities that are greater than that which can be found in the County as a whole. In
addition, the housing stock is well maintained with very few housing units being classified as
deficient. Vacancy rates in the city are adequate to accommodate changes in demand for
housing within the city.
is
•
16
• Housing Unit Projections
Ultimate residential capacity within the City of Newport Beach has been noted in Orange- C ix i
Progress Report 900 n to be 41,782 dwelling units within the City limits. The recently annexed
Newport Coast will have an ultimate residential build -out of 5,150 units. These projections are
based on the City General Plan, the City traffic model, the County of Orange, and projections
made by the Center for Demographic Research as part of its Ornnge County Prngn>sc Orr
2000. This number will change subsequent to the anticipated annexations of Bay Knolls and
Santa Ana Heights in 2003.
Ultimate residential capacity provides the most accurate means to population projections within
the City. To project population, the following assumptions have been made:
Household size was 2.25 persons per household by 2000, according to the Orange
County Pmgregc Report 900n. As housing costs continue to rise, an increasing
number of units may be occupied by unrelated persons who share housing expenses.
Additionally, younger, childless couples within the City eventually will have children,
thus providing some natural population increase and partly offsetting the historical
decline in household size.
2. Vacancy rates will decline as a result of demand for housing and increased price of
housing in Orange County. The California State Department. of Finance, Demographic
Research Unit indicated in Orange Cou y ProarPCS Report 2000 the vacancy rate within
the City of Newport Beach was 11.48 %, which may be indicative of a highly seasonal
• population (vacationers and students). An overall vacancy rate of 10% through the year
2010 has been projected. This 10% vacancy rate includes seasonal and migratory units
not available for occupancy. The comparable overall vacancy rate in 1980 was 12.9%.
•
3. The Orange County Progress Report assumes that Newport Beach will reach its ultimate
residential build -out by 2010, however some Newport Beach officials disagree.
Population growth will be affected significantly by the assumption regarding average household
size. The Center for Demographic Research has estimated the City of Newport Beach year 2000
population was 75,600. With the addition of Newport Coast, population estimates increase by an
additional 7,000. The Department of Finance estimated the population in 2000 to be 76,772.
Department of Finance data for Newport Coast is not available.
17
• Population Trends
•
The decades between 1950 and 1970 were years of spectacular growth for Orange County. In
1950, just over 216,000 persons lived in the County. By 1970, the population had grown to over
1.4 million. During this time period, the majority of new development occurred in northern Orange
County, Since 1970, Orange County's growth rate has declined substantially, although it still
exceeds the State growth rate. In the 1970s, as vacant land became more scarce, growth shifted
southerly with the appearance of new cities, such as Irvine, Mission Viejo and Laguna Niguel.
During the 1980s, the southern portion of Orange County experienced between a four to five
percent annual growth rate. Orange County as a whole had a 17.3% growth rate between 1990
and 2000, according to California State Department of Finance estimates.
The City rate of population growth exceeded the County rate of population growth through 1950.
However, since 1950 the City's proportionate gain in population has been substantially less than
that of the County. Annexations of the West Newport Triangle in 1980, a portion of Santa Ana
Heights in 1987, and construction of large housing developments helped to increase City
population 6.5% between 1980 and 1990. Construction of housing developments contributed to
an increase of City population of 15.2% between 1990 and 2000. The City growth rate was
projected to decline by 2000 and beyond as vacant land becomes increasingly scarce.
Population increases after 2000 generally were anticipated to be accommodated through
intensification of land uses and annexation of the Newport Coast and Santa Ana Heights areas.
Past and future populations of both Orange County and Newport Beach are presented below.
Newport Beach population will continue to constitute a decreasing percentage of the County
population.
Of
• Supply of vacant land to support new residential development in the City of Newport Beach has
diminished rapidly. Immigration, still a strong factor in population growth in Orange County, is a
19
small contributor to population growth in Newport Beach. Projected data for Orange County •
provides additional evidence vacant land throughout the County is diminishing. County
population is projected to increase by 13.8 % between 2010 and 2020. The City of Newport
Beach population is projected to increase only 5.6% during that time period, representing a
slowing of growth by almost 40 %.
The California State Department of Finance estimated the vacancy rate to be 5.7% for Orange
County in 2000. This relatively high rate of vacant units was attributed to use of many housing
units as second homes for persons who had seasonal business or recreational ties to the area.
Overall vacancy of year -round units at the time of the 1990 U.S. Census was 8 %.
Use of units as second homes between 1970 and 1990 did not explain the reduction in population
growth relative to increase in number of households. This trend instead was attributable to a
sizeable reduction in average size of City households. Average household size in 1970 was 2.6;
the 1980 Census reported an average household size of 2.2. Between 1980 and 1990, this rate
increased to 2.3 persons per unit. Decreases in household sizes are occurring in most
communities in California. The decrease in average persons per household between 1970 and
1980 and the increase in average persons per household between 1980 and 2000 are shown
below. This trend is consistent with the trend in Orange County.
a n
�c .1 HIS NE, WT x
• 131'
1.
Orange • unty Progress Report 111
Various factors that contributed to this phenomenon include the following:
• Rental housing in most urban areas was occupied by households for which the average
size was smaller than owner - occupied housing.
• Many predominantly owner - occupied neighborhoods in the City were originally populated
by child- rearing families. These families matured; children grew and left home. As a
result, certain neighborhoods now have sizeable numbers of childless couples in the
"empty nest" stage of life, causing a general reduction in neighborhood population.
• Following a national trend, many young couples postponed starting a family or elected not
to have children. Childless couples, supported by two professional salaries, may have
been able to afford housing in Newport Beach. Young, childless households became
common in many neighborhoods where child- rearing families had been predominant,
contributing to neighborhood population reductions.
• Many retired persons moved to Newport Beach before 1980.
•
20
Summary,
The aging trend of the population in Newport Beach points to the need to focus on addressing the •
housing needs for senior citizens. As outlined in the Goals section, the City of Newport Beach will
specifically focus on this growing segment of the population.
E
•
22
• Hn_� cphnld Ethnicity CharacfiPristirs
•
The following information is based on the most recent information (2000 Census of Population
and Housing) available for the City of Newport Beach, as supplemented with information from
Orange County Progress Report 900 . The City of Newport Beach was more diverse racially
and ethnically in 2000 than in 1990. Persons who classified themselves as white in 1990
comprised 92.5% of the City population. Those classifying themselves as Hispanic in 1990
comprised 4% of the City population; in 2000 that increased to 6.2 %. The percentage of the City
population who identified themselves as black in 1990 was .2 %; in 2000 this increased to .5 %.
Table 19 shows the 1990 and 2000 racial and ethnic composition of Newport Beach.
Comparative figures for Orange County are also provided.
23
Housing Affordability
Housing affordability is best assessed by analyzing level of payment in comparison to ability to •
pay. In 1990, the majority of housing in the. City of Newport Beach was priced over $200,000.
Median value of housing in the City was $500,000, according to the 1990 Census of Population
and Housing. The most recent survey data of amount of income spent on housing in Newport
Beach comes from the 1990 U.S. Census. For renters, 39% of households paying rent spent
30% or more of their income on rent. For homeowners, 34% of households paying a mortgage
spent 30% or more of their monthly income on mortgage payments. Currently, lenders are
allowing households to pay between 29% and 35% of their gross income for housing. Table 23
shows income spent on housing by income group, expressed according to rent/mortgage as a
percentage of income for households in the City of Newport Beach.
Cost of contract rental housing in the City of Newport Beach is higher than the cost of rental
housing in the County of Orange. Contract rent is monthly rent agreed to or contracted for,
regardless of furnishings, utilities, fees, meals, or other included services. Median contract rent in
Orange County was $728 in 1990. Median monthly rent in the City was $967 in 1990.
•
In its 1988 Regional Housing Needs Assessment, the Southern California Association of
Governments calculated that of 4,431 lower- income households, paid more than 30% of their
income for housing. According to SCAG estimates, 2,625 very low- income households and
1,806 low- income households paid more than 30% of their income for housing. In 1990, 2,583
very low- income and 4,071 low- income households paid more than 30% of their income for
housing. "Low Income" households are those households with annual incomes between 80 — •
26
• 100 percent of the County median household income. "Very Low Income" households are those
households with annual incomes of 50 — 80 percent of the County median household income.
•
State and federal standards for housing overpayment are based on an income -to- housing cost
ratio of 30% and higher. Households paying more than 30% of their incomes for housing have
less income remaining for other living necessities. Upper income households generally are
capable of paying a larger share of their incomes for housing; therefore, estimates of housing
overpayment generally focus on lower income groups. To distinguish between renter and
owner housing overpayment is important because, while homeowners may over extend
themselves financially to purchase a home, the owner always maintains the option of selling
the home. Renters are limited to the rental market and generally are required to pay the rent
established in that market.
The number of higher - income households paying more than 300/6 of their income for housing is
an indication of unique standards of housing affordability in Newport Beach. In addition, a higher
allocation of income toward housing was perceived as justified because of investment qualities of
housing in the City. Also, higher expenditures on housing may be justified when tax advantages
are considered and incomes are expected to increase while housing expenses remain fixed.
Overcrowding
Overcrowded households are those in which the ratio of personstroom exceeds one (1). The
substantial reduction in the average household size in the.City of Newport Beach in the last third
of the twentieth century indicates the majority of City households are not overcrowded in terms of
persons per dwelling unit. The 1990 U.S. Census figure and the estimate by the California State
Department of Finance for the year 2000 remain at 2.3 persons per dwelling unit. These figures
are well below State and regional averages.
The 1980 U.S. Census indicated that in Newport Beach 84 (0.6 %) owner - occupied units and 212
(1.6 %) renter- occupied units included more than 1.01 persons per room. In 1990, these figures
were 66 (0.4 %) for owner - occupied units and 406 (2.8 %) of renter- occupied units. County of
Orange figures for 1990 show 5.2% overcrowding among owner- occupied units, and 7.8%
overcrowding among renter - occupied units.
27
Employment Trends and Projections •
The California State Employment Development Department estimated the total labor force among
the Newport Beach population in June 2000 was 45,780, of whom 44,990 were employed. Labor
force is defined as the number of people 16 years of age and older (who reside within the City of
Newport Beach) that are employed or are seeking employment. The Center for Demographic
Research estimated that in 1997 the labor market in the City of Newport Beach was as follows:
agriculture (133); mining (39); construction (2,046); manufacturing (2,533); transportation and
public utilities (1,822); trade (13,206); finance, insurance and real estate (9,980); services
(26,657); government (1,902); and, self- employed (5,661). This indicated a total of 63,979 jobs in
the City of Newport Beach. Projected employment opportunities in Newport Beach in year 2005
will be 73,241, according to the Center for Demographic Research.
Table 24 compares Southern California Association of Governments City projected employment
growth (as presented in the Orange County per mss Report 200) with projected employment
growth for Orange County. This reflects the number of jobs available within the City. Data
related to employment differ substantially between Center for Demographic Research and
California State Employment Division Development Department estimates. The 1997 number
below is a California State Employment Development Department calculation; the 2000 — 2020
projections are Center for Demographic Research estimates.
The Center for Demographic Research has indicated employment in the City is expected to
increase by 9,262 jobs (14.5 %) between 1997 and 2005. The projected countywide employment
increase is 292,455 (213%) during that same period. The City will have about 4.4% of the jobs in
Orange County by year 2005.
Summary
Although employment opportunities within Newport Beach will continue to increase, those
increases will also continue to comprise a smaller percentage of the overall job creation within the
County. Consequently, additional demand for housing within Newport Beach will be as much a
result of overall employment growth within the County, as it would be because of employment
growth within the city.
28
•
\J
• Special Needs Population Groups
Certain segments of the population may have a more difficult time finding decent affordable
housing due to special circumstances. The State of California defines "special needs"
households as the elderly, disabled persons,, large families, female - headed households, farm
workers, and the homeless. This Housing Element has included students and people living with
HIV /AIDS in the "special needs" population. The Census Data from 1990 is not consistent in its
identification of special needs households versus individuals with special needs. In some cases,
individuals may qualify under several categories at the same time, e.g. a woman may be the
female head of household and be over 65 years of age. The best indicators for quantifying the
special needs population from the data indicate that in the City of Newport Beach in 1990:
10,318 people were 65 or older.
1,734 households were headed by females.
2,117 people were disabled persons with self -care limitations.
171 people were farm workers.
There existed an undetermined number of homeless.
Data from the 1990 Census of Population and Housing indicate the "special needs" population in
Newport Beach most in need of affordable housing is senior citizens (those at least 65 years of
age). A large percentage of Newport Beach senior citizens in 1990 had a work disability with a
mobility or self -care limitation. Demonstrated need for affordable senior housing has further been
supported by social service providers in Newport Beach, who maintain in interviews that such
housing and transportation are the primary needs for senior citizens receiving social services.
• Students attending the University of California, Irvine (UCI) or Orange Coast College (OCC) in
Costa Mesa also reside in Newport Beach. The UCI Student Housing Office has estimated that
approximately 800 UCI students reside in the City of Newport Beach. A comparable number of
OCC students are also assumed to reside in Newport Beach. However, any numbers obtained
for students should be considered with caution because both campuses stress they neither have
exact data on students living in Newport Beach, nor can they guarantee those students who claim
to live in the City actually do. The Student Housing Offices provide information to students on
locating housing but students do not necessarily obtain housing through the offices. Also,
Student Housing Offices have no way of tracking residences of students. Contact was made with
the UCI Transportation Office to attempt to ascertain the number of students traveling between
UCI and Newport Beach. However, that shuttle service was discontinued in 1999 due to lack of
riders. This may be due to most students having automobiles.
0
The most recent study on housing costs completed by the University of California, Irvine Housing
Office was in 1988. That study was based on number of rooms and made no distinction between
apartments and homes. Rents then ranged from $596 per month for a one bedroom, one bath
apartment, to $1,543 per month for a four bedroom, two -bath unit. Average cost of housing in
Newport Beach typically occupied by students has risen dramatically since completion of that
study. Those costs for year 2000, based on students helped, are as follows:
29
Most students who reside off campus live in West Newport, Balboa Peninsula or Balboa Island.
Rent prices on Balboa Island are higher than many other areas in the City of Newport Beach.
Students afford these prices by living with other students and sharing costs, a practice that may
lead to overcrowded conditions. No subsequent study of student housing has been conducted.
Persons with Disabilities
Based on the Housing and Urban Development Data Book from the 1990 U.S. Census, 4,495
persons (6.8% of the city population) had a work disability with a mobility or self -care limitation.
Over 82% of those individuals were 65 years of age or older.
E
The most prevalent public need for persons with disabilities is access to public places, housing •
and facilities. Those with handicaps include persons who are blind, deaf, mute, confined to
bed or wheelchair, or who require crutches. A survey conducted by the Dayle McIntosh
Center for the Disabled in 1987 questioned 14,000 disabled residents in Orange County. The
study concluded the two most prevalent housing needs for persons with disabilities are
accessibility and affordability.
Mobility impaired individuals require special housing or structural needs. These include, but are
not limited to, wheelchair ramps, widened doorways, grab bars, and access ramps. Certain
individuals may require housing that has access to health care facilities. From available Census
data it is not possible to determine how many of these handicapped persons need housing
assistance. The City has produced two units designed for handicapped occupancy in one of its
rent restricted, financially assisted housing developments. Rental on these two units was
restricted to allow use of Section 8 rental assistance Certificates or Vouchers. These units also
are located in close proximity to the largest concentration of health care facilities within Newport
Beach.
Female Head of Household
Data from the 1990 U.S. Census indicates that there were 1,734 female- headed households in
Newport Beach at that time. The data also revealed that 3.8% (66) of the 1,734 female - headed
households were below poverty status and comprised a family of four. Of those 66 households,
51 had related children younger than 18 years of age and 5 had related children under 5 years of
age as the only children in the home.
•
30
• Elderly
In 1990, the fastest growing segment of the County population was older adults (ages 65 and
older). Federal regulations stipulate senior citizens are presumed to have "presumptive benefit"
for Americans With Disabilities Act mandated provisions. Additionally, special housing needs of
many elderly persons result from lower, fixed incomes, physical disabilities, and dependence
needs. The County of Orange estimated that 8% of senior citizens in Orange County were
homebound or shut -ins, and approximately 46% of the elderly residing in the County required
some assistance to remain independent.
