No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout15 - North Newport Center Planned Community (PA2007-151) - 500 -600 Blk Newport Center Drive, 42000 Blk San Joaquin Plaza - Correspondence"RECEIV R AG:END� PRINTEM". i fw 196 i December 11, 2007 Mayor Steve Rosansky Councilman Michael Henn Councilman Don Webb Councilwoman Leslie Daigle Councilman Ed Selich Councilwoman Nancy Gardner Councilman Keith Curry City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 Re: North Newport Center Planned Community (PA2007 -151) 500 -600 Blk Newport Center Drive, 42000 Blk San Joaquin Plaza Ladies & Gentleman, -i E3 a v, I am writing to you on behalf of the Canyon Fairway Community Association regarding the proposed changes to the 600 block Newport Center Drive envisioned in the North Newport Center Planned Community. The Canyon Fairway Community Association represents the homes directly opposite Block 600 across San Joaquin Hills Road located in Big Canyon. Many of our residents received site plans from the Irvine Company covering the 600 block in Newport Center which included existing and proposed commercial buildings together with their existing and proposed heights prior to purchasing lots from the Irvine Company. Shade studies were then prepared and lots were purchased based on the findings. While we are concerned with some loss of privacy with the increase in height over the Irvine Company's prior site plan which included the proposed second hotel site our primary concern is with any shade that may be created on any of our homes by any new development. We would ask that you ensure zero tolerance for any additional shade to the designated residential areas, with no exceptions for time of year or minimal time frames. Thank you for your consideration. The Board of Directors On behalf of the Membership Canyon Fairway Community Association cc: Board of Directors VVillageway031projeculCanym Pevwuy 03MdmiviWmmWd C..p\200M.Ab Newport C.,W Planned Cm un yResponsel .1211077. INDIAN WELLS (760) 568 -2611 LOS ANGELES (213) 617 -8100 ONTARIO (909) 989 -8584 RIVERSIDE (951) 686 -1450 Scott C. Smith (949) 263 -6561 Scott. Smithftleklaw.com HAND DELIVERED "RECEIVQ ARER AGENDA/ PRINTED" S — o BEST BEST & KR)R— —n ATTORNEYS AT LAW Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, California 92663 SACRAMENTO 5 Park Plaza, Suite t b� ?J (916) 325 -4000 Irvine, California 92N�T �''1' 1 1 �� SAN DIEGO (949) 260972 Fax (619) 525 -1300 (949) 260 -0972 Fax — BBKlaw.com - �( ") WALNUT CREEK ^ (925) 977 -3300 December 11, 2007 Re: North Newport Center Planned Community (PA2007 -151) 500 -600 Blk Newport Center Drive, 42000 Blk San Joaquin Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers: Ron Presta owns an office building located at the corner of San Nicolas and Avocado in Block 500 of Newport Center (567 San Nicolas ") and has retained our firm to represent his interests in connection with the City of Newport Beach's ( "City ") consideration of the above - referenced application ( "Project "). We submitted the attached letter of concerns to the Planning Commission on November 29, 2007. The Irvine Company has since made assurances to us, through a binding letter of intent, that address each of these concerns and allows Mr. Presta to support the Project based on these assurances: 1. Disruption of Parking Configuration and Availability. The Irvine Company has assured us that Mr. Presta's use and ownership of 90 parking spaces located in the common parking area will continue as before, with appropriate updates .made to title documents to so indicate. We are confident that site plan and design review will resolve any remaining issues relating to building setbacks, handicap parking, and patron safety. 2. Increased Parking Maintenance Costs. The Irvine Company has indicated to us that the re- allocation of the common parking maintenance costs after construction of the proposed parking structure should likely be no greaten than the common area maintenance costs associated with the current parking configuration (i.e., no parking structure) would have been- BEST BEST & KRIEGER ATrORNeYS AT LAW ... ...... . . The Honorable Mayor and City Council December 11, 2007 Page 2 Potential For Over - Deviation From Parking Standards. We support the Planning Commission's recommendation to revise the proposed parking management plan standards to. factor in properties outside of the Planned Community so that applications for deviations will take into account all properties in the vicinity of the proposed deviation. We now urge the City Council to accept the Planning Commission's recommendation and revise the Planned Community text accordingly. Mr. Presta conditionally supports the Project based upon the above assurances made by The Irvine Company. Thank you for allowing us the opportunity to address the City Council. We look forward to working with the City to implement these solutions and thereby improve the Project for the applicant, our client, the City, and its residents. incerely, 1 Scott C. Smith of BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP cc: Ronald and Allyson Presta Homer Bludau, City Manager Sharon Wood, Assistant City Manager Patrick Alford, Senior Planner Robin Clauson, City Attorney Dan Miller, The Irvine Company (via facsimile) Christopher Garrett, Latham & Watkins (via facsimile) ORANGENTORRM42262.4 INDIAN UNE11..5 pru) 5p8 ti i I 1 U G ANGR ES 1273) 61 7 81 a) ONTARIO *09) 989 8584 RNERSIDE (951) 686 -1450 Scott C. Smith (949) 263 -6561 Scott. Smith®bbklaw, com NAND DELIVERED BEST BEST & KRIEGER ATTORNEYS Ar LAW Planning Commission City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92663 S Park Plaza, Suite 1500 Irvine, California 92614 (949) 263 -2600 (949) 260 -0972 Fax BBKlaw.com November 29, 2007 SA[ :HAM. N I O NV')",l W 7000 SAN 01EE;0 (619) wALNU I CREEK (925) W73300 Re: North Newport Center Planned Community (PA2007 -151) 500 -600 Blk Newport Center Drive, 42000 Blk San Joaquin Plaza • Code Amendment No. CA2007 -007 • PC Development Plan Amendment No. PD2007 -003 • Development Agreement No. DA2007 -002 • Traffic Study No. TS2007 -001 Honorable Commissioners: Ron Presta has retained our firm to represent his interests in connection with the City of Newport Beach's ( "City ") consideration of the above- referenced application ( "Project "). Mr. Presta owns an office building located at the corner of San Nicolas and Avocado in Block 500 of Newport Center ( "567 San Nicolas Drive "). With the exception of some parking rights described below, Mr. Presta's property is adjacent to the Project site, and is proposed to remain under, its current Administrative /Professional/Financial ( "APF ") zoning. Mr. Presta supports staff s recommendation to leave that designation intact- In fact, Mr. Presta's investment assumptions, building leases, and plans for the useful life of the building are based upon the APF zone remaining in effect on his property Mr. Presta does, on the other hand, have concerns about the proposed re -zone of the adjacent parcel, especially with regard to the potential effect of the re -zone on his rights to 90 parking spaces on Project property adjacent to 567 San Nicolas. Currently, the parking requirements for 567 San Nicolas are met, in part, through Mr. Presta's reservation and ownership of 90 parking spaces on an adjacent common parking field owned by the Project applicant (The Irvine Company). This parking allocation and its current coufrgtuzaion are in compliance with the APF parking requirements (one parking space per 375 square feet of office 0RAN(1PA\IIORRh.S \41850.5 BEST BEST & KRIEGER ATroRNns AT L1w Planning Commission November 29, 2007 Page 2 space) and are essential to the use and enjoyment of 567 San. Nicolas. The current proximity of the 567 San Nicolas offices to the common parking area, the area's open and secure nature, and the location of handicap parking stalls are essential to the occupancy and operation of 567 San Nicolas,. The proposed Project raises the following concerns: Disruption to Parking Configuration and Availability. The possibility that demand created by Project uses will unduly burden the common parking area and impair the availability of parking for 567 San Nicolas, thus disrupting the business of building occupants. Our client believes that the Project applicant's reconfiguration of the common parking area into a multi-level parking structure must leave essentially intact the proximity of 90 parking spaces to 567 San Nicolas. Allocation of spaces to the City or any other successor of The Irvine Company must take into account the current proximity of 567 San Nicolas to its current.parking, including handicap spaces. Thus, our client will request that any plan to relocate his parking spaces contain adequate safeguards (e.g., exclusive parking space designations) to ensure the protection of our client's 90 parking spaces in essentially their same proximity to the building. 2. Increases to Parking Maintenance Costs. The possibility that reconfiguration of the common parking area into a tiered parking structure will unreasonably alter Mr. Presto's agreed -upon contribution to the maintenance costs of the common parking area. We anticipate that additional use of the common parking area (in a tiered configuration or otherwise) would occasion a reallocation of maintenance costs, but would insist that Mr. Presta's share be based upon the cost of maintaining the current parking facility, not the tiered one. Again, we understand that this issue is best addressed through dialogue with The Irvine Company as it incurs new parking costs, but to the extent the City might entitle itself or other Irvine Company successors to use the common parking area, Mr. Presta would demand that his share of maintenance costs be based on today's costs of parking area maintenance and not on the increased costs occasioned by new development. 3. Potential For Over - Deviation From Parking Standards. The possibility that the issuance of parking deviations under the proposed North Newport Center Planned Community Development Plan ( °NNCPC'DP') could unreasonably impair Mr. Presta'.s use and enjoyment of 567 Suit Nicolas if deviations do not take into account parking demands of uses outside the NNC'PCDP and the current proximity of 567 San Nicolas to its parking field. 