Since 1960, the elderly population in Newport Beach has grown steadily, and there is no
indication of this trend reversing. According to the Center for Demographic Research at
California State University, Fullerton, 12,190 people in Newport Beach (16.9% of the City
population) were 65 years of age or older in 1998. The percentage of older persons in the City is
large compared to the region. In 1980, only 11.9% of Orange County residents were 60 years of
age or older. Due to aging "baby- boomers, the 65 years and older age group has been,
proportionately, the fastest growing segment of the total population in the previous two decades.
The number of elderly can be expected to increase as persons between the ages of 35 and 64
continue to mature.
Many elderly persons residing in Newport Beach are long -time residents. However, many others
have arrived more recently to pursue a retirement lifestyle suited to the area's attractive locale.
Those persons in the latter category generally are well- housed because their housing
arrangement was chosen to match their retirement lifestyle and financial situation. Persons in the
former category are more often living in houses purchased before real-estate prices increased
dramatically. Many of these individuals today would be unable to afford the house in which they
are currently living. Furthermore, these homes may no longer match their housing needs
regarding space, maintenance, and proximity to community facilities. Thus, persons living on low,
fixed incomes may be- "house rich" in terms of accumulated equity in their homes, but poorly
served by the housing unit itself. In such cases, elderly residents may retain their houses only
because they wish to remain in the community. Alternative living arrangements in the community,
such as smaller units close to commercial and transportation facilities with some congregate
services, would better serve the housing needs of this population segment.
According to the Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Data Book, 7,484 owner and rental
households in the City of Newport Beach were elderly and two- member households in 1990.
These households represented 21.5% of the.total households in the City. Of the 7,484 elderly
owner and renter occupied households, 2,437 such households had problems as defined by
HUD. Of the 2,437 households with problems, 1,170 had cost burdens greater than 30% of
household income(s) and 1,267 had severe cost burdens of greater than 50% of household
income. Of 1,880 elderly occupied rental households, 1,223 had housing problems. Of these
1,223 renter households with housing problems, 1,205 had cost burdens greater than 30% and
695 had severe cost burdens of greater than 50 %. Of 5,604 elderly owner occupied households,
1,222 had housing problems. Of 1,222 households having problems, 572 households had
severe cost burdens greater than 50 %.
Census data that indicate the number of elderly persons in the City who live below the federally
established poverty line in 2000 will not be available until late -2002. Escalating housing costs,
• particularly in the rental housing market, severely impact housing affordability for the elderly
because many of the elderly live on fixed incomes.
31
Many residents in the City reside in mobile home parks. A number of long -time elderly residents .
live in older parks developed in the 1950s and 1960s. Others live in mobile home parks close to
the Bay that cater to the retirement lifestyle.
Assistance for low- income elderly is a high priority for the City of Newport Beach. A portion of the
City 2000 -2001 Community Development Block Grant funds were allocated to the Fair Housing
Council of Orange County, a social service agency that provides tenant and landlord counseling
to provide housing opportunities for Newport Beach residents of all age groups. Additionally,
there are many social service programs whose clients include the elderly in Orange County.
Including the Section 8 'Certificate" and "Housing Voucher' programs administered by the
Orange County Housing Authority, Meals on Wheels, and various social service programs
provided by and through the OASIS Senior Center. A more detailed description of these
programs is contained in the Appendix to this Housing Element.
Large Families
Families are defined as groups of persons related by blood, marriage or adoption. Households
represent all persons living together as groups, whether related or not. The City has identified
total households and families with five or more persons.
Table 26 shows distribution of number of persons per household as indicated in the 1990 U.S.
Census and demonstrates the number of large households in the City of Newport Beach
comprises only 4% of all Newport Beach households.
The 1990 U.S. Census did not compare household size with household income, making it difficult
to assess the demand for affordable, larger housing units.
32
•
E
. Homeless
Homelessness increased throughout the United States during the 1990s. Factors that
contributed to the increase in homelessness included a lack of housing affordable to low and
moderate - income persons and families, increases in number of persons whose incomes fell
below the poverty level, reductions in public subsidies to the poor, de- institutionalization of the
mentally ill, and economic recession.
Homelessness is a regional problem throughout Southern California. Homeless persons and
families exist in every city and populated unincorporated area of Orange County. Various
organizations, institutions and agencies often generate strikingly different calculations of
homeless individuals/families. This Element relies on calculations contained in the Orange
County "2000 — 2004 Consolidated Plan," which indicate in year 2000 there are 18,604 homeless
individuals in Orange County. The County has developed and assists in funding a housing and
service delivery system - the Continuum of Care - that responds to the needs of the region's
homeless. The Continuum of Care was established through a community -based process to
ensure the region's residents and homeless are empowered to affect changes in the existing
social services system. The Orange County Community Forum, Orange County Leadership
Cabinet, and Orange County Department of Housing and Community Development have shared
responsibility for planning and implementing the regional Continuum of Care. Orange County's
33 cities and various County agencies have committed more than $22,800,000 in "mainstream"
funds to meet the needs of the region's homeless. Although programs are available to shelter
and serve the homeless, service gaps remain in the County Continuum of Care service delivery
system. Gap identification and establishment of priority needs were based on data from a needs
• assessment survey, Community Forum and Assessment Groups meetings, and a survey of
current and former homeless individuals.
According to the "Year 2000 Continuum of Care Gaps Analysis Chart," Orange County has a total
homeless shelter bed inventory of 2,374, comprised of emergency shelter and transitional shelter
beds for individuals and persons in families with children. The current inventory of 2,374
beds/units for 18,604 individuals in need of emergency shelter, transitional shelter, and
permanent supportive /affordable housing leaves an unmet need (gap) of 16,230 beds /units.
There is a current inventory of 1,135 supportive service slots Qob training, case management,
substance abuse treatment, mental health care, housing placement, life skills training) for 5,581
individuals in need of such services, which leaves an unmet need (gap) of 4,446 supportive
service slots. Additionally, there are current unmet needs (gaps) for individuals in the following
categories (expressed as estimated need/current inventory/unmet need (gap)): chronic substance
abusers (1,842/72011,122); seriously mentally ill (2,177/150/2,027); those diagnosed with more
than one of the identified needs categories (1,395/75/1,320); veterans (1,395/568/828); persons
with HIV /AIDS (662/400/262); victims of domestic violence (558/2751283); youth
(2,797/275/2,522); and, other - physical disabilities (837/568/270).
There also are current unmet needs (gaps) for persons in families with children in the following
categories (expressed as estimated need /current inventory/unmet need (gap)): chronic substance
abusers (1,302/46/1,256); seriously mentally ill (651/01651); dually- diagnosed (651/0/651);
persons with HIV /AIDS (662/5501112); victims of domestic violence (1,3021290/1,012); and other -
physically disabled (1,953/620/1,334). There is a surplus inventory for veterans in families with
children (estimated need, 391 /current inventory, 6201surplus, 229). Please note that homeless
• sub- populations do not total 18,604 because there are homeless who fall into more than one sub -
population category and /or not all homeless fall within the federal Department of Housing and
33
Urban Development designated sub - populations listed (e.g., homeless families who are under- •
employed and unable to afford housing would not be captured under the sub - population
categories listed, but would be captured in the total homeless count of 18,604).
The County of Orange Housing and Community Development in 2000 made application to the
federal Housing and Urban Development Department for `two Shelters Plus Care and ten
Supportive Housing Programs, totaling $8,010,818. Renewal Supporting Housing Program
applications will preserve 43 transitional housing beds and 966 service slots annually. The nine
new programs will add 59 permanent units for homeless with special needs. Additionally, 60 new
transitional beds and 2,837 supportive service slots will be added annually to the Orange County
Continuum of Care. Top priority projects /needs for the 2000 Continuum of Care Homeless
Assistance Grant application were eligible permanent housing for homeless with special needs,
eligible renewal projects, transitional housing, and supportive services programs.
In June 1999, the Board of Supervisors established a County Homeless Coordinator position
within the County Executive Office. The County Homeless Coordinator has . numerous
responsibilities, including participating on the Leadership Cabinet and coordinating regional
resources to address homelessness. In October 1999, the Homeless Coordinator, Orange
County Homeless Issues Task Force, and Shelter and Hunger Partnership of Orange County
formed a partnership to ensure the Continuum of Care planning process was not dominated by
government representatives. This partnership is called the Community Forum Collaborative, and
shares responsibility for sustaining the Continuum of Care planning process by hosting quarterly
Continuum of Care Community Forum meetings and monthly Assessment Group meetings. The
Community Forum has an open membership; that is, any individual or group who wants to
contribute to efforts to eliminate homelessness in Orange County are encouraged to participate.
Approximately 75% of Community Forum participants are nonprofit agencies. •
Assessment Groups assisted the Community Forum to develop preliminary identification of
priority projects and gaps. Community Forum Assessment Groups were established to improve
the existing care system by focusing efforts on specific needs and/or interest areas related to
homelessness and affordable housing and to identify needs/services gaps and resources for
respective homeless populations. The five Orange County Assessment Groups and their primary
foci are as follows:
• Homeless Prevention /Outreach Assessment Group — develops and expands programs to
prevent homelessness through crisis intervention, mobile outreach, and assessment
services; identifies and coordinates linkages in systems of care. Its lead agency is the
Continuum of Care Coalition, which is a formal partnership of four service agencies that
provides a variety of services and shelter programs for the homeless.
• Emergency Shelter Assessment Group — addresses issues such as shelter based support
services, availability of emergency beds, development of additional emergency beds, and
development of long -term solutions to the Cold Weather Armory program. Its lead agency
is the Emergency Shelter Expansion Task Force, which is an alliance of service agencies
that provides emergency shelter and homeless service programs.
Transitional Shelter Assessment Group — addresses shelter -based support services,
availability and development of additional transitional beds, and development of
intake /exit guidelines and processes for successful transition to permanent affordable
housing. Its lead agency is the Shelter Provider Program, which is an association of •
homeless shelter program directors and program staff.
34
• Permanent Affordable Housing Assessment Group addresses development of
affordable housing provision of supportive services in a permanent housing setting, and
other appropriate issues; addresses barriers to expansion of affordable housing
opportunities to individuals and families earning less than $10 per hour. Its lead agency is
the Kennedy Commission, a group of diverse community stakeholders, including
residential developers, health and human service providers, low- income housing
advocates, government agencies, businesses, and other groups.
• Advocacy Assessment Group — addresses issues such as zoning, legislation, shelter
provider standards, and increased funding for homeless programs. Its lead agency is the
Partnership of Responsible Public Policy, which consists of a wide variety of community
leaders who represent service providers and advocates.
The current Orange County Continuum of Care is comprised of certain systemic components.
These Components are as follows: the Prevention Component; the Outreach/Assessment
Component; the Emergency Shelter Component; the Transitional Component; the Permanent
Housing Component; the Permanent Supportive Housing Component; and the Supportive
Services Component.
The Orange County Continuum of Care system has been designed to facilitate movement of
homeless persons and families between and among components of the system by constructing
links between components. Since each homeless case is unique, the case manager becomes
key to moving a client between components. Local governments act as a means to bring the
homeless into shelter /service programs. Orange County homeless also are moved through the
is Continuum of Care system via regional collaborations.
The Housing and Urban Development Department has identified six (6) homeless sub -
populations that require special consideration in the regional Continuum of Care system. Those
six sub - populations are as follows: veterans; seriously mentally ill; substance abusers; people
living with HIV /AIDS; victims of domestic violence; and, youth. Additionally, the County of Orange
has provided information regarding outreach efforts for homeless individuals with disabilities.
The 1990 U.S. Census did not identify any homeless persons in the City of Newport Beach.
However, according to the Newport Beach Police Department, a few homeless and transients are
occasionally observed traveling through the City, and several have been observed staying in the
area overnight in drainage channels overgrown with vegetation. Although homeless and
transients only are occasionally found in Newport Beach, State law requires each jurisdiction
provide adequate sites to facilitate development of emergency and transitional shelters. In
addition, the homeless situation in the County results in part from lack of suitable affordable
housing. Therefore, a comprehensive solution to homeless problems requires every jurisdiction
in the County address needs of the homeless.
Shelter and service programs available to homeless people in Orange County are of very good
quality. However, there is a need for increased services. Presently, there are approximately
2,374 permanent shelter beds in the County, or a deficit of approximately 16,230 beds. The
majority of these shelters are located in northern Orange County. However, there are a variety of
homeless and related service shelters located throughout Orange County (see Appendix).
• Research of local agencies consisted of contacting those groups that provided assistance to
persons in need of emergency shelter and assistance. The City has been requiring Social
35
Service agencies receiving CDBG funds to provide information regarding the most recent •
permanent residence(s) of persons helped. This requirement was established as part of a
Housing Element program implementation action. In many cases better information has been
provided; in other cases improved counting is still required. Agencies without expanded reporting
requirements could not provide better information than in 1986. These agencies that provide
housing and other services for the homeless include the Orange County Housing Authority, the
Orange Coast Interfaith Shelter, Saddleback Community Outreach, the YMCA/YWCA, Friends in
Service to Humanity, and the American Red Cross. Detailed descriptions of services offered by
these agencies are contained in the Appendix to this element.
Newport Beach allows emergency shelters and transitional housing subject to a Use Permit in
all multi - family and commercial zones. In terms of discretionary review, these uses are
considered "group homes" in the City's Zoning Code. Housing Program 5.1.6 promotes the
City's practice of continuing to allow emergency shelters and transitional housing subject to
the provisions in the Zoning Code. It should be noted that the Use Permit requirement is not
considered a constraint since it is no more restrictive than Use Permit requirements for other
potentially conflicting land uses in those zones. It should be noted that if the shelter has fewer
than 7 individuals, then the shelter is a permitted use in single - family zones.
Farm Workers
The special housing needs of farm workers result from low wages and the seasonal nature of
their employment. The 1990 Census of Population and Housing estimated farm workers
comprised less than .2% of the population in Newport Beach and approximately 1% of the County
population. Therefore, demand for housing generated by farm workers in the City was nominal
and could be addressed adequately by overall housing affordability programs in the City and the •
County. This remains the case in the City of Newport Beach.
People Living with HIVIAIDS
This Housing Element includes a brief narrative pertaining to an additional special needs
population not yet identified in State or Federal legislation — people living with HIVIAIDS.
Information contained herein has been taken from a report entitled Orange County HIVIAIDS
Housing Plan, prepared by AIDS Housing of Washington for the City of Santa Ana, and
adopted by the Orange County Planning Council on December 8,1999. This population is
regional in nature rather than concentrated in a particular city. As of June 30, 1999, a total
5,295 cases of AIDS had been reported in Orange County, and an estimated 2;392 people
were believed to be living with AIDS. Communities throughout Orange County have persons
affected by AIDS; ten cities had 80 or more people living with AIDS. Percentage of AIDS
cases reported annually among Caucasians in Orange County decreased steadily during the
late. 1990s; percentage of AIDS cases among people of color increased during this time
period. Additionally, while the United States was experiencing a rise in AIDS cases reported
among those younger than 25 years of age, reported AIDS cases in 1998 in Orange County
indicated a slight shift toward those 30 years of age and older. Prior to 1993, most people
diagnosed with AIDS in Orange County were reported to have been infected through
homosexual or bisexual activity; by 1998, other causes of infection, including heterosexual
activity and injection drug use, had become prevalent. Orange County is experiencing a
disproportionate increase in AIDS cases among the Hispanic, African American and Southeast
Asian populations, women, injection drug users, and those who contracted the disease
through heterosexual contact. •
i
• AIDS Housing of Washington estimated local need for housing for people living with HIV /AIDS
in Orange County in 1999 included 20 percent of people living with AIDS, 10 percent of people
living with HIV, and 2 percent of homeless individuals. Such estimates yielded a total of 1,144
persons in need of housing in Orange County in 1999. Many respondents to a 1999 survey of
people living with HIV /AIDS clearly were in very precarious housing situations and were
overburdened by rent/housing costs. Over 80 percent of respondents reported spending more
than 30 percent of their.incomes on rent and over 50 percent reported spending more than 50
percent of their incomes on rent. Additionally, 38 percent of respondents indicated they would
need to relocate should their rent increase by $50 monthly. Thirty percent of respondents
earned less than $700 monthly. Nearly 40 percent of respondents had relocated since
learning of their HIV status and one -third of respondents had slept outdoors, in an automobile
or at a friend's house. An evident conclusion from this survey was that respondents were
experiencing "housing problems" and were at risk of homelessness.
•
Various agencies provided HIVIAIDS- dedicated housing resources to 410 people living with
HIV /AIDS in Orange County in 1999. The Orange County Emergency Housing Program. provided
emergency housing assistance for 234 people. The Gerry House West, START House, and
Transitional Housing Program provided transitional housing assistance for 57 people. Hagan
Place, Annie's House, and the Rental Assistance Program provided assistance to 119 people.
These resources will be supplemented in 2001 with Emmanuel House providing housing
assistance to 21 people and a new transitional housing program providing housing assistance to
12 —16 people (6 —10 traditional housing units in a new location and 6 set -aside residences in
existing facilities). Federal funding (through the Super NOFA Fund) dispersed by the Orange
County Housing Authority, provides assistance for people living with HIV /AIDS. As of October
2000, two households in the City of Newport Beach received such assistance.
Housing units dedicated for people living with HIVIAIDS are occupied and have long waiting
lists. The Orange County HIV /AIDS Housing Plan indicates conservative estimates are that
approximately 737 people living with HIV /AIDS in Orange County require housing assistance
in addition to those served by current resources specifically dedicated to this population.
There currently are resources to serve approximately 410 people living with HIV /AIDS with
some form of emergency, transitional, or permanent housing assistance. Additionally, due to
the high (and unmet) demand for affordable housing in Orange County, landlords are able to
increase rents (rents throughout Orange County rose 23% between 1996 and 1,999), refuse to
accept subsidies, demand large security deposits and other move -in costs, and require
extensive background information and documentation, which has caused housing instability for
many living with HIV /AIDS. Furthermore, according to the Orange County HIV /AIDS Housing
Plan people living with HIVIAIDS in Orange County have experienced discrimination in their
searches for housing due to race /ethnicity, sexual orientation, health status, and status as a
rent subsidy holder. This has resulted in difficulties for many people who live with HIV /AIDS to
find housing with their subsidies and also has made many people unwilling to live in an AIDS
housing facility.
Additional emergency, transitional, and permanent housing resources and supporting services
are requisite to meet the multiple needs of people living with HIV /AIDS. Existing resources
cannot serve all people living with HIV /AIDS. Service gaps exist in eligibility, provision of
emergency and transitional housing, provision of housing for chemically dependent, housing
information and referral, life skills instruction, and systemic administration.
37
Summary •
The housing needs of the Special Needs population will be addressed through Goal 5 of this
element. The needs of the senior population are particularly recognized by the City and are
addressed by each goal of the Housing Element.
Housing Needs
In accordance with State Housing Element law, the Southern California Association of
Governments (SCAG) has prepared a Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) to identify
the housing need for each jurisdiction within the SCAG region. This model was prepared for the
five -year period 2000 - 2005. The RHNA allocates Newport Beach's share of housing units
required to satisfy housing needs resulting from projected growth in the region. To accommodate
projected growth in the region, SCAG estimates the City needs to target its housing unit
production to accommodate 476 new housing units.
State law requires SCAG to distribute new units on basis of income to avoid further impaction of
localities with relatively high proportions of low- income households. It also is required that
existing housing need be identified. SCAG identified this need by using the Department of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD) standard of overpayment. Households overpaying are
households with incomes below 80% of the County median household income and paying more
than 30% of their income toward housing/ shelter. SCAG estimated existing need by applying
percentage of overpaying households enumerated in the 1990 Census to current City population.
Using this method of estimation, existing need in Newport Beach is 476 dwellings. The tables •
below indicate future need for housing in Newport Beach and its distribution by income group as
calculated by the RHNA.
The "special needs" population in Newport Beach most numerous and in need of affordable
housing is senior citizens (age 65 and older). Thirty-six percent of this population has a disability
and a significant percentage live near or below the Federal poverty level.
•
38
0
Inventory of Land Suitable for Residential Development
The City of Newport Beach is not a residential developer and therefore must rely on private
developers or organizations that have the capacity to acquire and manage affordable housing or
"at -risk" housing developments. A list of such organizations is contained in the Appendix to this
Housing Element. The following section of the Housing Element provides an inventory of land
determined suitable for development of affordable housing.
Undeveloped, Residentially -Zoned Sites
Newport Beach is a nearly built out City, with very few undeveloped sites remaining. The only
undeveloped sites suitable for residential development are discussed below. Of the three vacant
sites, two are located within the Coastal Zone and have Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan
designations consistent with their General Plan designations. Each site currently has adjacent
public facilities and services. The sites vary in size from 3.5 to 45.2 acres, and have an •
approximate total capacity of 582 dwelling units. The potential residential development capacity
of 582 units may be exceeded by 25% as provided by the density bonus provision in this
Element. A density bonus does not require a General Plan Amendment. Should this provision
be used, the approximated total residential development capacity of the three sites would become
727 units. In summary, there is sufficient space and zoning allowance for meeting the Regional
Housing Needs Assessment numbers for the City of Newport Beach on these three sites.
The three vacant sites identified as potential sites to meet the City's RHNA allocation for lower -
income individuals are all zoned "PC" or "Planned Community." As the Municipal Code indicates,
"It is the intent of the PC District to provide for the classification and development of parcels of
land as coordinated, comprehensive projects so as to take advantage of the superior
environment that can result from large -scale community planning." The provisions of the PC
zoning district are intended to provide the maximum amount of flexibility in site design. Therefore,
regulations pertaining to setbacks, building heights, lot coverage, parking and other design
elements are not specified in the Municipal Code, but are included in the Development Plan for
each Planned Community.
Table 29 presents a summary assessment of these vacant sites. Following are descriptions of
each site. Figures I — III identifies the location of each site.
Mixed Use Zoning
In addition to traditional residential zoning standards such as R -1 (single - family detached units)
and MFR (multiple - family attached units), Newport Beach also has a "Residential Overlay Zone"
that allows mixed residential and commercial types of developments. Many commercial •
properties include an "R" Overlay designation and may integrate residential uses with commercial
uses at a density of one dwelling unit for each 2,375 square feet of land area. The mixed
• residential /commercial use will allow the City additional opportunities to provide housing.
•
Newport Banning Ranch — Approximately 45.2 buildable acres of the Newport Banning Ranch
are located within the City of Newport Beach City boundaries. The property is located in non-
contiguous parcels northerly of Pacific Coast Highway, southerly of 15°i Street, and westerly of
Monrovia Avenue. This site can accommodate 406 multiple4amily residential units without the
need of a change of zone or General Plan Amendment. The Newport Banning Ranch is located
within the California Coastal Zone and therefore would require a Coastal Development Permit
issued by the California Coastal Commission.
The ultimate development of Banning Ranch is complicated by the fact that the property owner is
a company formed as a partnership of two independent oil companies, neither of which are real
estate developers. Discussions related to development usually include a third -party development
company. Past planning efforts have involved looking at the whole land holding, including several
hundred acres in unincorporated County territory. These planning efforts have required
coordination with a myriad of Federal, State, and local agencies, including the US Army Corps of
Engineers, the Environmental Protection Agency, the US Fish and Wildlife Service, the California
Resources Agency (including the Division of Mines and Geology and the Department of Fish and
Game), the California Coastal Commission, the California Department of Transportation, the
County of Orange, and the Orange County Transportation Authority. Conflicting goals of these
various entities sometimes create challenges to project approvals. However, the smaller areas
41
of the property within Newport Beach could proceed separate from the large project area under
existing entitlements in order to produce additional housing. •
AvocadoANacArthur— The Avocado /MacArthur site occupies 3.5 acres located northerly of San
Miguel, southerly of San Joaquin Hills Road, easterly of Avocado Avenue, and westerly of
MacArthur Boulevard. The site would require a change of zone to be developed as a multiple -
family residential project(s) for senior citizens. The site could accommodate at least 56 multiple -
family residential units. The City will initiate the change of zone on the site within 1 year of
certification of the Housing Element. The Avocado/MacArthur site is not located within the
California Coastal Zone and therefore does not require a Coastal Development Permit.
Bayview Landing — The Bayview Landing site occupies 4.5 acres and is located at the
northwesterly corner of the intersection of Jamboree Road and Back Bay Drive. This site can
accommodate 120 multiple- family residential units without need of a change of zone or a General
Plan Amendment. Bayview Landing is located within the California Coastal Zone and therefore
would require a Coastal Development Permit issued by the California Coastal Commission to be
developed
Staff is currently meeting with potential developers of the Bayview Landing project. It was
determined that the site, with a City provided density bonus to encourage affordable housing, will
accommodate up to 150 units. The developer is in the process of designing a site plan to respond
to the geotechnical constraints of the site.
L�
•
42
FIG. II
"OCADOIMacARTHUR SITE
44
0
0
0
HOUSING ELEMENT
FIG. 111
BAYVIEW LANDING SITE
rIL
Redevelopment and `9nfill"
With expansion and improvement of the national and state economy and the circulation
systems in Southern California in the late 1950s, the character of residential development in
Newport Beach changed from a vacation home community to a more equal mixture of
permanent residences and vacation homes, and subsequently to almost exclusively a
community of permanent residences. During this period of change enough vacant land
existed to meet increased demand for housing. Housing demand had little effect on the City's
older areas, other than transforming tenure pattern from "occasional" to "permanent." This
housing demand continued well into the 1980s because sufficient vacant land existed to
satisfy housing demand. From the mid- 1990s, development activity in terms of net dwelling
units constructed on vacant sites versus "infill" had occurred at a ratio of nearly 10 to 1 (2,101
d.u. compared to 234 d.u. respectively). Subsequent to the decrease in vacant residential
acreage and an increase in cost of improved and vacant land, redevelopment and "infill"
activities increased. •
The City of Newport Beach has identified areas with potential for redevelopment and /or
intensification of under - utilized residential properties (infill). These properties, depicted in
Figure IV, typically are located in older sections of the City, constructed prior to 1950 when
Newport Beach was primarily a weekend and /or summer "vacation home" community. These
residential developments usually involved less intense parcel utilization than currently occurs.
According to the City's Planning Department, total acreage of the infill properties is
approximately 478 acres, and approximately 1,100 additional housing units could be built on
the infill properties. it should be noted that these are individual properties, not large
landholdings. Therefore, they are not likely to produce a large number of units at one time.
Because the City's General Plan and Zoning Code already provide for this infill development,
it can occur without discretionary permits, an election pursuant to Measure S (as discussed on
Page 53), or the provision of additional infrastructure.
The City is beginning a comprehensive update to its General Plan, and it is possible that this
work will result in the identification of areas for more infill or mixed -use development or
redevelopment.
•
46
W
PM
coo
NMI
w.
SEA
O
Lft
cc
'm Ww
I
0
a
.. ...........
O
Lft
cc
'm Ww
I
0
a
• Areas Proposed for Annexation
•
Within the Newport Beach Sphere of Influence (the ultimate incorporated City limits), there may
be additional options for future residential development. For example, "Bay Knolls," and "Santa
Ana Heights" are scheduled for annexation within the next five years. Once annexed, the City will
explore opportunities for increasing the City's housing supply in these areas.
Most of the property known as the Newport Banning Ranch (a large undeveloped parcel north
and north east. of the existing City boundary) is also located within the City's Sphere of Influence.
Since it is currently undeveloped, it includes land that may be available for future development of
affordable housing. However, the City does not anticipate successful annexation of this area
within the next five years due to property owner opposition and current State Annexation Law
pertaining to the protests of proposed annexations.
49
Energy Conservation Opportunities
The City of Newport Beach fully enforces provisions of Title 24 of the California Administrative •
Code, which require energy conservation in new residences. Standards in Title 24 create energy
savings of approximately 50% over residential construction practices utilized prior to the Title 24
enactment.
The City of Newport Beach Building Department is aware of energy conserving design
innovations and solar technology. The department utilizes the Solar Systems Code Review
Manual and its companion document, the Pool and Spa Solar Systems Code Review Manual,
published by the International Conference of Building Officials (ICBO), to facilitate installation of
appropriate solar systems.
Under existing State law (the California Resources Code), local jurisdictions may adopt structural
energy conservation standards in excess of the existing State standard. Such an increase in
standards would be of dubious value because of the moderate climate of the City of Newport
Beach. Additionally, increases in conservation standards generally increase housing costs and
therefore exacerbate the existing housing affordability concern.
The City of Newport Beach has a small remaining amount of land available for residential
development. Therefore, land use standards that require subdivisions take advantage of solar
energy would be of limited value. The City may wish to explore this option; however, care should
be taken to insure density and affordability are not affected.
A major concern pertaining to energy conservation is the relationship of housing to employment .
and related affected transportation modes. Although specific energy savings are difficult to
quantify because of the myriad of variables involved in a transportation system, it is generally true
that physical proximity between home and work saves transportation energy. Existing
affordability concerns in Newport Beach increase energy use by forcing workers employed within
the City to seek less expensive housing outside the City. It should be noted the small amount of
land remaining for residential development cannot singularly mitigate this concern. The
jobs/housing imbalance in the City cannot be totally mitigated by increased residential
development within the City.
Newport Beach is not in an area of geothermal or significant wind activity and consequently .
cannot take advantage of these "aftemative" energy sources.
It appears that the City, through enforcement of Title 24 and sensitivity to innovative design, is
maximizing residential energy conservation opportunities.
•
50
Non - Governmental Constraints
. Community Attitudes
The citizenry in Newport Beach is well - organized through neighborhood homeowners
associations and community environmental groups. There exists strong public sentiment in favor
of preserving the suburban environment in the City. Opposition has been voiced against
increased commercial and office uses, expansion of the adjacent John Wayne Airport, and higher
density residential development due to concerns about traffic congestion and limitations on
infrastructure.
Public sentiment is a constraint because of its influence on local officials and because of the
ability of citizens to establish development policies and zoning through the initiative process. In
November 2000, an initiative passed in the City of Newport Beach that requires a general election
be conducted to approve General Plan Amendment applications that include increases of 100 or
more dwelling units or that would generate more than 100 peak hour trips. See Governmental
Constraints for additional discussion of this initiative.
Financing Constraints
Financing costs largely are not subject to local influence. Control of interest rates is determined
by national policies and economic conditions. Interest rates directly influence purchasing power
of home - buyers and cost of home construction through construction loans. Currently, interest
rates are at a level that enables many of the upper and middle economic classes to afford a home
purchase. However, the banking industry has adopted more conservative lending criteria for
• construction loans, especially for multiple - family housing. These factors have influenced housing
supply throughout Southern California.
•
High interest rates substantially reduce home purchasing potential of households. New
homebuyers find the housing product they can afford is substantially less than their expectation.
Difficulty in producing housing affordable to first -time homebuyers thusly is compounded.
While cost of production has increased, purchasing power of some customers has decreased due
to inflation, interest rate fluctuations, and limited choices for housing types. Because
development costs in Newport Beach are higher than in other areas of the State, housing is even
further out of the reach of first -time homebuyers.
With savings and loan institutions and other home loan lenders experiencing higher costs in
attracting funds, it is extremely difficult for the fixed rate, long-term mortgage to be used as the
primary mortgage instrument for housing finance purposes. Consequently, variable rate
mortgages, equity appreciation mortgages, and other techniques are being promoted. This
smorgasbord of "creative financing" helps to maintain a higher level of capital for housing than
might otherwise be available.
51
Land and Construction Costs
Land costs and construction costs are significant components in housing cost. Land costs are a •
function of the private market and are relatively high due to the City's location near major
employment centers and the Pacific Ocean. Due to the built out nature of the City, vacant land
that is available for development of any kind, and for affordable housing projects in particular, is
nearly nonexistent, and cannot be compared to surrounding jurisdictions. Construction costs also
are set by the private market and are influenced by a variety of factors including availability and
price of materials and labor, quality of construction, and amenities offered.
Cost factors (per square foot) used to estimate cost of new housing in 1999 are as follows:
Apartment Hot ises
Wood Frame $57.90 (average quality); $74.40 (good quality)
Sing P Family DwPllinns
Masonry $68.70 (average quality); $88.00 (good quality)
Wood Frame $61.10 (average quality); $83.90 (good quality)
Product design and consumer expectations also influence types and styles of units. New homes
in year 2000 are different from those produced in the 1970s. Interior and exterior design features
(e.g., larger master bedroom suites, microwave ovens, trash compactors, dishwashers, wet bars,
decorative roofing materials, exterior trim, architectural style) make cost comparisons over time
difficult-
Growing market demand for housing in Newport Beach and little remaining vacant land in the City .
has had a strong impact on financial aspects of residential development in the City. The greatest
impact of this market demand on cost of new housing is seen in the price of residential land in the
City.