0 RA N G II M 10RR F.S`A 1850.; BEST BEST & KRIEGER ATTORNEYS AT LAW Planning Commission November 29, 2007 Page 3 Finally, we believe this issue can be addressed by - supplementing the text in Section III.C.4 of the NNCPCDP to require that traffic engineers preparing Parking Management Plan studies to justify deviations from parking standards take non - NNCPCDP and existing parking demands into account. Specifically, we propose that the following text be. added to Section IIICA (11/8/07 draft, p.16): "Parking management plans shall include the following information: 1. A site plan showing all parking spaces, building square footage and tenant spaces within the complexes or areas participating, both inside and outside the North Newport Center Planned Community ( "NNCPC ") area. 2. Evidence demonstrating that peak hour parking demand from all buildings, uses and tenants utilizing parking areas does not create conflicting or simultaneous demand for the shared spaces or conflict with parking availability for non -NNCPC properties as it existed on the effective date of the NNCPC. Conflict will be evident where hours of operation for tenants, buildings, and /or uses coincide or where the distance between parking and uses is too great. At a minimum, the following evidence shall be provided to support the justification: • Weekday Monday -Friday trip generation counts (separate a.m. and p.m. counts). • Saturday trip generation counts. • Sunday trip generation counts. • A comparison to show that overall parking demand does not exceed the parking supply; and 3. A joint use parking matrix with the following information: • Project buildings and tenant addresses. • Gross square footage of all buildings and tenant spaces. • The name, type of each uses, and the days and hours of operation for each tenant. • The number of parking stalls required by the development code for each tenant based on each tenant's gross square footage and/or type of use." We look forward to working with the City to address these issues and thereby improve the Project for the applicant, our client, the City, and its residents. Sincerely, t. Scott C. Smith of BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP cc: Ron and Allyson Presta Sharon Z. Wood, Assistant City Manager Ok: WGIi \Al I ORRI;S`.318 >09 "RECEIVED AFTER GENDA PRINTED:" X16 Aa- p -01 NEWPORT FULLS C©1VI7 CJNITY ASSOCIATION JD URGENT NOTICE Deeerinber'10,.20f7 ;;.; -..� - -i Dear Honoral le•Mayor and City Council; a The Newport hills Community AssodatiotflBoard ofDirectors and community members have just becoraer aware oftheinte senpeoftlte new propased development and'planning proposal Development E1.greement DA.2007-02, EiR Addendum SCH7,006 -0I 1:19 and. Traffic Study TS2007 1101. 'Ve need`to brixng the comiTitiii ty's concerns to your aft ion. The Board Bailed. an unscheduled Satitrilayto:d uss this matter mid achieved t quorum, The issws and"avaiiable doeumemFation were "reviewed and:we arc providing this: summary to;you, On lVesday. 0ou'anber 0, taTqe" Beach.Plsnning Commission met to review a proposed,Developmenrt Agteeartent with the liwi Re Cainpany fora trgnsfar of devclapmeut rights wlthin b{cwpott Center (FashicM Island} and include a.•comp t of high efid tesidential towers} witli 434,iaita. A&I ordiag to the Staff Report this development Wili.regtttre ly 15% "a orrlablehousina units" or +f -;691 to very -low income housing- t>mits asmiiigat on. At the hearing it was discussed that since TheCity -ef 1Vewport Beach is not in! compliance wtth:iis afforriable liotisirig:raquirrexite that flits project iequiremaiit met by the brine Comgmty 6y "dividing the neoessary'�loiv to very low incom a lioasing units in Baywooil A pattmeus" (treatieisort's }.and sgralicantly, nmdertake a ur l�l writ. aparfanent development on •f adjacent (now fenced} Cbikl Time.si a next to 8ie c a space park-that would be `100% low to very low inconie,housing °' At the Planning Commission ineedgg Commission " Stioned stall' on thin oompoaeiit of the proposal mad eorltuied that wkile affordable housing goalsed tct;1 met, it "wag not appropriate *cau mtrate thiammilier . of imits in one loca#vu ji "ice was discussed, and resolved by a 482 a otc"tiiat;'it was Mgt, agpiapriate for the % ne Com an itr tiie Ci tut tteet the affordable live F y i ty} sung regvimntent forthts"new project tilt thn .manner and units "should riot be concentrated- in one prefect As youmaylcnow, Baywood already has some of these units available for-this purpose. The iiiatter appeared resotved with this reasonable 0601vt oitiise' until'Friday December The City of vewport Beach Planning Staff, in their sta&mport to the Uty Council ter ,the 't uesday night December 0 beating recommending pioleet Approval, is ignoring the khumi2ag Commission resolution and recommending tltatJhe affordable housing tslbr l this pmjeet be located in Baywood and in a new'pratecg located on the "Child Tame" site. FOX whatever reason, a very significant i xelopttaettt Bement is being Fast tnwAod.by tine City and many in our couunmtib rare just nowr aware 41''its potpnU al significance. e. brit of mlty ions, some, key findin of concern ate: The TmfFie Study indii antes sunte in will be mitigated by* the stated mitigation i'ntpr4iVM t Ul but also dined that some. pwu6n be and concluded `the veWl benefit oftheproject outweighs the lno6 lity to, mitigate these tffipacts' '.(i#e»a b;pe l8 attd bottom of page 19). • Regarding AffirdableZousing, de discussion on o€the 1.5$!6 requiromen0br the :project is an ps -20 for the 430 units. For the first time it is grcip+ised that a property . the North NVWp t'Ca*er project be used to mitigate impacts the project it�lf oareai. • Most troubling,,, is fltestaff recomaxnumdatiaaa: on page 2'1 to reject- the l?Iantung Cazuzrtissititi:- find?ng Wehrle elsewiere adopting the others} tz avoid an vVet cortcentiation o ttiese uitits iA a patticular location: -a - -r !• e F t el -a 1- I- ea: d $ n ef� [' el a 1` 1 1 a• ®' t! 1 'a &HALO'! •11. !' F ii' $ P - i�l !9^ 0'0 ii \ "'i$ [ 1' `1: etl 1 0. 1 1 EFI S' IL P -9 •A6 IP ! [. le 4i F @ MY YS FF1 0. li Al L 91 - C' -[)6 4 Yd il9tinA BE ii fs t " ®11 tl01" 1 F @tl! i:IYIRI! °Ird Ir %! 1: :[ obligation ofi site. If ire isjuttificadoo for it being moved,, it shauid not . as a result be concentrated at one location to -meet a City wide goat. Many other Irvine Company.apattment:cominunities would be .additionally eligible. • Ile Board s (ro glv disa tees that the Tt gm y" - 92flb'i -061.1 the proposed 'Tmfirc mitigation or OR Addendtith- adequately address the very real impacts of another turn packet igual or other access Titan on SaiiMiguel adequate:forpewupartments at.tlre Child Time.aite;'Staff appears to assume this site ready for development and a density bonus (page 14 and 211) *W- i :it is evident in the Staf lKeport that ttaifi iingacTs for 'this project haver of been studied. DiiIj the Newpoit Center North plan and surrounding at'eas was studied. Yet-this sites proposedlo be a. key mitigation fvr that project. The Board =couragep You to-visit the Child.. Time.site (now. &needy and envision the traihe issue for yourself for it use that would be h l:time occupancyi as'opposed to;dmp off.' Fn vok ing our c oacerns, it is important to emphasize that ibc board respects:'and supports the tzveralt Wort the Council has undertaken to achieve a Tievelopment- Agreement. Many brit§ atirfbt tes are to be applauded we:eomplirneut.fhe Idayor and the Council on this effort and many tours of hard work With .a pro jeetst�tluasi�e wesympatla6'tliat cerlain,:prc�* details can be in good faith overlooked, 408 !d ' "9 ®x' • IY4 I' Y 5 9 i i i ._ Y d Y Y • I f 4 • V 9 Y Y' S,• I • Y S e Y• Ce 13.oard Tvferlits City Attorney r= Robin Clawson tkltyr .flom�idlud�ti don r) RF "'Pe M7 DEC I I PH 1� Q4 NEWPORT HILLS COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION URGERT NOTICE December 10, 2007 Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council; "RECEIVED R AGENDA PRINTED:" The Newport Hills Community Association Board of Directors and community members have just become aware of the true scope of the new proposed development, and planning proposal Development Agreement DA 2007-02, EIR Addendum SCH2006-01119 and Traffic Study TS2007-001. We need to bring the community's concerns to your attention. The Board called an unscheduled meeting Saturday to discuss, this matter and achieved a cluprurn. The issues and available documentation were reviewed and we are providing this summary to you. On Tuesday December 4", the Newport Beach Planning Commission met to review a proposed Development Agreement. with the Irvine Company,for a transfer of development rights within Newport Center (Fashion Island) and include a component of high end residential tower(s) with 430 units. According to the Staff Report this development will require approximately 15% -affordable housing units" or +/- 68 low to very low income housing units as mitigation. At the hearing it was discussed that since The City of Newport Beach is not in compliance with its affordable housing requirements, that this project requirement be met by the Irvine Company by providing the necessary "low to very low income housing Units in Baywood Apartments" (neat Gelson's) and significantly, undertake a new 14 unit apartinent development on the adjacent (now fenced) Child Time site next to the open space park that would be "100% low to very low income housing". At the Planning Commission meeting, Cormaissioners questioned. staff on this component of the proposal and concluded that while affordable housing goals need to be met, it was not appropriate to concentrate this number of units in one location. The issue was discussed and resolved by a 4-2 vote thatit was not appropriate for the Irvine Company (or the City) to meet the affordable housing requirement for this new project in this manner and units "should not be concentrated" in one project. As you may know, Baywood already has some of these units available for this purpose. The matter appeared resolved with this reasonable compromise until Friday December 7'. The City of Newport Beach Planning Staff, in their staff report to the City Council for the Tuesday night December 11 hearing recommending project approval, is ignoring the Planning Commission resolution and recommending that the affordable housing units for this project be located in Baywood and in a new project located on the "Child Time" site. For whatever reason, a very significant Development. Agreement is being fast tracked by the City and many in our community are just now aware of its potential significance. Out of many conclusions, some key findings of concern are: • The Traffic Study indicates some intersections will be mitigated by the stated mitigation improvements but also determined that some cannot be. and concluded `the overall benefit of the project outweighs the inability to mitigate these impacts' (item b, page 18 and bottom of page 19). • Regarding Affordable Housing, the discussion of the 15% requirement for the project is on page 20 for the 430 units. For the first time it is proposed that a property outside the North Newport Center project be used to mitigate impacts the project itself creates. • Most troubling, is the staff recommendation on page 21 to reject the Planning Commission finding (while elsewhere adopting the others) to avoid. an over concentration of these units in a particular location.. Representing over 1,050 Homeowners, the Board asks for your consideration of the following: • The