Density increases often are used to offset high construction and land costs. Density increases
may decrease land costs on a per unit basis, but sales prices of units in Newport Beach indicate
density increases do not necessarily bring the cost of housing to consumers to a level that is
affordable to lower or even moderate - income households.
In addition, high residential densities involving buildings taller than three stories will greatly
increase unit marketability in many areas of the City because of the addition of a view factor.
Regardless of square footage or density, a unit with a blue water or white water view can be
marketed as a luxury condominium and command an extremely high price.
Higher land costs in the City are the main factor in higher square footage costs for housing
provision. High land costs also trigger higher costs in other areas of development. To balance
land prices, developers must increase amenities within the housing unit as well as within the
community area. Thus, a higher land price is the factor that triggers increased development
costs.
•
52
Governmental Constraints
• This section of the Housing Element addresses actual and potential City governmental
constraints on development of housing for all income levels. Such constraints include land use
controls (zoning), building codes and their enforcement, site improvements, fees and . local
processing, and pen-nit procedures. In many of these areas, localities have varying degrees of
discretion to modify State standards for local implementation and/or conditions. Included in this
analysis are constraints created by speck State regulations.
As previously mentioned, there is a relatively limited supply of vacant land remaining for
development in the City of Newport Beach. This limitation on the supply of land and
accompanying existing urban development patterns of the City shape City land use regulations.
Voter Initiatives
In November, 2000, the voters of the City of Newport Beach approved a ballot proposition
(Measure S) called the "Greenlight Initiative." The initiative was designed to provide for voter
approval of any project that significantly increases density or intensity provided for in the Newport
Beach General Plan. The definition of significance is quantified as 100 or more dwelling units,
over 100 peak hour trips, or 40,000 or more square feet of non - residential floor area. Thereby,
Measure S applies exclusively to General Plan amendments. For projects with a General Plan
amendment, Measure S could delay the effective date(s) of discretionary approval(s) until the
approval(s) are submitted to the Newport Beach electorate. The time frame for the potential
delay(s) is controlled by the normal election cycle (every two years) or a developer(s) willingness
to fund a special election(s).
• Measure S may prove to be a constraint to development if a development proposal exceeds
current General Plan levels, which may deter builders who look at increasing density levels as a
way of making housing more affordable. However, the initiative should have no impact on the
City's ability to provide density bonuses of up to 25% for affordable housing projects on sites
already designated for residential development, as the Land Use Element includes 200 units of
°Miscellaneous Residential" that may be used anywhere in Newport Beach and was included
expressly to support the density bonus requirement.
It is important to note, however, that Measure S will note have any impact on the allowed density
established for the vacant, affordable housing sites identified to meet the City's Regional Housing
Needs Allocation. As indicated in the above paragraph, the Voter Initiative is only applicable
when a change to the existing General Plan is proposed.
Zoning
The City Zoning Code is complex but typical for an already highly urbanized community. The
Code uses a "district" concept appropriate to the diverse urban patterns and topography found in
the City. The Zoning Code contains five basic zoning districts (excluding Planned Community
districts and other specialized districts) to regulate residential uses within the City. These zoning
districts are R -A (Residential Agricultural), R -1 (Single Family Residential), R -1.5 (Restricted Two-
Family Residential), R -2 (Two - Family Residential), and MFR (Multi - Family Residential). Table 31
summarizes Zoning Code provisions for residential density, height, set- backs, and parking.
Parking requirements are also set forth by the California Coastal Commission.
53
Zoning Code requirements could be considered constraints to development because they place
demands on the land that limit space that could be utilized for dwelling units. However, zoning
standards are designed to protect the quality of life and provide, at a minimum, some access to •
sunlight and fresh air. Access to air and sun are guaranteed through building setbacks, open
space requirements, maximum building heights and floor area ratios.
The Newport Beach Zoning Code controls density for each zoning district thru development
regulations pertaining to land required per dwelling unit. In the older neighborhoods of the City,
density standards have not changed since 1936. Density in the amount of approximately thirty
dwelling units per acre are still allowed in these areas. In the newer neighborhoods, developed
since the 1960's, single - family densities are generally less than 10 dwelling units per acres.
The City's Codes contain many procedures to grant relief from certain development standards
which can be of assistance in allowing higher densities. However, even if the City is willing to
approve reductions in some of the zoning regulations, (such as parking), the California Coastal
Commission has similar development requirements which would still need to be complied with for
properties in the Coastal Zone.
Maximum density in the multifamily zone (MFR) is a function of the size of the lot. For example, a
minimum lot area per dwelling unit of 1,200 square feet applies, which translates to a maximum
density of 36 units per net acre.
The following hypothetical example shows how the various zoning requirements interact on an
MFR zoned lot. This example is intended for informational purposes, not as a typical probable
outcome.
Assume a flat site of one -acre (43,560 square feet) square. The 1,200 square feet per dwelling •
unit requirement would allow the construction of 36 units. These 36 units would have to placed in
a building, not exceeding yard setback requirements. Required setbacks leave a buildable area
of about 33,230 square feet. A minimum of 90 off- street parking spaces is required. If parking is
provided at grade, about 15, 320 square feet of area would remain for the 36 units.
•
54
to residential development, such as mandatory density bonuses for provision of affordable
housing, and the ability to add . "granny units" in single family residential areas, subject to
approval of the City.
Residential zones may also carry a special designation or overlay. Development requirements
and special considerations may differ from area to area.
The Subdivision Process
Basic provisions of the City of Newport Beach Subdivision Code are similar to those of most
jurisdic(ions of similar size to Newport Beach. The Subdivision Code contains design standards
that provide minimum criteria for development. In some cases, the Code allows flexibility in
application of its provisions and thereby potentially could reduce development costs. Examples of
such cases are allowances for the development of non - conforming lots and park fee waivers.
The Subdivision Code also addresses improvements (e.g., street trees, placing utilities
underground, street lighting) that add to development costs. Additionally, the Newport Beach
Subdivision Code requires dedication of parkland and/or payment of in -lieu fees concurrently to
recordation of a final subdivision map. This requirement is made in compliance with State law,
but also adds to costs of development.
Local Coastal Program
The City of Newport Beach has a (California Coastal Commission) certified Land Use Plan for
its coastal zone but does not have a certified Local Coastal Program. Therefore, developers
and /or property owners must apply for coastal development permits to the California Coastal
Commission for improvements, demolition or construction of any structure located within the
Newport Beach Coastal Zone boundary, except those that are exempted from Coastal •
Development Permit requirements.
The Land Use Plan requirement of the Local Coastal Program might be a constraint to
providing affordable housing. The Land Use Plan consists of Citywide policies and land use
designations, detailed area descriptions for each area of the Coastal Zone, and land use maps.
for the entire Coastal Zone. The Land Use Plan policies demonstrate consistency with the
California Coastal Act in the following Areas: shoreline access; recreation and visitor - serving
facilities; water and marine resources; diking,. dredging, filling, and shoreline structures;
commercial fishing and recreational boating; environmentally sensitive habitat areas; hazard
areas; locating and planning new development; coastal visual resources and special
communities; and, public works. In particular, the Land Use Plan contains restrictions
applicable to twelve sensitive habitat areas that limit potential residential development areas
and that control and regulate locations on new buildings and structures to ensure (to the extent
practical) preservation of unique natural resources and to minimize alteration of natural land
forms along bluffs and cliffs. Furthermore, the Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan
indicates that areas within the Coastal Zone designated for residential use are to be used
primarily for residences, but indicates certain incidental uses that (with proper location and
design) are appropriate within coastal areas with a residential designation. These uses are to
be governed by requirements of the Newport Beach Municipal Code and include senior citizen
housing facilities (whose occupancy is limited to elderly persons, as defined by State or
Federal law).
The City of Newport Beach has a defined procedure for applying for coastal development
permits. Those applications may be obtained from, and filed with, the California Coastal •
PE
Commission. The initial step in the coastal development permit application process of
Newport Beach is that development proposals be reviewed and conceptually approved by the
• City prior to submittal to the California Coastal Commission.
By its adoption by the City and certification by the California Coastal Commission, the Land
Use Plan of the Newport Beach Local Coastal Program establishes land use designations for
the following undeveloped residential parcels within the Newport Beach Coastal Zone
applicable to this Housing Element; Banning Ranch and Bayview Landing.
In 1981, the California Legislature enacted SB 626 (Mello), which added Government Code
Section §65590 and eliminated certain provisions of the California Coastal Act that required
local coastal programs to include housing policies and programs; Section §65590 mandates
coastal communities require inclusion of low- and moderate - income housing as part of new
residential developments and replacement of low- and moderate - income housing eliminated
as a result of demolition of existing housing within coastal zones of those communities. On
August 19, 1982, the Newport Beach City Council adopted Council Policy P -1, establishing
administrative guidelines and implementation procedures to administer Section §65590 within
the coastal zone areas of the City. This Policy now is in the Zoning Code in Chapter 20.86
which establishes the requirement of a Coastal Residential Development Permit for certain
activities involving dwelling units within the Coastal Zone. This permit ensures compliance
with State law by maximizing low and moderate - income housing opportunities within the
Newport Beach Coastal Zone.
A Coastal Residential Development Permit is required in Newport Beach to demolish or
convert eleven or more dwelling units in two or more structures, to demolish or convert three
or more dwelling units in one structure, or to construct ten or more dwelling units. A Coastal
• Residential Development Permit is not required for demolition or conversion of a residential
structure to establish a nonresidential use that is "coastal related" or "coastal dependent" and
that is consistent with provisions of the City of Newport Beach Local Coastal Program Land
Use Plan. In addition, a Coastal Residential Development Permit is not required to demolish a
residential structure declared a public nuisance or to reconstruct a nonconforming building
damaged by fire, earthquake, or other calamity when a use permit is not required.
E
The Newport Beach Municipal Code indicates replacement affordable units in the Coastal
Zone shall be provided on a one - for -one basis when demolition or conversion activities involve
low and moderate - income dwelling units. Also, a feasibility study is required for new dwelling
unit construction of ten or more units when low and moderate - income dwelling units are not
proposed at affordability standards contained in this Housing Element. The test of feasibility
shall be initially conducted at the Housing Element standard and subsequently at progressively
higher standards contained in California State Health and Safety Code Section 50093.
Furthermore, the City of Newport Beach and the owner of the low and moderate- income
dwelling units provided are required to enter into an affordable housing agreement (to be
recorded against the property) governing the dwelling units.
Senior citizen housing facilities may require higher dwelling unit limits than normally allowed in
the Municipal Code. Such higher dwelling unit limits are allowed and are consistent with the
Local Coastal Program when a finding can be made that the use is a particular benefit to the
City and that traffic generated by the project is not greater than the predominant use allowed in
the area. Senior citizen housing facilities must conform to floor area limits of applicable
residential zone(s).
57
In an effort to mitigate the potential constraint to developers of securing approval from the City
and the Coastal Commission, the City is working diligently to gain LCP certification by June
2003. Once certified, the City will be the issuing agency for Coastal Development Permits and .
a developer would not be required to obtain separate Coastal Commission approval.
Building Codes and Enforcement
Building codes regulate new construction and rehabilitation, and are designed to ensure
adequate protection against fire, structural collapse, unsanitary conditions and other safety
hazards. Newport Beach has adopted and enforces the Uniform Building Code (UBC), and
has adopted local amendments to State codes. The City Council of the City of Newport Beach
adopted by ordinance the 1998 edition of the "California Building Code," and also adopted and
incorporated by reference the 1998 edition of the "California Building Code" volumes 1, 2, and
3, including all national codes and standards based on the 1997 Uniform Building Code, as
published by the International Conference of Building Officials. These Codes establish
minimum construction standards for all residential buildings. Cities can adopt stricter
standards but cannot reduce standards. Thus, the City of Newport Beach is precluded from
revising its Building Codes as a means of reducing construction costs. However, building
costs do not appear to be unduly increased through local building codes. State energy
conservation regulations, which are cost effective in the long term, may add to construction
costs. There does not appear to be a need to expand present code enforcement activities as
indicated by few significant housing quality problems.
Permit Processing and Impact Fees
The role fees play in constraining production of housing is difficult to measure, although fees
can affect housing prices in certain markets. The theory behind fees is that new development •
should bear its own costs and these costs should be spread equitably. State law requires fees
bear a reasonable relationship to actual costs incurred by a city. However, fees may add
significantly to the cost of a housing unit. To offset the cost of constructing housing units, the
Newport Beach City Council adopted a program that allows for the waiver of all application and
park fees when affordable housing units are proposed. In addition the Municipal Code allows
for the waiver of fair share trip fees.
The City's permitting procedures are considered efficient with typical zone change requests
reaching completion in as few as 60 days if no environmental impact report is required. An
environmental impact report may require up to one year before a decision is rendered, which
is within the time frame established by State law. Conditional Use Permits and subdivision
maps typically can be approved in six to eight weeks, provided an environmental impact report
is not required. Planning Commission decisions on maps, and conditional use permits are
final unless appealed within 14 days of the date of decision to the City Council, or unless a
member of the City Council within 14 days of the date of decision requests to review the
Planning Commission decision. Zone Changes require City Council action.
It should be noted that the City does not impose a design review process and/or compliance
with any architectural design guidelines. The lack of this procedure further lends to an
expeditious approval process.
City of Newport Beach fees for discretionary applications are compared to discretionary
application fees of various nearby cities in Table 33.
•
58
The CEQA process can be lengthy, and project delays can increase costs to developers.
Likewise, costs to prepare environmental documentation necessary to satisfy CEQA can be quite
high, and traditionally is bome by the project applicant.
The CEQA process particularly affects Newport Beach due to rich natural resources in the area.
Concern for protection of natural resources within Newport Beach has in the past required, and
will continue to require, modifications to intensity of residential development and design of
projects. The City environmental review process is responsive, well coordinated, and meets
CEQA requirements. Review of this environmental reporting process for purposes of preparation
of this Element illustrates it is not excessive or overly restrictive according to State law.
Summary
In response to the forgoing constraints, both governmental and non - governmental, the City of
Newport Beach is setting as its first goal "to maintain quality residential development through the
application of sound planning principles and policies..." This goal realizes the level of constraints
and opportunities presented and will make every effort to use this regulations and policies to
create quality projects that both meet the requirements of the law and that meet the needs of the
City's population and various groups in need.
•
•
MM
• II. Housing Plan: Goals, Policies,
Quantified Objectives, and Programs
Analyses contained in previous sections of this Housing Element provides the basis for the
Newport Beach Housing Plan, which is comprised of housing goals, policies, and programs.
The plan places emphasis on providing appropriate opportunity for satisfaction of the Regional
Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) requirement of 476 units. Additionally, the plan places
emphasis on providing housing opportunities for special needs populations in local (jurisdictional)
and regional contexts.
The special needs populations most evident within Newport Beach and most easily quantifiable
by United States Census of Population and Housing are the elderly, the challenged
(handicapped), and female- headed households. Many of those Policies and Programs in this
Housing Plan focus on providing housing opportunities for the dominant Special Needs
population — senior citizens (those 65 years of age and older). Senior citizens comprise
approximately 72% of the total special needs population and have, as a group, many who are
disabled as well as live at or below the poverty level. Special needs populations less evident and
less easily quantifiable by the Census are the homeless and people living with HIV /AIDS. The
City of Newport Beach recognizes the homeless, in particular, exist in every community but may
be transient and therefore may more accurately be classified as a regional special needs
population rather than as a "City" special needs population. This is done in acknowledgement
that many categories of special needs populations are regional in nature rather than confined to
. jurisdictional boundaries, and that the City of Newport Beach has approximately 48 acres of
primary sites suitable for residential development.
•
Goals and policies contained in this Housing Plan address the City of Newport Beach's
anticipated housing needs during the tenure of this Housing Element (2000 – 2005) and are
implemented by a series of Housing Policies and Programs. These Policies and Programs
prescribe specific actions the City of Newport Beach will take during the tenure of this Housing
Element. The Housing Plan set forth in this Housing Element contains an annotated description
of future actions for each Housing Program policy, the Program funding source, responsible
agency, and time frame for implementation.
61
1992 Housing Element Review
California State law requires the City Housing Element be reviewed as frequently as appropriate •
and that it be revised appropriately, but not less than every five (5) years, to reflect results of the
review. The last revision of the Newport Beach Housing Element occurred in 1992. All the
following must be evaluated during a review of the Housing Element:
• Appropriateness of housing goals, policies and programs in contributing to attainment of
the State housing goal.
• Effectiveness of the Housing Element in attainment of the community housing goals.
• Progress of the City in implementation of the Housing Element.
When a City has land within the California Coastal Zone, review of its Housing Element must
consider housing pursuant to coastal requirements. This evaluation must include the following.
• Number of new housing units approved for construction within the Coastal Zone after
January 1, 1992.
• Number of housing units required to be provided in new housing developments within
the Coastal Zone or within three (3) miles of the Coastal Zone for persons and families
of low- or moderate - income, as they are defined in Section §50093 of the Health and
Safety Code.
• Number of existing residential dwelling units in the Coastal Zone that have been
authorized to be demolished or converted since January 1, 1992 that were occupied by •
persons or families of low or moderate income, as defined in Section §50093 of the
Health and Safety Code.
• Number of residential dwelling units required for replacement of units authorized to be
demolished or converted that were occupied by persons or families of low or moderate
income, as defined in Section §50093 of the Health and Safety Code. Location of
replacement units on site, elsewhere within the locality's jurisdiction within the Coastal
Zone, or within three (3) miles of the Coastal Zone within the locality's jurisdiction, must
also be designated in the review.
•
62
Housing Element General Review .
• In the course of administering the Newport Beach Housing Element and preparing the 2000
Housing Element review and revision, the City of Newport Beach determined that the previously
adopted goals and policies continue to contribute to the attainment of California State housing
goals as well as the housing goals of Newport Beach. As a result, most of those goals and
policies have been retained to facilitate attainment of the 2000 -2005 City housing goals.
Specific Housing Programs that have not been effective have been revised or deleted. New
Housing Programs have been added.
According to the Regional Housing Needs Assessment for 1989 — 1994 produced by the
Southern California Association of Governments, the projected regional need for additional
housing units in the City of Newport Beach was 2,062 total new units. The distribution of these
new units according to income was as follows: Very Low - Income (299 units); Lower - Income
(408 units); Moderate - Income (359 units); and, High- Income (996 units). According to City of
Newport Beach Building Department records, 216 net units were produced in the City of
Newport Beach during the period between January 1, 1989 and January 1, 1994, and 1,050 net
units were produced in Newport Beach during the period between January 1, 1994 and January
1, 2000.
The City of Newport Beach's adopted quantified objectives (which included an adjustment to
RHNA) for the period between January 1, 1989 and January 1, 1994 were to provide 2,371 total
new units during that time period, distributed as follows: Very Low - Income (272 units); Lower -
Income (284 units); Moderate- Income (647 units); and, High- Income (1,168 units).
Development of new residential units in projects considered to be major projects by the City of
• Newport Beach between January 1, 1989 and January 1, 1994 totaled 240 units. The projected
new construction was not achieved because the City over projected development on some sites
and the owner of large parcels (The Irvine Company) did not construct new units in the
prescribed affordable range. The City currently is working with the Irvine Company and a non-
profit organization to develop a senior affordable project of up to 150 units at Bayview Landing.
The applicant is in the process of preparing a site plan and a development application.
New units constructed in small projects, including second units and "granny" units, and
rehabilitated units were estimated to be approximately 421 for the period January 1, 1989 —
January 1, 1994. The total number of units identified for rehabilitation was 3,016. Incomes of
occupants of these units cannot be determined by the City.
•
The City of Newport Beach uses building permits as its sole source for quantitative records of
housing rehabilitation. However, it is impossible to ascertain which of the 2,521 building permits
issued for remodeling between January 1, 1989 and January 1, 1994 were for rehabilitating
substandard units. The City does not have a substantial incidence of substandard dwelling
units. According to the 1990 Census of Population and Housing, there were:
231 dwelling units lacking complete kitchen facilities
111 dwelling units with no source of heating fuel
91 dwelling units lacking complete plumbing facilities
These units qualify as substandard dwelling units in the City of Newport Beach, although the
City does not keep statistics on such types of units. The City defines "substandard" in terms of
63
code enforcement issues, such as garage conversions. Most rehabilitation in the City was
accomplished without involvement of the City because of the high land and unit values in
Newport Beach. The City was not involved in any property condemnation cases between •
January 1, 1989 and January 1, 1994.
The City of Newport Beach indicated in its 1992 Housing Element that 9,172 total units would be
conserved between 1989 and 1994 by applying the City Mobile Home Park Zone Ordinance,
applying the Condominium Conversion Regulations, and by applying Title 20 of the Municipal
Code regarding replacement housing. Title 20 permitted demolition of 241 dwelling units
between January 1, 1989 and January 1, 1994. It is not possible to determine incomes of
occupants of those units demolished.
The vacancy rate provision of the City Condominium Conversion Regulations prohibited
applications for conversion of rental units to condominiums, and there were no conversions
during 2001. Between the years of 1995 and 2000, a total of 167 apartment units were
converted to condominiums. In addition, a 140 -unit apartment project located on Sea Lane was
demolished in 2000 and is being replaced by 92 condominiums.
Subsequent to the tenure of the Housing Element of 1989 -1994, the City of Newport Beach took
the following actions to implement its Program objectives: Details regarding the expenditures of
these programs are provided in Appendix A.
The City of Newport Beach received and spent $1,457,240 of Community Development Block
Grant funds between 1996 and 1999. The details on expenditures/programs for the funds are
explained in Appendix A.
• The City of Newport Beach, between 1989 to 1994 and 1996 to 1999, participated in
County of Orange programs that provided housing and social services for special needs
populations.
• The City of Newport Beach, during 1996- 2002 was involved in continuing negotiations
with the Irvine Company and other residential developers for a senior residential project.
• The City of Newport Beach collected $2,560,000 in -lieu fees for affordable housing from
developers of market -rate residential projects.
• The City established an Affordable Housing Task Force to work with the Irvine Company
and other parties to develop affordable housing projects.
The task force was instrumental in the Irvine Company's agreement to provide for
development of the Lower Bayview Landing site with up to 150 units for very low- and low -
income senior citizens.
The City Council issued Request for Proposals for projects on which to use the City's
affordable housing in -lieu fund. The three proposals received were either premature or
infeasible, and the City Council declined them. The Task Force continues to look for
potential housing sites and to work with potential developers of affordable housing, for
families as well as senior citizens.
•
64
Housing Element Coastal Zone Review
• The City of Newport . Beach uses Section 20.86 of the Municipal Code to implement Government
Code Section 65590 et. seq. Between January 1, 1989 and January 1, 1994, 190 new
residential units were approved for construction within the California Coastal Zone. Of these
190 new units, 24 were required to be developed and maintained as housing affordable to low -
income and moderate - income individuals and /or families pursuant to Section §65590.. During
the same time period, the City permitted landowners to demolish 189 residential units within the
Coastal Zone. Of the 189 units demolished, none were occupied by low- income and /or
moderate - income persons and/or families. Newport Beach approved construction of 190
residential units in new housing developments in the California. Coastal. Zone, which represents
a total net increase of 1 residential unit and a total net increase of 24 residential units affordable
to low- income and moderate - income individuals and/or families.
•
•
65
Year 2000 — 2005 Housing Plan
Quantified Objectives •
The Year 2000 Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) determined the City of Newport
Beach had a construction need for 476 residential units between January 1998 and January
2005. The total need for each target income group is as follows: Very Low- Income (86 units);
Low - Income (53 units); Moderate- Income (83 units); and, Above Moderate - Income (254 units).
The Year 2000 Housing Plan for Newport Beach has identified Goals, Policies, and Programs
that fulfill this construction need. The three potential sites identified in this Housing Element
(Newport Banning Ranch, Bayview Landing, and Avocado /MacArthur) could feasibly
accommodate as many as 727 residential units using the City's 25% density bonus allowance
for affordable projects.
The Newport Banning Ranch site has sufficient capacity (space and existing zoning) to allow for
the construction of at least 406 residential units (without applying a 25% density bonus).
Furthermore, the Bayview Landing site has sufficient capacity (space and existing zoning) to
allow for construction of up to 150 residential units. The Avocado/MacArthur site would require
a change of zone (to add a multiple- family residential use) to allow proposed construction of 56
residential units (without density bonus) targeted for senior citizens.
The Newport Coast annexation area has a RHNA allocation of 945 units. Of these 945 units, 95
units are to be for low- income residents and 850 are to be for above - moderate income
residents. Achievement of the allocation will be through implementation of the Affordable
Housing Implementation Program (AHIP) established between the County of Orange and The
Irvine Company, The City will coordinate and oversee enforcement of the AHIP.
Following is a matrix indicating the maximum number of housing units that should be •
constructed, rehabilitated, and conserved during the tenure of the Year 2000 Newport Beach
Housing Element.
' See discussion on page 63 regarding rehabilitation
•
M
Newport Beach Housing Element: Goals, Policies, and Programs
• Goals for Housing Element success include the following: promoting quality residential
development through application of sound planning principles and policies that encourage
preservation, conservation, and appropriate redevelopment of housing stock; providing a
balanced residential community that contains a variety of housing types, designs and
opportunities for all economic segments of the community; extending ownership opportunities to
as many households as possible, particularly those of moderate and upper incomes because
these comprise the greatest demand; preserving and increasing housing affordability, through
rental housing, for very low- and low- income households; and, providing housing for special
needs groups. The policies and programs described below focus on providing appropriate and
affordable housing opportunities and related services to the special needs populations most in
need of such in Newport Beach, that is, in particular to senior citizens. Additionally; the policies
and programs (particularly under Goals 3, 4 and 5) will ensure that the City will meet its RHNA
of 476 total new units for Newport Beach and 945 total new units in Newport Coast.
For purposes of defining income groups, the Housing Element uses the income table prepared by
the State of California in accordance with Health and Safety Code Section §50093 ( §50093 Table).
The §50093 Table uses the following income groups.
Very Low- income: 0 -500k of the HUD Median family income adjusted for family size as shown in
the §50093 Table.
Lower - income: 50 %-80% of the HUD Median family income adjusted for family size as shown in
the §50093 Table. In areas of higher income, such as Orange County, the lower income family of
four does not exceed the higher of the national median family income or the State non - metropolitan
• median family income.
Low - income is the combination of the very low- and lower- income groups.
•
Median- income: 80 0&100% of the HUD Median family income adjusted for family size as
shown in the §50093 Table.
Moderate - income: 100 % - 1200/o of the HUD Median family income adjusted for family size as
shown in the §50093 Table.
Upper- income: 120% + of the HUD Median family income as shown in the §50093 Table.
The following affordability standards shall apply to rental and ownership housing:
Maximum household income shall be determined by number of persons in a family or household
and income shall be in conformance with the §50093 Table as follows
An efficiency unit as if occupied by one person; a one bedroom as if occupied by two persons; a
two bedroom as if occupied by four persons; a three bedroom as if occupied by six persons; and a
four bedroom as if occupied by eight.
Rents for very low -, low- median- and moderate- income households shall be no more than 30% of
the income in the §50093 Table. The selling price of an ownership unit shall be no more than 3
times the buyer's income. Units may be sold to buyers with qualifying incomes for the limited sales
67
price without regard to the number of persons in the family. Specific Goals, Policies, and
Programs of the Year 2000 Newport Beach Housing Plan follow.
GOAL 1: MAINTAIN QUALITY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT THROUGH .
APPLICATION OF SOUND PLANNING PRINCIPLES AND POLICIES THAT
ENCOURAGE PRESERVATION, CONSERVATION, AND APPROPRIATE
REDEVELOPMENT OF THE NEWPORT BEACH HOUSING STOCK.
Policy 1.1 Support all reasonable efforts to preserve, maintain, and improve
availability and quality of existing housing and residential neighborhoods,
and ensure full utilization of existing City housing resources for as long
into the future as physically and economically feasible.
Housing Program 1.1.1 -- Improve housing quality and prevent deterioration of existing
neighborhoods by strictly enforcing Building Code regulations and abating Code
violations and nuisances. Enforcement activities will focus. on property
maintenance, eliminating derelict or abandoned vehicles, outdoor storage, or
other situations that may constitute health, safety or fire hazards.
Responsibility for realization of this program is that of the Planning Department,
Building Department and the City Attorney.
Housing Program 1.1.2— Reduce the potential for criminal activity by providing guidelines for
maintaining the security of existing development with emphasis on site design
(such as security lighting, vegetation removal, electronic garage door openers,
window security, and other crime prevention techniques). •
Responsibility for realization of this program is that of the Planning Department
and Police Department
Housing Program 1.1.3 – Promote the maintenance and upkeep of rental housing by
encouraging the California State Franchise Tax Board to enforce the California
Revenue and Taxation Code Sections §17299 and §24436.5, preventing owners
of rental housing from claiming depreciation, amortization, mortgage interest, and
property tax deductions on State Income Tax reports.
Responsibility for realization of this program is that of the City Attorney.
Housing Program 1.1.4 -- Continue to participate with the Orange County Housing Authority
and Housing and Community Development Division in their administration of
rehabilitation loans and grants for low- and moderate - income homeowners and
rental property owners to encourage preservation of existing City housing stock.
Responsibility for realization of this program is that of the Planning Department.
•
M
Housing Program 1.1.5 -- Continue to require replacement of housing demolished within the
Coastal Zone when housing is (or has been occupied by .low- and moderate
• income households within the preceding 12 months). The City shall prohibit
demolition unless a Coastal Residential Development Permit has been issued.
The specific provisions implementing replacement unit requirements are
contained in Municipal Code Section 20.
Responsibility for realization of this program is that of the Planning Department.
Housing Program 1.1.6 -- Participate in a cooperative program with the Orange County
Housing and Community Development Program Office for administration of the
Housing and Urban Development Rental Rehabilitation Program. Energy
efficient products shall be required when appropriate.
Responsibility for realization of this program is that of the Planning Department
and Building Department.
Housing Program 1.1.7 -- Should need arise, consider using a portion of its Community
Development Block Grant funds for establishment and implementation of an
emergency home repair program. Energy efficient products shall be required
whenever appropriate.
Responsibility for realization of this program is that of the Planning Department.
Policy 1.2 Monitor development proposals for opportunities to maintain, increase, or
enhance affordable housing opportunities.
• Housing Program 1.2.1 - -As part of its annual General Plan Review, the City shall provide
information on the status of all housing programs. The portion of the Annual
Report discussing Housing Programs is to be distributed to the California
Department of Housing and Community Development in accordance with
California State law in January of each year by US Postal Service.
E
Responsibility for realization of this program is that of the Planning Department.
Housing Program 1.2.2 -- Investigate availability of Federal, State, and local programs
(including in -lieu funds) and pursue these programs it found feasible, for the
preservation of existing low- income housing, especially for preservation of low -
income housing that may increase to market rates during the next ten (10) years.
A list of these programs, including sources and funding amounts, will be
identified as part of this program and maintained on an on -going basis.
Responsibility for realization of this program is that of the Planning Department.
Housing Program 1.2.3 - -As part of the annual General Plan review, monitor existing programs
designed to preserve assisted housing developments for very low- and low -
income households to determine whether additional actions are available and
should be required to protect these developments.
Responsibility for realization of this program is that of the Planning Department
Im.
Policy 1.3 Support the intent and spirit of equal housing opportunities as expressed
in 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 -- Continue to contract with the Orange County Fair Housing Council for
administration of the Fair Housing Program including updating the analysis of
impediments to fair housing. In addition, continue to contract with the Orange
County Housing Authority to refer fair housing complaints. Pamphlets containing
information related to fair housing complaints will continue to be provided to the
public at the Planning Department.
Responsibility for realization of this program is that of the Planning Department
and City Attorney.
Housing Program 1.3.2 -- Support fair housing opportunities by using Community Development
Block Grant funds whenever 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 Review the Housing Element on a regular basis to determine
appropriateness of goals, policies, programs, and progress of Housing
Element implementation.
Housing Program 1.4.1 -- Monitor progress on each of the programs in the Housing Plan and
periodically report findings to the Planning Commission and City Council.
Propose recommendations for amendments if necessary. •
Responsibility for realization of this program is.that of the Planning Department.