Board a that the City should, over time, find reasonable ways to meet its Affordable Housing objectives. This is a city -wide. issue. • The Board dis that, as set forth in the Staff Report and the Development Agreement, that the future public hearing process should be repackaged in such a manner that only the Newport Beach City Staff should have further input on project components. That takes the public's right to comment out of the equation and so, in our view, the Child Time site and other project related matters,.could be approved without any adjacent residents or owners being consulted or aware. A good number of our residents are adjacent to this proposed project and, respectfully, we think the "bundled" approach is questionable for a project with this many components, could result in poor planning and unanticipated environmental impacts. • The Board with the Planning Commission recommendation that the Affordable (low to very low) units should nofbe:concentrated at the Baywood and Child Time sites. The Commissioners are community representatives and The Board disagrees with Staff ignoring this issue and recommending the opposite to Council. • The Board disaarm that a new 430 unit residential project cannot implement its own Affordable Housing quotient (which would then be conveniently near City Hall) and be allowed to move this development obligation off site. If there is justification for it being moved, it should not as a result be concentrated at one location to meet a City wide goal. Many other Irvine Company apartment communities would be additionally eligible. The Board strongly disai=s that the Traffic Study TS2007 -001, the proposed Traffic mitigation or EIR Addendum adequately address the very real impacts of another tum pocket, signal or other access plan on San Miguet adequate for new apartments at the Child Time site. Staff appears to assume this site ready for development and a density bonus (page 19 and 20) when it is evident in the Staff Report that traffic impacts for this project have not been studied. Only the Newport Center North plan. and surrounding areas was studied Yet this site is proposed to be a key mitigation for that project.. The Board encourages you to visit the Child Time.site (now fenced) and envision the traffic issue for yourself for a use that would be full time occupancy as opposed to drop off. In, voicing our concerns; it is important to emphasize that the Board respects and supports the overall effort the Council has undertaken to achieve a Development Agreement. Many of its attributes are to be applauded. We compliment the Mayor and the Council on this effort and many hours of hard work. With a project of this size we sympathize that certain project details can be in good .faith overlooked. We believe however that concentrating a key project mitigation in.an established community without adequate analysis is poor planning policy and a rais- application, of an otherwise laudable goal and -the methodology is not in fact in compliance with CEQA. We redly urge the Council to amend the Development Agreement to address the over- conoentration issue and took, forward to you consideration and. support. Thank you. On behalf of. Neywort.FUs Cqa2KU City Association Morris Cc Board Members City Attorney - Robin Clawson City Manager— Homer Bludau 14 k\1) -r - * IS Imagery source: http: / /maps.live.com Newport Center Building Heights Elevation Data: City of Newport Beach GIS Above Ground Level (AGL) k\\ o-7 15 Newport Center Building Heights Imagery source:http: / /maps.live.com Elevation Data: City of Newport Beach GIS Above Ground Level (AGL) Robert W. Mapel 1459 Galaxy Drive Newport Beach, California 92660 November 26, 2007 The Mayor of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA Subject: Proposed contract with Irvine Company "RECEIVE ASTER AGENDA t-RRINTED'.. '. vZ9 I am concerned about the program to ramrod through the City Council the new contract with the Irvine Company without allowing sufficient time for thoughtful consideration or community input. Every city on the West Coast suffers from uncontrolled growth and traffic strangulation. The citizens of Newport Beach and their prior elected officials have attempted to guard against this by enacting various codes and restrictions to prevent over - development. The unseemly haste in allowing a developer to buy his way around all these efforts is an affront to the citizens of Newport Beach. I urge you to ask the City Council to table this proposal until experts and citizen groups have examined the contract and determined it is in the best interest of all of us. d Mapel cc: Daily Pilot Date Copies en t To: Mayor Council Member �,��Manager ��V!HttO E�1r y ❑ 1�1� 5 l0�7 -4:t::' /s Da ily�iPilot MW P"PW PubWwd 3atsWy. No ffkw?.r, 2007 1 @07 PRO PST Opinion COMMUNITY COMMENTARY: Construction files translated for the public By George Jeffries I have just completed reading the Planning Commission staff report regarding the Irvine Co. request for a development agreement with the city affecting Fashion Island and the northern portion of Newport Center. Fora- hundred and fitly pages of supporting material include a report, development agreement and highly technical data over the heads of most residents, including me. However, I have discussed the subject with the project city plarmr, the assistant city manager and several people who are knowledgeable concerning local planning. it is one of the largest developments in the history of our city. The proposed development agreement results from unpublicized negotiations by two council members with the Irvine Co. and private council discussions. These have been without benefit of expert consultants (even the city manager), interim reports, public communication or publicity. The plan was first exposed at a joint council and Planning Commission study session on Oct. 30, virtually without public comment. The staff report, recommending approval and dated Nov. 15, is supposed to be digested and forwarded to the City Council with a recommendation after a Planning Commission meeting on Thursday, with primary action by the council on Dec. 15 and final action shortly thereafter. This is an unprecedented brief timeline. The report is very difficult to understand. Proposal: What might be helpful would be to add a notice on the front page of the report in red, bold 16 -point caps along the following lines: This 450 -page staff report includes a proposed development agreement with the Irvine Co. in Newport Center. It grants to the Irvine Co. the virtually unfettered right to develop and build 300,000 additional square feet in Fashion Island, plus 430 residences. It substitutes 250,000 square feet of high -rise office buildings for a planned hotel expansion or development entitlement. Office and residential buildings can be built to a height of 375 feet or 50% higher than the tallest building in Newport Center. There are no conceptual models, plot plans or iNustrations of the proposed project at buitabut. The development, will add approximately 3,000 vehicle hips per day (not including traffic from a new city hall in the park) to several nearby intersections, two of which are currently operating at unsatisfactory" peak hour Isvels It provides for maximum density of construction, questionable planning standards and Parking ratios and setbacks below current city standards. It antiapates the use of valet parking and busing, not as a convenience, but as a requirement. It is translferabks to anyone, including slum kuds, to manage the low-income element, without significant limits. Legally, this plan may be an amendment to the general plan requiring a city vote, but there will be no vote by the residents by the way, the Irvine Co. is gang to pay the city approximately $48 rmikor and C»nfer certain 'benefits.° Conclusion. Actualk you do not have to read this report at aff. It will be a done deal before Christmas (while everyone is busy) and you cannot do anything about k. Ho ho ho. Is it a good deal for the city? Was the city over - matched in the negotiations? It would take experts some time to figure this out but a very rough answer is instructive: Just considering the residence entitlement, what would be the value of a 3,000 - square -foot pied a terra on the 27th floor of a Newport Center high -rise whose owners could look down their noses on their Newport Coast neighbors as part of a sweeping 240-degree view of Southern California and the Pacific? How about $15 million? Four - hundred and thirty units? You do the math and make adjustments. Hint: The total will still take 10 digits. Proponents of this carefully orchestrated program and the City Council apparently do not want people to get a handle on it so there can be a community response, When fully informed our residents have consistently limited egregious growth. Is our council dealing fairly and candidly with our residents? Is this city government at its worst? You be the judge. GEORGE JEFFRIES is a retired Newport Beach lawyer and a 45 -year resident of the city..He has been an arts commissioner, library trustee and has supported moderate growth organizations. [ CLOSE 1MNDOW ] a` (c c9-7 — tJ :5 VIA FACSIMILE AND U.S. MAIL December 11, 2007 Mayor Steven Rosansky Newport Beach City Councilmembers City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Re: Comments regarding proposed EIR Addendum for Development Agreement (City Council Agenda Item #15) Dear Mayor Rosansky and Newport Beach City Councilmembers: Introduction and Summary of Comments. I write as a concerned Irvine Business Complex resident to comment on the proposed Ordinance approving Code Amendment No. CA2007 -007 and Planned Community Development Plan Amendment No. PD2007 -003 for North Newport Center Planned Community (PA2007 -151) located in the 500 -600 Block of Newport Center Drive and the 42000 Block of San Joaquin Plaza as well as the accompanying Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 200601 1 1 19) for the City of Newport Beach General Plan 2006 Update ( "Addendum"), Traffic Study No. TS2007 -001 (the "Traffic Study "), the Affordable Housing Implementation Plan, the Transfer of Development Rights, and Development Agreement No. DA2007 -002 (the "Development Agreement "). As detailed below, the proposed Addendum to the 2006 General Plan EIR is legally insufficient. The Addendum does not adequately describe the project and its conclusion, that no fair argument can be made that a significant environmental effect might flow if Newport Beach adds thousands of new workers and residents to a fully developed area with severe existing traffic flow problems is simply not credible. Accordingly, we request that Newport Beach prepare a full environmental impact report (EIR) for this project. While Irvine residents would be happy to participate in any scoping session Newport Beach might conduct with respect to that EIR, we note that at this early stage