Housing Program 1.4.2 -- 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 K the proposed
action or regulation is consistent with the Housing Element, all other elements of
the General Plan, and with all adopted City Council Policies. If the proposal is
inconsistent, the policy, plan or Element shall be amended in conjunction with
approval of the proposed regulation or action to ensure consistency. 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 1.5 Maintain and preserve existing City housing stock and improve energy
efficiency of all housing unit types (including mobilehomes)
Housing Program 1.5.1 -- Investigate the use of Federal funds to provide technical and financial
assistance, if necessary, to all eligible homeowners and residential rental
property owners to rehabilitate existing dwelling units through low- interest loans
or potential loans, or grants to very low, low- and moderate - income, owner -
occupants of residential properties to rehabilitate existing units.
•
70
Responsibility for realization of this program is that of the Planning Department.
• Housing Program 1.5.2 -- Periodically inform mobile home owners of financial assistance
available from the State of California Department of Housing and Community
Development for eligible owner - occupants to rehabilitate existing dwelling units
through deferred payment low- interest loans.
Responsibility for realization of this program is that of the Planning Department.
Housing Program 1.5.3 — Per Government Code Section §65863.7, a Mobile Home Park
Conversion Permit shall be required as a prerequisite for conversion of an
existing mobile home park. In addition, the owner of the mobile home park shall
provide a detailed relocation impact report. The report shall be filed concurrently
with filing for any discretionary permit on such property.
Responsibility for realization of this program is that of the Planning Department
and the State of California. (The State will determine acceptability of the permit
for conversion).
GOAL 2 PROVIDE A BALANCED RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY, COMPRISED OF A
VARIETY OF HOUSING TYPES, DESIGNS, AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR ALL
SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC SEGMENTS, INCLUDING VERY LOW -, LOW -,
MODERATE -, AND UPPER - INCOME INDIVIDUALS AND HOUSEHOLDS.
Policy 2.1 Encourage preservation of existing, and provision of new housing
• affordable to very low- and low-income households.
Housing Program 2.1.1 -- 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 2.1.2— Take all feasible actions, through use of development agreements,
expedited development review, and expedited processing of grading, building and
other development permits, to ensure expedient construction and occupancy for
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 2.1.3 - -The City Council and Planning Commission shall have discretion to
review and waive planning and park fees, and modify development standards (e.g.
parking, setbacks, lot coverage, etc.) for developments containing low- and
moderate - income housing in proportion to the number of low- and moderate - income
units in each entire project.
• Responsibility for realization of this program is that of the City Council.
71
Housing Program 2.1.4— Continue to encourage the California State Department of Real
Estate and California State Department of Housing and Community Development
to permit installation of mobile homes, factory-built housing, or other construction
technology, provided such products comply with development standards of the
community and are compatible with planning, aesthetic, and other applicable
considerations of the specific neighborhood in which such product is proposed.
Responsibility for realization of this program is that of the Planning Department
and the Building Department.
Housing Program 2.1.5- Continue to participate with the County of Orange in the issuance of
tax - exempt mortgage revenue bonds to facilitate and assist in financing,
development and construction of housing affordable to low and moderate - income
households. City staff shall encourage developers of remaining residential sites to
use tax - exempt mortgage revenue bonds to facilitate construction of low- and
moderate - income housing.
Responsibility for realization of this program is that of the Planning Department.
Housing Program 2.1.6 — Develop and implement an annual compliance- monitoring program for
units required to be occupied by very low -, low -, and moderate - income households
as approved with the development of Newport Coast and in accordance with the
Newport Coast Affordable Housing Implementation Program (AHIP).
Responsibility for realization of this program is that of the Planning Department.
Policy 2.2 Encourage the housing development industry to respond to housing needs .
of the community and to the demand for housing as perceived by the
industry, with the intent of achieving the Regional Housing Needs
Assessment construction goals within five (5) years.
Housing Program 2.2.1— Continue to require a proportion of affordable housing in new residential
developments or levy an in -lieu fee. 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 either; a) require the production of
the housing units affordable to very.low- and low- income households, or, b) require
the payment of an in -lieu fee, depending on the following criteria for project size:
1. Projects where ten or fewer housing units are proposed shall be required to pay
the in -lieu fee (s).
2. Projects where the proposal is for more than ten housing units, but fewer than
fifty, shall have the option of providing the units or paying the in -lieu fee (s).
3: Projects where more than fifty units are proposed shall be required to provide the
units.
1
72
All required very low- and low- income units shall be provided on -site unless at an
• off -site location approved by the City. Implementation of this program will occur in
conjunction with City approval of any residential discretionary permits or Tentative
Tract Maps. To insure compliance with the 200/6 affordability requirements, the City
will include conditions in the approval of discretionary permits and Tentative Tract
Maps to require ongoing monitoring of those projects.
Responsibility for realization of this program is that of the Planning Department,
Planning Commission and City Council.
Housing Program 2.2.2 —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 2.2.3 - -For new developments proposed in the Coastal Zone areas of the City
(comprising approximately 40% of the area of Newport Beach), the City shall
require provision of housing affordable to persons or families of low- and moderate -
income, where feasible in projects of 10 or more units. Whenever practicable, the
City shall require they be located on -site; alternatively, the City may permit the
developer to locate units off -site but within the Coastal Zone, or within three (3)
miles of the Coastal Zone (within Newport Beach). All residential developments of
three units or more within the Coastal Zone shall require a Coastal Residential
• Development Permit. Determinations of feasibility, and procedures relating to
provision of low- and moderate - income housing within the Coastal Zone, shall be
governed by Newport Beach Municipal Code Title 20.
•
Responsibility for realization of this program shall be that of the Planning
Department and the City Council.
Housing Program 2.2.4 All required 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.
Housing Program 2.2.5— Attempt to ensure that existing landowners and prospective
developers are aware of affordable housing development opportunities available
within the Newport Banning Ranch, Bayview, and Avocado /MacArthur properties.
Responsibility for realization of this program is that of the Planning Department.
Housing Program 2.2.6 - -The Affordable Housing Task Force and/or City staff shall periodically
contact known local developers and landowners to solicit new affordable housing
construction.
Responsibility for realization of this program is that of the Planning Department.
73
Housing Program 2.2.7 - -The Affordable Housing Task Force shall create a program for the
expenditure of in -lieu housing funds.
Responsibility of this program shall be the Affordable Housing Task Force and the •
Planning Department.
Housing Program 2.2.8 --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 2.3 Approve, wherever feasible and appropriate, mixed residential and
commerciallindustrial use developments that improve the balance between
housing and jobs.
Housing Program 2.3.1— Newport Beach Staff and developers of proposed major
commercial/industrial projects shall study 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. •
Housing Program 2.3.2 — As part of the comprehensive General Plan Update, investigate the
potential of housing (including single room occupancy hotel(s)) and mixed use
development in areas such as Newport Center, Santa Ana Heights, Bay Knolls
and John Wayne Airport.
GOAL 3 EXTEND HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES TO AS MANY RENTER AND OWNER
OCCUPIED HOUSEHOLDS AS POSSIBLE IN RESPONSE TO THE DEMAND
FOR HOUSING IN THE CITY.
Policy 3.1 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.
Housing Program 3.1.1 -- Increase the efficiency of the building permit process by insuring that
the initial plan review be completed within 4 weeks for 90 °k of all submittals. This
will include an automated tracking system allowing applicants to monitor plan
check progress via the Internet. Implementation of this program began in
September 2002 and operates on an on -going basis.
Responsibility for realization of this program is that of the Planning and Building
Department
•
74
Housing Program 3.1.2 —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.
Responsibility for realization of this program is that of the Planning Department.
Policy 3.2 Enable construction of new housing units sufficient to meet City quantified
goals by identifying adequate sites for their construction.
Housing Program 3.2.1 -- Identify the following sites as adequate, which will be made available
through appropriate zoning and development standards and with public services
and facilities needed to facilitate and encourage development of a variety of
housing types to meet City housing goals as identified pursuant to Government
Code Section §65583(b): Newport Banning Ranch; Bayview Landing; and,
Avocado /MacArthur.
Responsibility for achieving this program is that of the Planning Department and
City Council.
Housing Program 3.2.2 -- Require the developer(s) of the 4.5 -acre site located on the
southwesterly comer of the intersection of Jamboree Road and Back Bay Drive
(known as the Bayview Landing site) to provide approximately one hundred
twenty (120) residential units for low- income senior households. The City shall
assist the developer(s) by streamlining the discretionary application process and
by granting a density bonus of twenty -five percent (25 %) for the project.
Additionally, the City may consider using a portion of fees collected from other
• projects paid in -lieu of providing affordable residential units to facilitate meeting
the City Affordable Regional Housing Needs Assessment construction
requirements on said Bayview Landing site.
Responsibility for implementation of this program is that of the Planning
Department and City Council.
Housing Program 3.2.3 -- Encourage the developer(s) of a 3.5 -acre site located northerly of
San Miguel, easterly of Avocado Avenue, and westerly of MacArthur Boulevard
(known as the Avocado /MacArthur site) to provide at least fifty -six (56) multiple -
family residential units for Senior Citizen Households. The City shall assist the
developer(s) by initiating a Change of Zone within one (1) year of certification of
this Housing Element to allow such senior residential units on said site, by
considering a "density bonus" and /or other incentives, and by streamlining the
discretionary process. Additionally, the City may consider using a portion of fees
collected from other projects paid in lieu of providing affordable residential units
to facilitate meeting the City's Very Low -, Low -, and Moderate- Income Regional
Housing Needs Assessment construction requirements on said
Avocado/MacArthur site.
Responsibility for implementation of this program is that of the Planning
Department and City Council.
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-
75
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.
Housing Program 3.2.5 – The City shall consider a potential reduction of commercial zoning
within some of its village commercial areas within the Coastal Zone to allow for
additional residential development. Economic feasibility studies to support such
a reduction will be evaluated concurrently with the City's General Plan Update
projected for completion in 2005.
Responsibility for.realization of this program is that of the Planning Department.
Housing Program 3.2.6 -- Encourage the participation in a Joint Powers Authority of Orange
County jurisdictions for the purpose of financing and administering a lease purchase
program for first -time homebuyers.
Responsibility for realization of this program is that of the Planning Department
and City Council.
Housing Program 3.2.7 -- Continue to participate as a member of the Orange County Housing
Authority Advisory Committee and work in cooperation with the Orange County
Housing Authority to provide Section 8 Rental Housing Assistance to residents of
the community. The City shall, in cooperation with the Housing Authority,
recommend and request use of modified fair market rent limits to increase number •
of housing units within the City that will be eligible to participate in the program. The
Newport Beach Planning Department shall. prepare and implement a publicity
program to educate and encourage landlords within the City to rent their units to
Section 8 Certificate holders and to make very low- income households aware of
availability of the Section 8 Rental Housing Assistance Program.
Responsibility for realization of this program is that of the Planning Department.
GOAL 4 PRESERVE AND INCREASE AFFORDABILITY OF THE CITY'S HOUSING
STOCK FOR VERY LOW -, LOW -, AND MODERATE- INCOME
HOUSEHOLDS.
Policy 4.1 Encourage the extension of the affordability contracts for the ten (10)
developments listed in Table 12 (City of Newport Beach Assisted Housing
Summary) of this Housing Element beyond the years noted.
Housing Program 4.1.1 — Periodically contact owners of affordable units for those
developments listed in Table 29 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 4.1.2 -- Consult with the property owners regarding utilizing CDBG funds and
in -lieu housing funds to maintain affordable housing opportunities in those •
developments listed in Table 29.
76
Responsibility for realization of this program is that of the Planning Department.
• Housing Program 4.1.3 -- Prepare written communication for tenants and other interested
parties about Orange County Housing Authority Section 8 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.
Housing Program 4.1.4 — Continue to pursue Community Development Grant Funds to facilitate
construction of housing for very low- and low- income households. Use of CDBG
funds may include but shall not be limited to site acquisition, 'off-setting" of land
and /or construction costs.
Responsibility for realization of the program is that of the Planning Department.
Goals PROVIDE HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES FOR SPECIAL NEEDS
POPULATIONS.
Policy 5.1 Encourage approval of housing opportunities for senior citizens and other
special needs populations.
Housing Program 5.1.1 -- Apply for United States Department of Urban Development
Community Development Block Grant funds and allocate a portion of such funds
• to sub - recipients who provide shelter and other services for the homeless.
Responsibility for realization of this program is that of the Planning Department
and the City Council.
•
Housing Program 5.1.2 —As a condition of receiving housing funding through the City, the City
shall require social service agencies receiving such funds record information on
clients they serve and provide an annual audit of their activities.
Responsibility for realization of this program is that of the Planning Department
Housing Program 5.1.3 -- Cooperate with the Orange County Housing Authority to pursue
establishment of a Senior /Disabled or Limited Income Repair Loan and Grant
Program to underwrite all or part of the cost of necessary housing modifications
and repairs. Loans would be repaid or forgiven on an ability to pay basis. Health
and safety deficiencies would receive priority. Modifications for accessibility also
would be appropriate. Administration of funds would be the responsibility of the
Orange County Housing Authority. Cooperation with the Orange County Housing
Authority will include continuing City of Newport Beach participation in the
Orange County Continuum of Care and continuing to provide CDBG funding
Responsibility for realization of this program is that of the Planning Department
and the City Council.
77
Housing Program 5.1.4 -- Continue to permit development of senior citizen housing facilities in
all residential and commercial zoning districts pursuant to Zoning Code Sections
20.10.020 and 20.15.020(b). •
Responsibility for realization of this program is that of the Planning Department.
Housing Program 5.1.5 -- Continue to permit, where appropriate, development of "granny" units
in single - family areas of the City. Consider amending the zoning code to allow
approval of "granny units at the staff level instead of by the Planning
Commission.
Responsibility for realization of this program is that of the Planning Department.
Housing Program 5.1.6 -- Consistent with development standards in residential and commercial
areas, continue to permit emergency shelters and transitional housing under
group housing provisions in its Zoning Code:
Responsibility for realization of this Program is that of the Planning Department.
Housing Program 5.1.7 –The City of Newport Beach shall investigate State Housing
Opportunities for Persons With AIDS (HOPWA).
Responsibility for.realization of this Program is that of the Planning Department.
Housing Program 5.1.6— Notify 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 5.1.9 - -By December 2003, the City of Newport Beach shall analyze and
determine whether there are constraints on the development, maintenance and
improvement of housing intended for persons with disabilities, consistent with
Senate Bill 520 enacted January 1, 2002. If any constraints are found, the City
will take subsequent actions within six months of the completion of the
evaluation. The analysis will include an evaluation of existing land use controls,
permit and processing procedures and building codes. If any constraints are
found in these areas, the City will initiate actions to address these constraints,
including removing the constraints or providing reasonable accommodation for
housing intended for persons with disabilities. Responsibility for realization of
this program is the Planning Department.
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 for Newport Beach and 945 units for Newport Coast
between 2000 and 2005 will be met according to the household income categories identified in
this Housing Element.
•
78
0
CJ
I1L
APPENDIX 1
(LIST OF CDBG PROJECTS (1996 — 2001))
• The City of Newport Beach. received and spent over $2,000,000 of Community
Development Block Grant funds between 1996 and 2001. Those monies were allocated
as follows.
o 1996-1997
Housing - $70,517 (Homeless Support Services; two guaranteed apartment
programs for households "at risk" of becoming homeless; housing assistance for
Extremely Low Income, Very Low Income, and Low Income persons from
Newport Beach). Two homeless assistance programs were located in the City of
Newport Beach and provided assistance program to Newport Beach individuals
and /or families and one other homeless assistance was located near the City of
Newport Beach and provided assistance to individuals and /or families from
Newport Beach:
Substance Abuse Counseling $ 1,500
Meals for Disabled and Senior Citizens $ 35,983
Removal of Architectural Barriers $308,000
Housing Services $ 11,240
The amount spent on housing was reduced from previous years in response to
neighborhood revitalization needs.
Additionally, in 1996 the City of Newport Beach received Section 8 Certificates
and Vouchers totaling $929,858 that was applied to 114 households.