that we view that traffic, circulation, park and recreation impacts are of special concern. Planning Commissioner Hawkins, an Attorney who has sued the City of Irvine and the developer of the project at 2323 Main Street in Irvine on behalf of his client, voiced his concerns at the Planning Commission hearing on the lack of sufficient environmental review. Page 1 of 7 For this Council to vote to sue all Irvine Business Complex residential development projects based on an allegation of insufficient environmental review and then to use the same level of review (and in the case of the most recent developments in Irvine, a lower level of review) is hypocritical at the least. Background Law. As you know, the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code §§ 21000 et seq. ( "CEQA "), requires an EIR to be prepared whenever "there is substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the lead agency, that a project may have a significant effect on the environment...." (Pub. Res. C. § 21082.2 (d)). In determining whether or not to prepare an EIR, the lead agency must consider both potential project - specific impacts as well as potential cumulative impacts arising from the project. Lighthouse Field Beach Rescue v. Santa Cruz (2005) 131 Ca1.App.4th 1170, Pub. Res. C. § 21002.1. The requirement for preparation of an EIR is a 'low threshold," and doubts must be resolved in favor of preparation of an EIR (No Oil, Inc. v. Los Angeles (1974) 13 Cal.3d 68; Citizen Action to Serve All Students v. Thornley (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 748). Only where there is no substantial evidence that the project may have a significant effect on the environment can a lead agency prepare an Addendum or NMD in lieu of an EIR. See Pub. Res. C. § 21080(c), State CEQA Guidelines 14 CCR §§ 15064 (f)(3) and 15070 (hereinafter "Guidelines "). Newport Beach must consider all information now in its hands, as well as the evidence contained in comments submitted during the public review period (Pub. Res. C. § 21091(d)(1)). Reliance on a prior EIR to support a Addendum to the 2006 General Plan EIR is appropriate only where the project remains substantially the same as that analyzed in the earlier document and no substantial changes in the circumstances of the project have occurred since the earlier document was adopted, and no substantial changes will result from the revised project, and perhaps most significantly, the project will not have any significant impacts not discussed in the previous EIR. Snarled Traffic Obstructs Progress v. San Francisco (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 793, Guidelines § 15162. The proposed Addendum to the 2006 General Plan EIR relies on the 2006 General Plan EIR and that reliance is unsupportable. The 2006 General Plan does not account for substantial increases in traffic in the vicinity of the site and major changes in the Orange County freeway and toll road system. A review of the record demonstrates that the Addendum to the 2006 General Plan EIR is fatally flawed. A fair argument can plainly be made that this new project will have a wide variety of project - specific potential environmental impacts as well as a plethora of cumulative impacts when considered in light of other projects in the vicinity of the Newport Center. Further, the Initial Study fails to adequately describe the project, identify the baseline environmental setting, or analyze the impacts of the project. In short, it is cursory, incomplete and unconvincing. It will not withstand judicial review. Page 2 of 7 It is noteworthy that when the information requirements of CEQA are not complied with, an agency fails to proceed in a "manner required by law ", and has therefore abused its discretion. Pub. Res. C. §§ 21168.5, 21005(a); County of Amador v. El Dorado County Water Agency (1999) 76 Cal.AppAth 1428; Environmental Planning & Information Council v. County of El Dorado (1982) 131 Cal.App.3d 350; Save Our Peninsula Comm. v. Monterey County (2001) 87 Cal.AppAth 99. Specific Shortcomings of the Addendum to the 2006 General Plan EIR. The following is a brief list of the evidence that supports our conclusion that a full EIR is required: 1. The Addendum to the 2006 General Plan EIR is inadequate. The failure to identify even one potentially significant impact that may result from this project is tacit evidence that it was prepared to support the project without the full study as required by law. Specific examples of how the analysis is woefully inadequate are set forth below. 2. This project is inconsistent with the 2006 General Plan. Land Use Section 3.3 (Opportunities for Change) in the General Plan under the subheading for Fashion Island/Newport Center specifically states: "expanded retail uses and hotel rooms and development of residential in proximity to jobs and services, while limiting increases in office development" If this project was contemplated by the General Plan Update and EIR in 2006, then why was this statement of policy specifically stated in the "Opportunities for Change" section? This is prima facie evidence that this change in use was not contemplated and therefore must be studied. 3. Development rights may be transferred within Newport Center, per LU 6.14.3 of the 2006 General Plan, subject to the approval of the City with the finding that the transfer is consistent with the General Plan and that the transfer will not result in any adverse traffic impacts. This project would transfer a portion of the existing development rights from Block 600 to Block 500. The transfer includes the conversion of 165 unbuilt hotel rooms to office space, and the transfer of this entitlement to Block 500. It also includes the removal of 17,300 square feet (sf) of health club, 16,444 sf of restaurant, and 8,289 sf of office from Block 600 and the transfer of the entitlements to Block 500. Although a traffic study was conducted, it inadequately accounted for the conversion of hotel rooms to office square footage, it failed to accurately reflect the baseline conditions, and it failed to fully analyze the impacts of transferring these development rights to a different part of Newport Center. The traffic study found impacts from this project, but determined that they were "feasibl[y] mitigate[d] ". The Addendum then argues that these impacts and mitigation were "consistent with the 2006 General Plan Circulation Element," however, for the reasons stated above, this is false. As quoted above, the land uses for the project area contemplated expanding retail uses and hotel rooms while limiting increased office development. This project is inconsistent with both goals of the General Plan because it Page 3 of 7 converts unbuilt hotel entitlements, reduces overall retail and health club uses and increases office development by a corresponding amount. The mitigation for the impacts caused by this project requires the applicant to construct a third eastbound turn lane at the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard and San Joaquin Hills Road. The Addendum states that the applicant "will work with the City on design and development of circulation enhancements in the North Newport Center area." This casual approach to mitigation is not supported under CEQA. A full EIR would and should establish a time -table and guidelines for these required mitigations.. 4. The Affordable Housing Implementation Plan is unnecessarily vague and ambiguous. The applicant should commit now to the exact number of units and locations of the units and the proper environmental study must be undertaken. 5. The following provisions of the Development Agreement are not fully examined by the Addendum: • Cancellation of Circulation Improvement and Open Space Agreement and Bonita Canyon Annexation and Development Agreement o Comment: The 2006 General Plan EIR found that the City was hugely impacted in its parks. The deficiency was 38.8 acres. • Payment of in -lieu park fees for 430 residential units, including early payment of a portion of fees as matching grant for OASIS Senior Center o Comment: The 2006 General Plan EIR found that the City was hugely impacted in its parks. The deficiency was over 38.8 acres. • Circulation enhancements in the North Newport Center area o Comment: See comments above. • Impacts of the City using 375 parking spaces in the project area • Funding mechanisms for future mitigation after the increases on development fees are limited 6. The aesthetics section of the Addendum does not sufficiently analyze the potential degradation of the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings or the impact or creation of a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. The 2006 General Plan EIR stated that the "visual character would change as development intensity increased, but the impacts would not be considered significantly adverse... therefore, the proposed General Plan Update would have a less - than- significant impact on the visual character of developed urban areas." (See page 4.1 -19) The General Plan did not contemplate this intensive office building, therefore it could not have anticipated these two potential impacts. The proposed mitigation of merely requiring a shade study is insufficient. 7. There is no analysis of air quality impacts; in fact, the Addendum raises no possible significant environmental impacts, despite the fact the plan will add thousands of new workers operating thousands of automobiles in a congested area, and despite the fact that virtually every project in the South Coast Air Basin exceeds the thresholds of Page 4 of 7 significance established by the South Coast Air Quality Management District. We request that you reflect in the record of this matter the current standards of significance promulgated by SCAQMD for analyses of this type. 8. The climate change section of the Addendum quotes the 2006 General Plan EIR which states that the nature of the project area promotes a mixed -use, pedestrian- friendly district. (See page 4.2 -12). The Addendum states that the project is not expected to result in any climate change impacts due to greenhouse gas emissions beyond the impacts of the development set forth in the General Plan EIR. It is plain to; see from these two statements alone that the Addendum is an insufficient environmental review. If the area is a mixed -use, pedestrian - friendly area and at least three of the mixed uses (health club, restaurant, and hotel) are removed as part of this project and converted to office uses (with the same traffic patterns of the other roughly 1,746,979 square feet of office/commercial), it cannot be argued that the 2006 EIR contemplated the impacts of this project and the changes in land uses. 9. The biological resources section of the Addendum argues that there are no possible impacts because the site has been developed for the last forty years. This project's adjacency to the back bay may cause the project to have an impact on protected migratory birds who fly into and out of the Back Bay and could be impacted by a ten - story building in their flight path and the increased glare from the glazing. 