The City did not fund any new residential projects during Fiscal Year 1996 —1997
that resulted in provision of additional affordable housing units.
o 1997-1998
Friends in Service to Humanity (homeless assistance); $ 20,000
SPIN (substance abuse counseling) $ 8,000
Orange County Interfaith Shelter (homeless assistance) $ 8,555
YWCA (homeless assistance) $ 8,280
Friends in Service to Humanity (meals for senior citizens) $19,915
W
Fair Housing Counseling Services (administration) $ 90,496
Olive Crest (abused children assistance) $ 20,000
Mercy Housing (homeless assistance) $10,000 •
Neighborhood Revitalization $304,750
The City did not fund any new residential projects during Fiscal Year 1997 -1998
that resulted in provision of additional affordable housing units.
0 1998 -1999
Appraisal of Balboa Theater
$ 7,500
Friends in Service to Humanity (housing subsistence
payments to 200 people)
$ 20,000
SPIN (substance abuse counseling for homeless
and people living with HIWAIDS, assistance for 8 people)
$ 8,000
Orange County Interfaith (temporary shelter for 30
people from Newport Beach)
$ 8,555
YWCA (temporary [60 days] shelter for 5 people
from Newport Beach)
$ 8,280
Friends in Service to Humanity (meals for elderly)
$ 19,915
South County Senior services (meals)
$ 12,500
Fair Housing Counseling Services (administrative services)$ 12,500
General Management (program administration)
$ 90,496
Olive Crest (assistance for 10 abused children)
$ 20,000
Mercy House (homeless assistance for 10 people)
$10,000
Public Facilities Improvements
$269,150
Code Enforcement
$ 28,100 •
0 1999 —2000
Code Enforcement — Balboa Peninsula $25,000
Fair Housing $13,992
FISH — Homeless Emergency Assistance $12,090
FISH — Mobile Meals $15,171
Orange Coast Interfaith Shelter — Temporary Shelter $ 7,713
South County Senior Services $15,170
Program Administration $ 85,008
Public Facilities $339,902
SPIN — Substance Abuse Rehabilitation Program $ 19,106
YWCA Hotel — Temporary Shelter $ 5,000
0 2000 -2001
WISE Place (emergency shelter services and related
support for 2 or more people from Newport Beach) $ 4,000
Fair Housing Council of Orange County
(administrative services) $13,788
SPIN (emergency assistance for homeless through substance
abuse rehabilitation program for low income families) $10,000 •
80
South County Senior Services, Inc. (mobile meals
program for senior citizens)
$15,600
Orange County Interfaith Shelter (temporary housing and
• related support services)
$ 8,000
Olive Crest (housing and related support services)
$ 5,000
Friends in Service to Humanity (homeless emergency
assistance program)
$16,500
Friends in Service to Humanity (mobile meals program).
$15,600
Approximately $160,092 (10.6 %) of City Community Development Block Grant
funds ($1,515,228) was directly used for housing during Fiscal Year 2000 -2001.
•
•
81
APPENDIX 2 .
SOCIAL SERVICE PROGRAMS
The following programs are located in, and near, the City of Newport Beach and serve
many Newport Beach residents, including the elderly.
Orange County Housing Authority (2043 North Broadway, Santa Ana) offers rental
assistance for elderly and non - elderly in the County. The Section 8 "Certificate" and
"Housing Voucher" programs were established by Federal law. Both provide rental
assistance for low- income persons (those having incomes 80% or less of the County
median income) in need of decent, safe, and sanitary housing. The "Certificate" program
requires families pay a portion of their rent, but an amount not to exceed thirty (30)
percent of their adjusted income. Total amount of the rental unit must be approved by
the Housing Authority based on utilities, location, and the condition of each rental
dwelling. Additionally, total rent must fall within Housing Authority Fair Market Rent
limits. It should be noted that United States Department of Housing and Urban
Development regulations were modified in October, 2000 to allow Section 8 monies to be
used for home purchases in addition to rental assistance.
The "Housing Voucher" program allows families to pay more than 30 percent of their
adjusted income toward rent should they wish to rent a housing unit that has a rent greater
than Fair Market Rent. Families pay the difference between the rental price of the
dwelling and the Housing Authority portion of the rent. The Housing "Certificate" •
Program (which will be combined under a "New Voucher" Program by October 1, 2001)
provides rental assistance for families renting housing units that charge Fair Market Rent.
No assistance is provided to the renter beyond Fair Market Rent should the renter choose
a unit more expensive than Fair Market Rent. The Housing Authority does not have
figures on how many elderly are waiting for assistance, but has indicated that
approximately 5,000 people are on a waiting list to obtain assistance.
Although the following service organizations do not provide housing for the elderly,
those organizations provide services to the elderly that assist the elderly in affording
housing in Newport Beach. '
Meals on Wheels, a Home Delivered Meals Program — provides hot meals to elderly shut -
ins and is available in Newport Beach. This Program is administered by South County
Services, which has indicated it serves 30 —35 congregate meals daily at the OASIS Senior
Center in Newport Beach and delivers 3 meals daily to 23 (approximately 17,250 total
meals annually) Newport Beach residents.
OASIS Senior Center (800 Marguerite Avenue, Corona del Mar) — This is a multi-
purpose center dedicated to meeting needs of senior citizens and their families. OASIS
estimates as many as 75 percent of its clients are residents of Newport Beach. OASIS
offers classes in art, exercise, mature driving, topics of enrichment, and computers and
arranges social groups for those who share hobbies and interests. The Center travel
department coordinates day and overnight trips. OASIS offers transportation programs (3 •
82
vans) for Newport Beach seniors who have disabilities that limit their access to public
• transportation. This shuttle program provides transportation from senior citizens' homes
to the Senior Center. A Care -A -Van program is available for those senior citizens who
require transportation for medical appointments, grocery shopping and banking. OASIS
distributes information about job openings that might interest seniors who wish, to
supplement their retirement income or to remain active through part-time work. OASIS
offers various health services for seniors. Support groups meet regularly at the Center to
help senior citizens and their families cope with stress, illness, life transitions, and crises.
Informational and supportive counseling is available to seniors and their family members
on an individual basis. OASIS also offers a lunch program for active and homebound
senior citizens ages 60 and older that is funded by the Federal government through the
Older American Act. A donation is requested for meals, which are provided by South
County Senior Services.
The year 2000 operating budget for OASIS Senior Center was $470,000. Funding
sources for OASIS include the following: the City of Newport Beach; Friends of OASIS,
a non - profit support group that contributes approximately $200,000 annually to OASIS
and funds other special events, services through grants; and, fees charged for some
classes offered, facility rental, and transportation.
South County Senior Services (24300 El Toro Road, Building A, Suite 2000, Laguna
Woods) is a regional non - profit charitable organization that has as its mission to promote,
advocate and improve quality of life, dignity, and independence of the elderly. This
• organization serves approximately 10,000 seniors annually in its combined programs.
South County Senior Services receives funding from federal grants, project income,
MediCal, client fees, USDA, funding drives, and special events. South County Senior
Services provides medical treatment programs for adults eighteen years.or older with
disabilities or impairments who are at risk of institutionalization, including nursing
services, occupational and physical therapy, speech therapy, nutrition, music therapy,
counseling, supervised social and educational activities, exercise, special events, music,
and art to delay institutionalization and social isolation. South County Senior Services
has an Alzheimer's treatment center and an in -home assessment program to determine
needs of frail seniors, 60 years of age and older, and to establish a Plan-of -Care for
services needed to assist seniors to maintain independence in their own homes for as long
as possible. The Meals -On- Wheels program provides meals to individuals 60 years of
age and older who are living at home and unable to prepare their own meals, or who are
unable to go out to eat, or who have little or no assistance to obtain adequate meals. A
transportation program coordinates lift- equipped paratransit services for senior centers.
A referral service for In -Home Providers is offered to help seniors maintain independence
in their own homes for as long as possible. Various programs and services are offered to
meet educational, recreational, social, and human service needs of the elderly population.
The Shared Housing Program was designed for seniors and various age groups to share
their existing homes for companionship and relief from financial burden of housing costs
for short- or long -term tenures. This Program had operated throughout the 1990s, but
was discontinued in 2000 because the County of Orange discontinued Community
• Development Block Grant Funds for the Shared Housing Program.
93
Assistance League of Newport Mesa ( 2220 Fairview Road, Costa Mesa, CA (949) 645-
6029) — is a non -profit volunteer service organization that assesses and helps meet the •
physical, material, emotional and cultural needs of the children in our community through
self - funded, ongoing philanthropic projects. Programs include "Children Dental Health
Care Center" providing oral hygiene instruction, general dentistry, othodontia and
endodontics. The Assistance League also provides "Operation School Bell" providing
clothing, shoes, school uniforms and backpacks at no cost to children of low- income
families. Still another program includes "Kids on the Block," a nationally recognized
educational program that teaches young adults increased understanding and tolerance for
fellow classmates who have learning disabilities, physical handicaps or special emotional
needs. The latest program, "The Community Outreach Program" provides funding for
supplies used in supervised study programs for developmental education, parenting
classes and counseling, living expenses for single parents, and day care at accredited
facilities.
•
•
84
APPENDIX 2
• AGENCIES PROVIDING EMERGENCY SHELTER
AND ASSISTANCE
Orange County Housing Authority (2043 North Broadway, Santa Ana) offers rental
assistance for those individuals and families in the County in danger of becoming
homeless. The Section 8 "Certificate" and "Housing Voucher" programs were
established by Federal law. Both provide rental assistance for low income persons (those
having incomes 80% or less of the County median income) in need of decent, safe, and
sanitary housing' The "Certificate" program requires families pay a portion of their rent,
but an amount not to exceed thirty (30) percent of their adjusted income. Total amount of
the rental unit must be approved by the Housing Authority based on utilities, location,
and the condition of each rental dwelling. Additionally, total rent must fall within
Housing Authority Fair Market Rent limits. It should be noted that United States
Department of Housing and Urban Development regulations were modified in October,
2000 to allow Section 8 monies to be used for home purchases in addition to rental
assistance.
The "Housing Voucher" program allows families to pay more than 30 percent of their
adjusted income toward rent should they wish to rent a housing unit that has a rent greater
than Fair Market Rent. Families pay'the difference between the rental price of the
dwelling and the Housing Authority portion of the rent. The Housing "Certificate"
Program (which will be combined under a "New Voucher" Program by October 1, 2001)
• provides rental assistance for families renting housing units that charge Fair Market Rent.
No assistance is provided to the renter should the renter choose a unit more expensive
than Fair Market Rent. According to the Orange County Housing Authority, there are
more than 2,000 Certificates in existence in Orange County.
•
Orange Coast Interfaith Shelter — This is an agency that provides housing, meals,
employment services, and a children's program. The Orange Coast Interfaith Shelter is
the largest family shelter in Orange County and operates on an annual budget of
$500,000. The City of Newport Beach provided $8,000 (1.6 1/o) of that operating budget
during the time period July 1, 1999 — June 30, 2000. Temporary shelter is offered to
families and single women on an emergency (3 — 7 days /month) or transitional (2 —7
months) basis. During the time period noted previously the Interfaith Shelter provided
temporary shelter to 80 — 90 households that indicated a most recent permanent address
in the City of Newport Beach. This indicated the percentage of total households assisted
(2,070) that were from Newport Beach was between 3.9% and 4.3 %, although the City
provided 1.6% of the Interfaith Shelter annual budget. The raciallethnic identifications of
the 2,070 served were as follows: Caucasian (831); Hispanic (617); African American
(354); Native American (57); Asian American (26); Biracial (64); and Other (33). The
Interfaith Shelter also provided 57,295 meals to special needs populations during the. time
period noted. Additionally, the Interfaith Shelter provided children's programs to the 30
— 40 children who commonly receive shelter at any one time. Furthermore, the Interfaith
Shelter indicated it provided temporary shelter to 226 single mothers (female heads of
85
households) during the time period noted.. Many of the female heads of households
served were women over the age of 50 with mental health disabilities. •
Saddleback Community Outreach (23011 Moulton Parkway, Suite 12) is a non - profit
organization that opened in August 1989. It is funded with federal (Super NOFA)
monies, monies from local jurisdictions, and monies from faith -based organizations in the
following areas: "in- kind" Donations Programs; Sponsorship and Underwriting for
Programs and Fundraising Events;. Housing Fund Donations; Food Drives; and, "Adopt -
A- Family" Holiday Programs (which provides a holiday meal at Thanksgiving and
holiday meal and gifts in December). The major objective of Saddleback Community
Outreach programs and services is to help those assisted become self - supportive.. This
organization operates without paid administrators. Of the more than 100 volunteers
within the organization, some are selected and trained to function as directors, evaluators,
coordinators, and care workers. Saddleback Community Outreach is involved in four
active programs to meet critical housing needs of its clients, who number 5,200 annually.
The Emergency Lodging Program is intended for homeless families needing temporary
housing until a permanent residence is established. The Housing Assistance Program is
intended for families needing an interest free loan to prevent eviction or to assist with
move -in costs.. The Interfaith Shelter Program is a six -month program available for
homeless singles seeking employment, shelter and counseling. The Transitional Housing
Program is a two-year program for homeless families. Applicants are screened by the
Housing Committee to assess each family's ability to pay a reduced rent in a
condominium, maintain employment, set goals, meet commitments and attend practical
counseling for budget management. The Saddleback Community Outreach. •
Pantry/Warehouse distributes more than 150,000 pounds of food annually to families or
individuals in need and hosts SHARE, a program enabling people to buy up to $35.00
worth of groceries for $15.00. Saddleback Community Outreach also will pay a portion
of a family's utility bill to help avoid disconnection of services. Additional services
include vouchers for adults and children to obtain clothing at local thrift stores, gasoline
vouchers or bus tickets for transportation to job interviews or physician appointments,
donation of automobiles contributed to Saddleback Community Outreach to clients in
need, medical prescription vouchers for pre - screened. families or individuals,
"motivational counseling" to help restore hope and confidence, "practical counseling" to
assist in goal setting, budget management and future planning, and referrals to local
agencies for other counseling needs.
YMCA — The Newport Beach YMCA offers physical activities classes and personal hygiene
facilities. During 2000, the YMCA has provided 234 daily showers for those who identified
themselves current or most recently as Newport Beach residents (out of a total 4,000
annually provided daily showers) and 858 single -day guest passes for identified current or
recent Newport Beach residents. The percentage of daily showers for those from Newport
Beach compared to the total of annual showers is 5.9 %. The YMCA estimates
approximately fifty (50) percent of its clients come from the Newport Beach/Costa Mesa
area. The City of Newport Beach contributed $5,000 during 2000, which accounted for
0.14% of the approximate 2000 YMCA operating budget of $3,500,000.
CJ
86
YWCA Hotel for Women - The YWCA Hotel for Women provides shelter, food, counseling,
• job- search, and housing - search assistance for homeless women. The City also provides
CDBG funds to this organization, and likewise, requires expanded reporting information
•
•
Friends in Service to Humanity — This agency (established in 1968) assists more than 5,900
families in Orange County. These families consist of more than 24,000 individuals, of
whom more than 12,500 are children. Friends in Service to Humanity provides the
following services: rental assistance to avoid eviction; "mobile meals to the home bound;
transitional housing with case management; food; child care subsidies for low- income
-working parents; utility payments to avoid disconnections; baby diapers and infant formula;
"adopt -a- family" program during the holidays; medical, dental, and shopping transportation;
and, transportation costs for employment. During the first six months of 2000, Friends in
Service to Humanity served 487 mobile meals, made 1,166 grocery deliveries, provided 119
individuals/families with rental assistance to avoid eviction; made 47 utility payments,
provided 42 child care subsidies, and provided 15 automobile repairs. Friends in Service to
Humanity indicates a substantial number of its clients reside in the City of Newport Beach.
In year 2000, the City of Newport Beach provided Friends in Service to Humanity with
$16,500 for homeless prevention and $15,500 for Meals programs.
American Red Cross - assists persons temporarily displaced from their residence due to
disasters such as fires. From 1994 to the present, the Red Cross reported helping 55
Newport Beach residents involved in 3 incidents. This agency does not request CDBG
funding from the City.
87
. APPENDIX 3
ORGANIZATIONS SERVING THE HOMELESS •
Other volunteer groups and local religious organizations serve Newport Beach by
providing temporary shelter, bus fares to reach pre - planned destinations, rental
assistance, medical assistance, food and clothes to the homeless and other needy
persons/families
Several motels in the Newport Beach -Costa Mesa area are utilized by various agencies to
accommodate homeless persons. These agencies pay all or a portion of the costs.