10. The Land Use and Planning section of the Addendum completely ignores LU 3.3 of the General Plan as stated above several times. This conversion conflicts directly with the land use plan and policy as stated in the General Plan and must be studied in an EIR. 11. The Recreation and Open Space section of the Addendum is supposed to analyze any potential impacts of the project which would 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. This project is removing the 24 Hour Fitness located in the 600 Block of Newport Center. The City is already deficient by 38.8 acres of park acreage, with 7 of 12 service areas experiencing a deficit of recreational acreage. Through the Development Agreement, the project includes cancellation of the Circulation and Improvement and Open Space Agreement (CIOSA). Furthermore, the project includes the payment of park in -lieu fees. The preceding actions will all result in potential significant impacts and should be studied. Additionally, the payment of in -lieu fees instead of the actual dedication of land is not a proper mitigation since there is no guarantee that the land will ever be provided or available and no schedule of when the needed recreation and open space will be available is provided. 12. As was noted above with respect to air quality, a new, updated, and thorough review of the traffic impacts that will result from this project is required. The General Plan review did not foresee development of this magnitude in this area. Given the changes in regional traffic since even 2006, changes in the mix of residential and commercial uses in the area, substantial pending residential development in adjacent Page 5 of 7 cities, and construction of new roadways that may improve or exacerbate transportation in this area. The Addendum fails to conclude this new project may result in significant traffic impacts. This is simply not credible. The development agreement itself contains $5m+ for traffic improvements. Additionally, the Addendum claims that the 2006 EIR identifies that the implementation of the 2006 General Plan could result in a substantial increase in the number of vehicle trips, volume to capacity of roadways, and congestion at intersections when compared to existing conditions in the City. The General Plan traffic study and EIR did not analyze the impacts on any of the intersections in neighboring jurisdictions such as Irvine. Even if it had, it would not have contemplated this change in use. Hotel rooms, restaurants, and a 24 Hour Fitness have very different traffic patterns and impacts, then a ten -story office tower. Due to the lack of new residential projects and affordable housing in Newport Beach, additional office space will have huge impacts on the City of Irvine since anecdotal evidence suggests that most of the employees will be coming from the 5 and 405 freeways and thus traveling through Irvine to Newport Beach. Moving City Hall from its current location to Newport Center will result in changes in traffic patterns which were not contemplated by the 2006 EIR and insufficiently addressed by the Addendum. The traffic study states that a potential new City Hall of 72,000 sf would generate 108 peak hour trips These specific peak hour trips were not contemplated in the 2006 EIR. The impacts at MacArthur Blvd. and San Joaquin Hills Road, Goldenrod Avenue at Coast Highway and Marguerite Avenue at Coast Highway have not been sufficiently mitigated. It is not sufficient to state that there are no feasible improvements available at the latter two and that these two intersections operate at LOS "E." This project should study these impacts and propose mitigation. 13. The document discloses that the new office square footage could be built in Newport Center if the project is approved, but does not analyze the consequences of that development nor clearly indicate the relationship between this project and the subsequent actions which will bring thousands of new workers to this congested area. This, as you know, is "piecemealing" in violation of CEQA. Orinda Ass n v. Board of Supervisors (1986) 182 Cal.App.3d 1145, 1171. The Addendum to the 2006 General Plan EIR has further inadequacies and inconsistencies beyond those detailed above. However this short letter is sufficient to demonstrate the point that the Addendum is insufficient. The law is quite clear that if a fair argument can be made that significant environmental issues may result from a project, even if a fair argument may be made to the contrary, an EIR must be completed. We respectfully submit that we have made that fair argument that this project may not go forward until a full EIR is prepared as required by CEQA. Administrative History/Planning Commission. It should be noted by this Council that at the Planning Commission hearing wherein this project was reviewed, there was a split of Page 6of7 the Commission on the question of tho Environmental documentation. Commissioner Eaton noted his concern that the Commission is not following the right procedure to exclude public review on the environmental document. We agree. This project has been ram -rodded through the City with little or no input from residents of the cities of Newport Beach or the surrounding communities or from the City Councils of said communities, specifically the City of Irvine. Commissioner Hawkins, who as previously stated herein has represented a petitioner in their suit based on CEQA against the City of Irvine and the developer of the property at 2323 Main Street in Irvine, stated at the hearing that there are maj or problems with the Addendum. He noted that the General Plan argues against the conversion of hotel to office and that 40,000 square feet of additional office entitlement was "backed out" between the draft and final EIR. He concluded that the Addendum is not the appropriate environmental document. Conclusion . Reliance on an Addendum to the 2006 General Plan EIR is entirely inadequate for this substantial change to the Newport Beach general plan. The 2006 EIR Inadequately studied many of the issues that are almost certain to arise if the new project is approved to intensify development in the Newport Center area. There is a substantial argument that substantial potentially significant environmental impacts will result rrom adoption of this project. An EIR is clearly required to identify and examine each of those impacts. We urge you to reject the proposed Addendum to the 2006 General Plan EIR and to prepare an EIR as CEQA requires. Considering this Council's haste with which to litigate CEQA matters, it should be noted that the option of retaining legal counsel and challenging the adequacy of the environmental review of this project in Court, should this Council proceed under this faulty environmental document, is available. The arguments being made by the law firm representing the City of Newport Beach, if valid, will apply equally when viewed against this prcjW. Thank you for your attention to these comments. We look forward to working with Newport Beach to resolve these concerns via a sufficient EIR and would welcome an Opportunity to participate in a scoping meeting regarding that effort. Very truly yours, Daniel Shanahan Page 7 of 7 1--;A kO 0-7 -- -*Is orosz Engineering Group, Inc. :5.7 341 p ore FAX. :i.,_ .rs_ .. December 11, 2007 City Council City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Subject: North Newport Center Project - Peer Review and Measure S Evaluation Honorable Mayor Rosansky and members of the City Council: Orosz Engineering Group, Inc (DEG) has been retained by the Greenlight PAC to conduct a peer review of the supporting traffic engineering studies that have been published relative to the subject project. We have also been asked to review the project in light of the Measure S thresholds and to review the methodology in the transfer of square footage proposed. The following is a summary of the documents included in the peer review and evaluation that the City has produced for the Planning Commission and City Council's use in reviewing the proposed project. • Newport Center Trip Transfer Traffic Study; November 7, 2007 • North Newport Center Traffic Phasing Ordinance Traffic Study; November 6, 2007 • Planning Commission Staff Report— North Newport Center Planned Community (PA2007 -151) 500 -600 Bilk Newport Center Drive, 42000 Blk San Joaquin Plaza; November 1S, 2007 • Addendum to City of Newport Beach General Plan 2006 Update EIR The peer review focused on the primary issue of equality of the transfer of existing uses and entitlements to the proposed project in terms of square footage and traffic volume. Secondarily, the analysis provides and opinion on the applicability of the Measure S thresholds requiring an election to determine the merits of the project. This letter report and evaluation has been prepared by Mr. Stephen Orosz, PE, PTOE. As principal of DEG, Mr. Orosz, has over 25 years experience in the field of transportation planning and traffic engineering. Mr. Orosz holds a bachelor in science degree in Civil Engineering with emphasis on Transportation. He is a registered Traffic Engineer and Civil Engineer in the State of California. He also has been certified by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) as a Professional Traffic Operations Engineer (PTOE). During the course of his professional career, Mr. Orosz has not only prepared numerous traffic impact analyses for developers, individuals and municipalities, he has conducted many similar peer reviews for developers, municipalities and interested individuals /groups. As such, DEG is qualified to conduct the peer review of the technical documents associated with this project. Mr. Orosz has also recently reacquainted himself with the study area after having worked in the transportation profession in and around the City of Newport Beach between 1980 and 1987. Mr. Orosz resume is attached for additional qualifications and background. to City of Newport Beach December 11, 2007 Page 2 Summary of Findings In brief, DEG has identified numerous miscalculations in the complex traffic analysis that result in the project as proposed not being consistent or equal to the transferred land uses. Further based on these miscalculations in the square footage and traffic generation for the proposed project, the thresholds identified in Measure S appear to be exceeded. The following material issues and inconsistencies have been identified with the subject supporting documents that lead to these conclusions. 1. The trip generation rates used to estimate the City Hall traffic have been understated. 2. The AM peak hour traffic has not been considered in the traffic equality calculations. 3. City Hall trip generation has not been included in the traffic analysis. 4. Hotel trip generation has not been included in the traffic analysis. 5. Increases in existing Fashion Island development have been identified in the traffic analysis, but are not discussed anywhere else in the documentation. 6. When the AM peak hour is considered, the actual amount of equivalent development is 160 TSF less than proposed. The proposed project results in 160 TSF of office uses over and above that consistent with the General Plan. 7. The amount of equivalent SF calculation is suspect. 8. The project would add at least 179 more peak hour trips than currently envisioned. 9. The project will create significant impacts at three intersections during the peak hours. 10. The project is not traffic neutral, or consistent, or equivalent and the analysis is incomplete. Anal sis The following analysis expands on these points and provides a reference document for the analysis conducted. Newport Center Trip Transfer Traffic Study: November 7, 2007 1. There appears to be a double counting of the office square footage in the use.of the eliminated office space in Table 1 and the way the trip rates were calculated for the office uses: Footnote 4 in Table 1 states that there are 408 TSF (thousand square feet) of existing development. Further the table removes 8.289 TSF of office uses and seeks a trip credit in the calculations. The double counting and inclusion of the eliminated SF of office leads to a under estimation of office traffic in the future compared to the existing conditions. 2. The footnote used in assigning the trip generation rate for the City Hall is not correct. Footnote 5 states that the "ITE land use code 750 Office Park (emphasis added) is most representative of the City Hall (in both function and magnitude)." This is an incorrect statement. Two other ITE land use codes 730 and 733 Government Office Building (emphasis added) state that these two uses are representative of City Hall traffic patterns. The magnitude of the facilities used to document the trip rates (ITE Land Use Codes 730 and 733) are 52 TSF and 104 TSF, essentially bracketing the proposed City Hall at 72 TSF. The net result of using either of these two ITE land uses is that the estimated traffic for the City Hall increases and the net transferable office square footage decreases. The ITE Land Use Code descriptions are attached to this report. 0 City of Newport Beach December 11, 2007 Page 3 Further, one other ITE land use code would be more appropriate than the one selected in the analysis and that is ITE land use code 715 Single Tenant Office BuildinIz (emphasis added). The size of the facilities used to develop these trip rates (ITE Code 715 identifies an164 TSF average) is closer to the proposed City Hall (72 TSF) than the Office Park trip rate (ITE Code 750 which identifies a 370 TSF average). The net result of using either of these two ITE land uses is that the estimated traffic for the City Hall increases and the net transferable office square footage decreases. 3. An even more critical error in this data noted in Table 1 is the lack of comparison of the AM peak hour traffic volumes. The health club, quality restaurant and hotel uses have dramatically lower AM peak hour traffic volumes than the office uses that are being compared. When the AM peak hour traffic comparison is conducted, the amount of equivalent office uses that can be considered for transfer to the concept of traffic neutrality and equality decreases significantly. In summary, these inconsistencies with the analysis included in the Trip Transfer Study significantly increase the City Hall traffic during the AM and PM peak hours and results in the inconsistency in the AM peak hourtraffic volumes. The resultant increase in the AM peak hour traffic proposed exceeds the Measure S thresholds of 100 peak hour trips. North Newport Center Traffic Phasing Ordinance Traffic Study; November 6, 2007 1. In the trip generation Table 1, there is some missing key information. The hotel room traffic that is being utilized to be transferred to the office uses is not documented in the project trip generation table. This is a key element in the transfer proposal that would affectthe amount of square footage to be considered equivalent. 2. The City Hall trip generation is missing from the Table 1 totals. This would significantly increase the net amount project traffic. 3. The new addition of Shopping Center square footage is not documented anywhere else in the project discussion. Based on our preliminary research, the amount of development in Fashion Island in the General Plan has been accounted for. The amount of square footage of development proposed (72 TSF) exceeds the 40 TSF threshold in the Measure S criteria. Further, the 121 peak hour trips exceed the 100 peak hour trip threshold. 4. The whole trip transfer assumption was that the unbuilt /removed uses were equivalent to the proposed uses. The current information in Table 1 demonstrates that during the PM peak hour the proposed project generates 27 more trips than the transferred uses. Similarly during the AM peak hour, the proposed uses generate 179 more trips than the transferred uses. The increases in peak hour traffic confirm that the.proposed project is not consistent or equal to the approved uses. 5. The general office trip rates are correctly based on the regression equation provided by ITE. However, the City Hall trip rate used in the analysis also qualifies to be based on the regression equation, not an average rate for the same reasoning presented by the applicant. The apparent selective use of the regression equation is not the normal standard of care in the traffic profession. In summary, these inconsistencies in the analysis included for the Traffic Phasing Ordinance do not demonstrate that the existing entitlements are equal or equivalent to the proposed project. The project as proposed exceeds both the square footage and traffic thresholds contained in the Measure S. 1D City of Newport Beach December 11, 2007 Page 4 Planning Commission Staff Report— North Newport Center Planned Community (PA2007 -1S1) S00 -600 Elk Newport Center Drive, 42000 Blk San Joaquin Plaza; November 1S, 2007 1. While the statement in the Transfer of Development Rights section correctly notes that the PM peak hour is a period when the highest amount of congestion is found, this is not the complete test when the evaluation of equality in transfers of development rights is being considered. To make a complete finding of traffic neutrality and equality, all time periods of the day must be tested — AM peak hour, PM peak hour and daily traffic. Even though the PM peak hour may experience the most congestion, a project proposal that would increase AM peak hour traffic by approximately 200 vehicles during the AM peak hour and could result in increased traffic impacts. Further as required by Measure S, a project that proposes an increase in traffic greater than 100 vehicles during a peak hour triggers the Measure S process. 2. In following the calculations to determine the transferable square footage in the staff report, the staff notes that initially (based on just square feet of use) a total of 23S,161 SF plus the 72,000 SF of city hall could be transferred. The staff report continues to note that although 23S,161 SF is equivalent based on SF, the amount to be transferred through the comparison of PM peak hour trips is 30 TSF less (for a total of 20S,161 SF plus the City Hall). However, the staff report does not go to the next step to check equivalency for potential transfer— the AM peak hour. When the AM peak hour trip equivalency is tested, the amount available to transfer and to be considered equal or consistent would be approximately 16S TSF less than currently proposed (40 TSF plus the 72 TSF for the City Hall). Therefore, the project as proposed would be exceeding the 40 TSF threshold for Measure S by proposing an increase of 16S TSF. 3. The calculations determining the potential amount of transferable square feet is not clear. The first item 30 hotel rooms from the original Four Seasons entitlement equates to a generic 1000 SF per room conversion. The 100 room expansion entitled with GPA 97 -3D has a very specific square footage as part of the GPA project. The last entry is the confusing one. This relates to a generic 6S hotel room allocation based on the 2006 General Plan. The square footage for this conversion does not use the 1000 SF per room allocation approved for this purpose, but uses the higher specific rate of 1,42S SF per room based on the detailed GPA. This apparent mis- calculation results in an additional 27,62S SF potential transfer. In summary, these inconsistencies in the Planning Commission Staff Report make the analysis included faulty as the proposed project would be found not consistent, traffic neutral or equal to the proposed transfer of land uses. Addendum to City of Newport Beach General Plan 2006 Update EIR 1. The project environmental analysis in Table 4 describes the potential project impacts that can be expected to occur with the approval of the project. The analysis in Table 4, page 3 -40 and 3 -41 indicate that the project as proposed creates project specific impacts two intersections during the PM peak hour and one intersection in the AM peak hour under the existing Plus Growth Plus Approved Plus Cumulative Plus Project conditions. The technical studies provided in support of the project indicate that the project creates new significant impacts and would exceed the impact thresholds set forth in Measure S. 2. The addendum contradicts itself on page 3 -42 in the paragraph under Table S that states "that . the project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR." The analysis City of Newport Beach December 11, 2007 Page 5 contained in the previous table (Table 4) identifies three intersections that would result in traffic significant traffic impacts as described in the City's General Plan — impact of 0.01 or greater at LOS E or F. The critical review of the complex traffic analysis has found several inconsistencies within the documentation being used to evaluate this project. The inconsistencies identified are both within each of the technical documents and potentially with the General Plan. This review has also demonstrated that the proposed Transfer of Development proposed is not equivalent, traffic neutral or consistent. The absence of critical analysis and data to provide the decision makers with all of the information necessary to make an informed decision is not possible at this time. A representative from OEG will be available at the City Council Hearing on December 11, 2007 to address these issues more completely. Sincerely, Stephen A. Orosz, P , PTOE Orosz Engineering Group, Inc. Attachments %J t i 1 1 1 1 f Y at 1 a t ® Guiding Principles The recommended approach for estimating trip generation for a proposed development is based on the