An undetermined number of transients or chronically homeless individuals pass through
Newport Beach. Much of this depends on opportunities and conditions presented to these
individuals within Newport Beach and the surrounding communities. Housing needs of
these individuals include transitional housing in the form of single room occupancy units
(SRO) and emergency and transitional shelters.
88
C�
u
APPENDIX 4
PUBLIC AND PRIVATE RESOURCES AVAILABLE FOR •
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES
Program Names I
Description
Eligible Activities
la. Federal Programs— Formula/Entitlement
Community Development
Grants awarded to the City on a
♦ Acquisition
Block Grant
formula basis for housing and
♦ Rehabilitation
community development activities.
♦ Home Buyer Assistance
The City Receives approximately
♦ Economic Development
$500,000 in CDBG funds annually
♦ Homeless Assistance
♦ Public Services
♦ ADA Compliance
♦ Public Facilities
lb. Federal Programs - Competitive
Section 8
Rental assistance payments to owners
♦ Rental Assistance
Rental Assistance
of private market rate units on behalf of
Program
very low income tenants
HOME
Flexible grant program awarded to the
♦ Acquisition
Orange County HOME Consortium on
♦ Rehabilitation
a formula basis for housing activities.
♦ Home Buyer Assistance
City can apply to County on a
♦ Rental Assistance
competitive basis for affordable
housing projects
Section 202
Grants to non -profit developers of
♦ Acquisition
supportive housing for the elderly.
♦ Rehabilitation
♦ New Construction
♦ Rental Assistance
Section 811
Grants to non -profit developers of
♦ Acquisition
supportive housing for persons with
♦ Rehabilitation
disabilities, including group homes,
♦ New Construction
independent living facilities and
♦ Rental Assistance
intermediate care facilities.
Section 108 Loan
Provides loan guarantee to CDBG
♦ Acquisition
entitlement jurisdictions for pursuing
♦ Rehabilitation
large capital improvement or other
♦ Home Buyer Assistance
projects. The jurisdictions must pledge
+ Economic Development
future CDGB allocations for repayment
* Homeless Assistance
of the loan. Maximum loan amount
* public services
can be up to five times the entitlement
jurisdiction's most recent annual
allocation. Maximum loan term is 20
years.
94
•
•
•
•
Program Names
Description
Eligible Activities
Mortgage Credit
Income tax credits available to first-
♦ Home Buyer Assistance
Certificate Program
time homebuyers for the purchase of
new or existing single - family housing.
Local agencies (County) make
certificates available.
Low Income Housing Tax
Tax credits are available to individuals
♦ New Construction
Credit (LIHTC)
and corporations that Invest in low—
♦ Rehabilitation
income rental housing. Usually, the tax
♦ Acquisition
credits are sold to corporations with a
high tax liability and the proceeds from
the sale are used to create the housing
SHELTER PLUS CARE PROGRAM
Grants for rental assistance that
♦ Rental Assistance
are offered with support services
♦ Homeless Assistance
to homeless with disabilities.
Rental assistance can be:
Section 8 Moderate Rhabilitation
SRO
project based rental assistance
administered by the local PHA with
state or local government application
♦ Sponsor -Based Rental Assistance
Provides assistance through an
applicant to a private non - profit
sponsor who wins or leases dwelling
units in which participating residents
reside.
♦ Tenant -Based Rental Assistance
(TBA)
grants for rental assistance
Project -Based Rental Assistance
grants to provide rental
assistance through contracts
between grant recipients and
owners of buildings.
Supportive Housing
Grants for development of supportive
♦ Transitional Housing
Program (SHP)
housing and support services to assist
♦ Permanent Housing for
homeless persons in the transition from
Disabled
homelessness.
♦ Supportive Services
♦ Safe Havens
2. State Programs
Proposition 1 A
Proposition I includes provisions to
♦ Down payment Assistance
establish a Down payment Assistance
♦ Rental Assistance
Program and a Rent Assistance
Program using school fees collected
from affordable housing projects.
Potential buyers or tenants of
affordable housing projects are eligible
to receive nonpayment assistance or
rent subsides from the State at amounts
equivalent to the school fees paid by
the affordable housing developer for
that project in question.
Emergency Shelter
Grants awarded to non - profit
♦ Support Services
Program
organizations for shelter support
services.
California Housing
Below market rate fmancing offered to
♦ New Construction
Finance Agency (CHFA)
builders and developers of multiple-
♦ Rehabilitation
Multiple /Rental Housing
family and elderly rental housing. Tax
♦ Acquisition of Properties from 20
Programs
exempt bonds provide below - market
to 150 units
mortgage money.
California Housing Finance Agency
CHFA sells tax- exempt bonds to make
♦ Home Buyer Assistance
Home Mortgage Purchase Program
below market loans to first time
homebuyers. Program operates
through participating lenders who
originate loans for CHFA purchase
California Housing Rehabilitation
Low interest loans for the rehabilitation
♦ Rehabilitation.
Program -Owner Component
of substandard homes owned and
♦ Repair Code
(CHAP -O)
occupied by lower- income households.
Violations, Accessibility
City and non - profits sponsor housing
♦ Additions, General
rehabilitation projects.
Property improvement
3. Local Programs
Tax Exempt Housing Revenue Bond
The City can support low- income
♦ New Construction
housing developers in obtaining bonds
♦ Rehabilitation
in order to construct affordable
♦ Acquisition
housing. The City can issue housing
revenue bonds or participate in the
County of Orange program requiring
the developer to lease a fixed
percentage of the units to low income
families and maintain rents at a
specified below market rate.
m
•
0
•
•
4. Private Resource/Financing Programs
Federal National Mortgage
Loan applicants apply to participating
♦ Home Buyer Assistance
Association (Fannie Mae)
lenders for the following programs:
Fixed rate mortgages issued by private
mortgage insurers.
♦ Mortgages that fund the purchase
and rehabilitation of a home.
Savings Association Mortgage
Pooling process to fund loans for
♦ New Construction of single
Company Inc. (SAMCO)
affordable ownership and rental
family and multiple family rentals,
housing projects. Non -profit and for
cooperatives, self help housing,
profit developers contact member
homeless shelters, and group homes
institutions.
for the disabled.
California Community Reinvestment
Non -profit mortgage banking
♦ New Construction
Corporation (CCRC)
consortium designed to provide long-
♦ Rehabilitation
term debt financing for affordable
♦ Acquisition
multi- family rental housing. Non-
profit and for profit developer contact
member banks
*Freddie Mac
Home Works —Provide Istand 2nd
♦ Home Buyer Assistance
mortgages that include rehabilitation
combined with Rehabilitation
loan. City provides gap financing for
rehabilitation component. Households
earning up to 80% of MFI qualify.
Lease Purchase Program
The City could participate in a Joint
♦ Home Buyer Assistance
Powers Authority (.TPA) that issues tax -
exempt bonds. Bonds enable City to
purchase homes for households earning
up to 140% MFI. JPA pays 3 % down
and payments equivalent to mortgage
payments with the option to buy after
three years.
97
APPENDIX 5
PUBLIC.AND.PRIVATE NON- PROFTI'S •
Orange County Housing Authority
2043 North Broadway
Santa Ana, CA 92706
(714) 480 -2700
Orange County Fair Housing Council
(714) 569 -0827
Civic Center Barrio Housing Corporation
431 South Bristol
Colonic Community Center
Santa Ana, CA 92613
(714) 835 -0406
Habitat for Humanity of Orange County, Inc.
P. O. Box 70876
Orange, CA 92613
(714) 434 -6200
Orange County Community Housing Corporation
1833 East 170' Street, Suite 207 •
Santa Ana, CA 92701
(714) 558 -6006
Orange County Community Development
825 North Broadway
Santa Ana, CA 92702
(714) 8897 -6670
Jamboree Housing Corporation
2081 Business Center Drive
Irvine, CA
(949) 263 -8676
Southern California Presbyterian Homes
1111 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 300
Glendale, CA 91202
(818) 247 -0420
A Community of Friends
3345 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1000
Los Angeles, CA 90010
(213) 480 -0809 •
98
C�
Affordable Housing People
7720 -B El Camino, Suite 159
Carlsbad, CA 92009
(760) 4436 -5979
Assistance League of Newport-Mesa
2220 Fairview Road
Costa Mesa, CA 92627
(949) 645 -6929
BRIDGE Housing Corporation
One Hawthorne, Suite 400
San Francisco, CA 94105
Century Housing Corporation
300 Corporate Pointe, Suite 500
Culver City, CA 90230
Community Partnership Development Corporation
7225 Cartwright Avenue
• Sun Valley, CA 91352
(818) 503 -1548
Eden Housing, Inc.
409 Jackson Street
Hayward, CA 94544
(510) 582 -1460
H.O.M.E.S., Inc.
4341 Birch Street, Suite 213
Newport Beach, CA 92660
(949) 851 -2766
Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles
P. O. Box 17157, Foy Station
Los Angeles, CA 90017
(213) 252 -2701
Housing Corporation of America
31423 Coast Highway, Suite 7100
Laguna Beach, CA 92677
(949) 726 -9672
•
M4
Long Beach Affordable Housing Coalition, Inc.
110 West Ocean Boulevard, #350
Long Beach, CA 90802
(562) 983 -8880
Los Angeles Housing Partnership, Inc.
515 South Figueroa Street, Suite 940
Los Angeles, CA 90071
(213) 629 -91722
Neighborhood Housing Services of Orange County, Inc.
350 Hillcrest
La Habra, CA 90631
(562) 694 -2051
San Diego County SER -Jobs for Progress, Inc.
3355 Mission Avenue, Suite 123
Oceanside, CA 92054
(760) 754 -6500
Shelter for the Homeless
15161 Jackson Street
Midway City, CA 92655
(714) 897 -3221
Solari Enterprises, Inc.
1544 West Yale Avenue
Orange, CA 92687
(714) 282 -2520
Southern California Housing Development Corporation
8265 Aspen Street, Suite 100
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
(909) 483 -2444
American Baptist Homes of the West
P. O. Box 6669
Oakland, CA 94603
(510) 635 -1786
Citizens Housing Corporation
26 O'Farrell Street, #506
San Francisco, CA 94108
(415) 421 -8605
100
•
•
Community Housing Assistance Program, Inc.
• 3803 East Casselle Avenue
Orange, CA 92869
(714) 744 -6252
DM & Associates Foundation
6043 Tampa Avenue, Suite 101A
Tarzana, CA 91356
(818) 708 -2710
EAH, Inc.
2169 East Francisco Boulevard, Suite B
San Rafael, CA 94901
(415) 258 -1800
Foundation for Affordable Housing III, Inc.
2600 Michelson Drive, Suite 1050
Irvine, CA 92612
(949) 440 -8277
HELP Development Corporation
30 East 33`d Street
New York, NY 10016
• (212) 779 -3350
Joshua's House
24111 NE Halsey Street, Suite 203
Troutdale, OR 97060
(503) 661 -1999
Mercy Charities Housing California
1038 Howard Street
San Francisco, CA 94103
(415) 553 -6360
National Housing Development Corporation
8265 Aspen Street, Suite 100
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
(909) 483 -2444
National Housing Trust
P. O. Box 3458
Walnut Creek, CA 945698
(925) 945 -1774
101
OSM Investment Company
5155 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 120 •
Hawthorne, CA 90250
(310) 676 -0451
Paramount Financial Group, Inc.
1655 North Main Street, Suite 220
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
(800) 850 -0694
Related Companies of California
18201 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 400
Irvine, CA 92612
(949) 660 -7272
Retirement Housing Foundation
5150 East Pacific Coast Highway, Suite 600
Long Beach, CA 90804
(562) 597 -5541
Shelem, Inc.
24111 NE Halsey Street, Suite 202
Troutdale, OR 97060
(503) 661 -1999 •
Squier Properties
3129 6`1' Street
Santa Monica, CA 90405
(310) 581 -9043
SLSM, LLC
651 291h Street
San Francisco, CA 94101
(415) 826 -0301
The Trinity Housing Foundation
1399 Ygnacio Valley Road,. #21
Walnut Creek, CA 94598
(925) 939 -5421
Union Partners Realty Group, Inc.
24 Professional Center, Suite 250
San Rafael, CA 94903
(415) 446 -1811
102
RESOLUTION NO.
• A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF NEWPORT BEACH RECOMMENDING APPROVAL TO THE
CITY COUNCIL OF THE ADOPTION OF AN UPDATED HOUSING
ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN [GENERAL PLAN AMEND-
MENT NO. GPA 2003 -04 (PA 2003 -103) AND CERTIFICATION OF
A NEGATIVE DECLARATION]
WHEREAS, Section 65580 of the California Government Code finds and declares
that the availability of housing is of vital statewide importance and that the early attainment
of decent housing and a suitable living environment for every California family is a priority
of the highest order; and
WHEREAS, Section 65588 of the California Government Code mandates that each
local government shall review its Housing Element every five years to evaluate all of the
following:
is 1) The appropriateness of the housing goals, objectives, and policies in contributing
to the attainment of the state housing goal;
2) The effectiveness of the Housing Element in the attainment of the community's
housing goals and objectives;
3) The progress of the city, county, or city and county in implementation of the
Housing Element; and
WHEREAS, on July 17, 2003, the Planning Commission of the City of Newport
Beach held a public hearing regarding the proposed Housing Element; and
WHEREAS, the public was duly noticed of the public hearing; and
WHEREAS, Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act an Initial Study
40 has been conducted to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of the proposed
project. The Initial Study concluded that the project could not have a significant effect on
the environment; therefore, a Negative Declaration has been prepared. •
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission of the City of
Newport Beach does hereby recommend that the City Council of the City of Newport
Beach approve General Plan Amendment No. GPA 2003 -004 to adopt the Updated
Housing Element, as provided in Exhibit "A."
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that based upon the information contained
in the Initial Study, comments received, and all related documents, the Planning Commission
finds that there is no substantial evidence that the project could have a significant effect on
the environment, therefore a Negative Declaration has been prepared. The Planning
Commission finds that the Negative Declaration adequately addresses the potential
environmental impacts of the project, satisfies all the requirements of CEQA, and reflects the
independent judgment of the Planning Commission. The Negative Declaration was reviewed •
and considered prior to recommending approval of the project.
ADOPTED this 7th day of August 2003, by the following vote, to wit:
BY
Earl McDaniel, Chairman
BY
Michael Toerge, Secretary
AYES
NOES
ABSENT
•
2 q
RESOLUTION NO.
• A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
NEWPORT BEACH CERTIFYING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION
AND ADOPTING AN UPDATED HOUSING ELEMENT OF THE
GENERAL PLAN [GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. GPA 2003-
04 (PA 2003 -103)]
WHEREAS, Section 65580 of the California Government Code finds and declares
that the availability of housing is of vital statewide importance and that the early attainment
of decent housing and a suitable living environment for every California family is a priority
of the highest order; and
WHEREAS, Section 65588 of the California Government Code mandates that each
local government review its Housing Element every five years to evaluate all of the
following:
• 1) The appropriateness of the housing goals, objectives, and policies in contributing
to the attainment of the State of California's housing goal;
2) The effectiveness of the Housing Element in the attainment of the community's
housing goals and objectives;
3) The progress of the city, county, or city and county in implementation of the
Housing Element; and
WHEREAS, on July 17, 2003, the Planning Commission of the City of Newport
Beach held a public hearing regarding the proposed Housing Element and voted 5 — 0 to
recommend that the City Council adopt the proposed Element and certify the Negative
Declaration; and
• WHEREAS, the public was duly noticed of the public hearing; and
72
Add recitals for CC hearing and notice
WHEREAS, Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act an Initial Study
has been conducted to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of the proposed
project.. The Initial Study concluded that the project could not have a significant effect on
the environment; therefore, a Negative Declaration has been prepared.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that, based upon the information contained
in the Initial Study, comments received, and all related documents, the City Council finds that
there is no substantial evidence that the project could have a significant effect on the
environment. The City Council finds that the Negative Declaration adequately addresses the
potential environmental impacts of the project, satisfies all the requirements of CEQA, and
0
reflects the independent judgment of the City Council. The Negative Declaration was •
reviewed.and considered prior to approval of the project.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Newport Beach does
hereby approve General Plan Amendment No. GPA 2003 -004 and adopt the Updated
Housing Element dated August 2003.
This Resolution was adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of Newport
Beach held on August 12, 2003, by the.following vote, to wit:
•
2
E
AYES, CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
NOES, CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
ABSENT COUNCIL MEMBERS
MA
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
•
•
J-.-