following principles. When the Trip Generation data plot contains more than 20 data points and a regression curve and equation are provided, use of the regression equation is recommended. A regression equation with an R2 of at least 0.75 is preferred because it indicates the desired level of corre- lation between the trips generated by a site and the value measured for an independent variable. For the same reason, a weighted average rate is preferred when the standard deviation is less than or equal to 110 percent of the weight- ed average rate. The value of the independent vari- able for the study site must fall within the range of data included to use either the rate or equation. Otherwise local data are needed. Supplemental local data are sug- gested when the data plot has less than six data points. The number of trips determined by either the rate or the equation should fall within the cluster of data points (i.e., the range of trip values) found at the study site's independent variable value. Otherwise, additional local data are needed. use Regres ar Equavon 4N6" grovlidetd s Independent N aiabW is within range of data and ® either it* data p4ot has at least 20 points 4 or R'z >_ D.75, equation falls within data cluster In plot, and standard deviation 110% of weighted average ram g Use 4Aeaghted _Average "afe > ' tNhen: " • at least three data pot • independent satiable is °> within range of data • standard deviation < 110% e weighted average rate • R2 c 4.75 or no equation provided • weighted average rate falls within data cluster in plot Golfed Lacal Gaia ",em • study site is not corripatlhfe with rFEE land use code definifson • only t or 2 data points, preferably when ft m or fewer data points • independent variable does not fall within range of data s neither weighted average rate line or fitted curve fall' within data cluster at size of development In order to put these principles into practice, two alternative approaches are available to the analyst The highlighted boa in this section pre- sents a checklist for choosing between using the weighted aver- age rare, using the regression equa- tion, and collecting local data. A detailed step -by -step approach `; r estimating trip generation is pre- sented in section 3.4 of this chr:pr - -r. Recommended Procedure for Estimating Trip Generation A step-by -step procedure is shown below for determining how best to estimate trip generation using data contained in Trip Generation. The procedure is also outlined with simplified tent in the flow chart in figure 3.1. Step 1: Is the development under analysis consistent with the description of the land use code in Trip Generation and with the described or presumed characteris- tics of development sites for which data points are provided? If yes, proceed to step 2. If no, collect local data for the land use being analyzed and establish a local rate. Refer to chapter 4 for guidelines. Caution_ The analyst should exer- cise caution before trying to quantify the trip generation effects of isolated and rainor changes ui characteristics of a particular land use. Trip Generation data are com- piled from a wide range of sources with a potentially high variability in site characteristics within the bounds of the land use code defini- tion. Trip Generation does not pro- vide information on the secondary characteristics of the surveyed sites and therefore any analysis of the 1'3 Land Use: 715 Single Tenant Office Building Description A single tenant office building generally contains offices, meeting rooms and space for file storage and data processing for a single business or company, and possibly other service functions, including a restaurant or cafeteria. General office building (Land Use 710), corporate headquarters building (Land Use 714), office park (Land Use 750), research and development center (Land Use 760) and business park (Land Use 770) are related uses. Additional Data The average vehicle occupancy for the ten studies where information was submitted was approximately 1.1 persons per automobile. The vehicle occupancy rates ranged from 1.03 to 1.14 persons per automobile. The sites were surveyed from the 1970s to the late 1990s throughout the United States. Trip Characteristics The trip generation for the a.m. and p.m. peak hours of the generator typically coincided with the peak hours of the adjacent street traffic; therefore, only one a.m. peak hour and one p.m..peak hour, which represent both the peak hour of the generator and the peak hour of the adjacent street traffic, are shown for single tenant office buildings. Source Numbers 89, 92, 212, 262, 273, 279, 303, 304, 322, 323, 324, 327, 407, 510 Trip Generation, 7th Edition 1173 Institute of Transportation Engineers 1y Land Use: 730 Government Office Building Description A government office building is an individual building containing either the entire function or simply one agency of a city, county, state, federal, or other governmental unit. This type of building differs from a government office complex (Land Use 733) in that it is not a group of buildings that are interconnected by pedestrian walkways. Additional Data Peak hours of the generator — The weekday a.m. peak hour typically coincided with the peak hour of the adjacent street traffic. The weekday p.m. peak hour was.between 1:00 p.m. and 2:00 p.m. The sites were surveyed in 1970 and 2002 in California and Oregon, respectively. Two of the sites were city halls. Source Numbers 11,579 Trip Generation, 7th Edition 1199 Institute of Transportation Engineers 1i- Land Use: 733 Government Office Complex Description A government office complex is a related group of buildings where a variety of functions of a city, county, state, federal, other governmental unit, or multiple governmental units are carried out. This complex differs from a government office building (Land Use 730) in that it is a group of buildings that are interconnected by pedestrian walkways. Additional Data The sites were surveyed in 1967 and 1999 in California. Source Numbers AM Trip Generation, 7th Edition 1240 Institute of Transportation Engineers Land Use: 750 Office Park Description Office parks are usually suburban subdivisions or planned unit developments containing general office buildings and support services, such as banks, savings and loan institutions, restaurants and service stations, arranged in a park- or campus -like atmosphere. General office building (Land Use 710), corporate headquarters building (Land Use 714), single tenant office building (Land Use 715), research and development center (Land Use 760) and business park (Land Use 770) are related uses. Additional Data Some of the regression curves plotted for this land use may produce illogical trip end estimates for small office parks. When the proposed site size is significantly smaller than the average -sized facility published in this report, caution should be used when applying these statistics. For more information, please refer to Chapter 3, "Guidelines for Estimating Trip Generation," of the ITE Trip Generation Handbook. The sttes were surveyed from the 1970s to the 1990s throughout the United States, with many conducted in New York. Trip Characteristics The trip generation for the a.m. and p.m. peak hours of the generator typically coincided with the peak hours of the adjacent street traffic; therefore, only one a.m. peak hour and one p.m. peak hour, which represent both the peak hour of the generator and the peak hour of the adjacent street traffic, are shown for office parks. Source Numbers 4, 15, 160, 161, 184, 185, 193, 253, 268, 300, 301, 356, 550 Trip Generation, 7th Edition 1248 Institute of Transportation Engineers 1x 111 � �-7 - 15 LEIBOLD MCCLENDON & MANN A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 23422 MILL CREEK DRrvE, SUITE 105 LAGUNA H►LLs, CALIFORNIA 92653 (949) 457 -6300 JOHN G. McCLENDON FAX: (949) 457 -6305 john@cEQA.com cEQA.com December 11, 2007 HAND DELIVERED Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH - CITY HALL 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 Re: December 11 2007 Citv Council Public Hearing-: North Newport Center Planned Community(PA2007 -151) [ThelrvineCompany's: CodeAmendmentNo. CA2007- 007 to change the zoning classification of Block 500 -600 of Newport Center Drive; Planned Community Development Plan Amendment No. PD2007 -003 to adopt a new Planned Community Development Plan for Fashion Island; Development Agreement No. DA2007 -002 to vest development rights and establish a public benefit contribution to the City; Traffic Study No. 2007 -001 to evaluate potential traffic impacts and circulation system improvements; Affordable Housing Implementation Plan specifying how development will meet the City's affordable housing goal; and Transfer of Development Rights; and Addendum to Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No 2006011119) for the City of Newport Beach General Plan 2006 Update] Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council: Leibold McClendon & Mann respectfully submits this letter on behalf of Greenlight and others in the community. We would urge that you neither approve the above - referenced project (the "Project's nor adopt the Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report for the City ofNewport Beach General Plan 2006 Update unless and until: (1) the City is able to comply with Zoning Law (Government Code sections 65000 et seq.), (2) the City prepares and certifies a legally adequate subsequent EIR for the Project that adequately analyzes the environmental impacts of the Project and properly fulfills its role as a public disclosure document in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (California Public Resources Code sections 21000, etseq: "CEQA ") and the State Guidelines for Implementation of CEQA (Title 14, California Code of Regulations, sections 15000, et seq.: "CEQA Guidelines "), and (3) puts the Project before the voters of Newport Beach in accordance with the Greenlight initiative of the City's Charter. I request that this letter and its attachments, as well as the numerous documents on the CD submitted herewith, be included in the record of the City's proceedings for the Project. ,i ! 0 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City of Newport Beach City Council Re: North Newport Center Planned Community Development December 11, 2007 Page 2 I. APPROVAL OF THE PROJECT WOULD VIOLATE THE STATE PLANNING AND ZONING LAW A. The City's Housing Element Has a Long History of Being Out of Compliance with Housing Element Law The Project's primary failing is that it is based on the City's adopted Housing Element which the California Department of Housing and Community Development ( "HCD "), as of October 16, 2007, has declared to be OUT of compliance with State Law. (See Tab A.) On numerous occasions HCD has informed the City of the deficiencies of its Housing Element and has given the City many opportunities to cure those deficiencies. However, the City's failure to accommodate its share of the regional housing need, especially for lower- income households, in its Housing Element persists. HCD found Newport Beach's 2003 adopted Housing Element, along with a subsequent revision in April 2005, in conditional compliance with State Law. (See Tab C.) "The Department's finding of compliance was contingent on the City's commitment to rezone the Avocado /MacArthur site and continuing to encourage and facilitate development on the Banning Ranch site." (Id.) On June 20, 2005, Cathy Creswell, Deputy Director of HCD, wrote a letter to City Manager Bludau commenting upon the City's 2005 annual report and reminded City Manager Bludau that approval of the City's third cycle Housing Element was conditional and that "if the City's October 2005 annual report ... reveals the Avocado/MacArthur site is not available for multifamily development and an alternative site has not been identified, the element will no longer comply with the `adequate sites statutory requirement.... "' (See Tab B.) In 2006, Newport Beach revised its Housing Element in an effort to comply with State Law. Unfortunately, HCD again determined that the City's revisions to the Housing Element were insufficient. After reviewing the proposal, HCD concluded that the "revised element no longer proposes to rezone the MacArthur site as a means to address the adequate sites statutory requirement." (See Tab C.) In addition, the revised element prioritized "the retention of Banning Ranch as open space." (Id.) According to HCD, this was an "especially critical point as the previously adopted element relied on Banning Ranch to accommodate 406 multifamily units without the need for a zone change or general plan amendment." (Id.) According to her November 2, 2006 letter, Cathy Creswell concluded that the City's revised Housing Element "does not contain the necessary information and analysis to determine which specific sites are suitable and available to accommodate the City's remaining housing Honorable Mayor and Members of the City of Newport Beach City Council Re: North Newport Center Planned Community Development December 11, 2007 Page 3 need within the current planning period." (Id.) However, HCD did provide the City with a list of information that, if included in a revised Housing Element, could bring the element into compliance with State Law. (Id.) As a result of HCD's last round of comments on the City's Housing Element, the City again revised its Housing Element in 2007. On September 10, 2007, Cathy Creswell again informed the City that the revised Housing Element was inadequate. (See Tab D.) This time Deputy Director Creswell told the City that, in order for its Housing Element to comply with State Law it "must demonstrate the strategies [proffered by the City] are realistic and viable such that they can accommodate Newport Beach's remaining share of the regional housing need, particularly for lower- income households." (Id.) According to the Southern California Association of Government's ( "SCAG ") July 12, 2007, Final Regional Housing Need Allocation Plan for the Fourth Planning Period of January 1, 2006 through June 30, 2014, Newport Beach must provide 1,784 units of residential housing. (See Tab E.) Of the 1,784 total residential units, 392 must be available to very -low income households, 322 must be available to low income households, 362 must be available to moderate income households, and 708 must be available to above moderate income households. (Id.) Moreover, the City's 2005 -2006 annual progress report on Housing Element Implementation admits that, of the 86 very low- income units the City was required to develop under the prior (1998 -2005) RHNA period, it only produced 24 and still needs to produce another 62 very low- income units. (See Tab F.) Similarly, of the 83 very moderate- income units the City was required to develop under the prior period, it failed to produce any such units. (Id.) Finally, it appears that the City does not have an Inclusionary Housing Ordinance that might assist it in developing affordable housing. In June of last year, the Planning Commission considered the adoption of such an ordinance Tab 0, and the following month the City Council considered it. (Tab H.) As drafted, the proposed ordinance would have added a new Chapter 20.68 to the City's Zoning Code. (Id.) However, our review of the Zoning Code indicates that there is no Chapter 20.68, and we are unable to otherwise find where the City has adopted an Inclusionary Housing Ordinance. So given the foregoing, the question that HCD has so fairly asked the City to answer remains relevant: where exactly is the City now going to locate the more than one thousand affordable housing units that State Law requires it to develop by 2014? The City has yet to answer this question. Honorable Mayor and Members of the City of Newport Beach City Council Re: North Newport Center Planned Community Development December 11, 2007 Page 4 B. The Project Violates the No -Net Loss in Density Law. In 2002, the Legislature added section 65863 to the Planning and Zoning Law; it has since become known as the "No- Net -Loss in Density Law." '(Government Code §65582.1(i).) Section 65863(a) commands every city and county to "ensure that its inventory or programs of adequate sites pursuant to paragraph (3) of subdivision (a) of section 65583 and paragraph (1) of subdivision (c) of Section 65583 can accommodate its share of the regional housing need pursuant to Section 65584, throughout the planning period." (Emphasis added.) Government Code section 65583(a)(3) requires housing elements to contain "[a]n inventory of land suitable for residential development' ' that includes (among other things) "[a] listing of properties by parcel number or other unique reference" [see Government Code §65583.2(a) & (b)], and section 65583(c)(1) requires housing elements to "[i]dentify actions that will be taken to make sites available during the planning period." The City's 2000 -2008 Housing Element does not include any of this. In turn, section 65863(b) requires the City to "make [] written findings supported by substantial evidence" that (1) "the reduction is consistent with the adopted general plan, including the housing element" (emphasis added), and (2) that "[t]he remaining sites identified in the housing element are adequate to accommodate the jurisdiction's share of the regional housing need pursuant to Section 65584." As will be explained more fully below, the City cannot make the first finding because one cannot make a finding of consistency with an element of a general plan that does not comply with State Law. As for the second finding, it should be noted that Government Code section 65584 deals solely with the housing element that will come after the City's current (2000- 2005) Housing Element: "the housing element [f]or the fourth and subsequent revisions of the housing element pursuant to Section 65588," and that section provides a due date for the City's "fourth revision" housing element of "June 30, 2006." (Government Code §65588(c)(1).) Thus by adding section 65863 to the Planning and Zoning Law, the Legislature has for residential development unless and until the City comvletes its 2008 -2014 Housing Element update for the "fourth revision" period referenced in section 65584, utilizing SCAG's new RHNA numbers. Honorable Mayor and Members of the City of Newport Beach City Council Re: North Newport Center Planned Community Development December 11, 2007 Page 5 C. The City Council Cannot Make the Requisite Findings that the Project Complies with the City's General Plan. If land use approvals conflict with either a city's General Plan or Zoning Code, the approvals are ultra vires and must be set aside. California land use regulations form a pyramid. "The General Plan is atop the hierarchy of local government law regulating land use. It has been aptly analogized to `a constitution for all future development'... Subordinate to the general plan are zoning laws, which regulate the geographic allocation and allowed uses of land. Zoning must conform to the adopted general plan." Neighborhood Action Group v. County of Calaveras (1984) 156 Cal.App.3d 1176, 1183. "Since consistency with the general plan is required, absence of a valid general plan, or valid relevant elements of components thereof, precludes enactment of zoning ordinances, and the like.'... (Thus) the scope of authority of the agency to enact a general plan and zoning ordinances and to apply them is governed by the requirements of state law. A permit action taken without compliance with the hierarchy of land use laws is ultra vires as to any defect implicated by the use sought by the permit." Id., at 1184 (italics in original; emphasis added). An ultra vires act is "beyond the scope of power allowed or granted ... by law," (Black's Law Dictionary 1525 (7th Ed. 1999)) and is void ab initio. (See Hansen v. California Bank (1936) 17 Cal.App.2d 80, 100.) What does this mean? Where subordinate project approvals conflict with the superior General Plan or Zoning Ordinance, such approvals are void on their face. Stated slightly differently, independent of the adequacy of the EIR, project approvals granted in violation of the General Plan or Zoning Ordinance are invalid. It is also noteworthy that, while a city's interpretation of its own general plan and zoning ordinance is entitled to deference (Anderson First Coalition v. City of Anderson (2005) 130 Cal.AppAth 1173, 1192, such interpretation is not to be treated as irrefutable. (Bolsa Chica Land Trust v. Superior Court (1997) 71 Cal. App. 4th 493, 504 [ "[b]ecause an interpretation is an agency's legal opinion, however `expert', rather than the exercise of a delegated legislative power to make law, it commands a commeasurably lesser degree of judicial deference. "].) Therefore, although a court may consider a city's interpretation, it is not bound by it. (Stolman v. City of Los Angeles (2003) 114 Cal.AppAth 916, 928.) As shown above, the City's Housing Element is OUT of compliance with State Law. Because this key element of the City's current General Plan does not comply with State Law, the City cannot make the statutory findings required by the Planning and Zoning Law that the Project is consistent with the General Plan. An approval cannot be consistent with a plan or document that does not conform to State Law. This fact is particularly fatal to 9 0 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City of Newport Beach City Council Re: North Newport Center Planned Community Development December 11, 2007 Page 6 Development AgreementNo. DA2007 -002. since it largely deals with the issue of residential housing development and subdivision (b) of Planning and Zoning Law section 65867.5 ex rp essly vrohibits the City Council from approving any development agreement that is not consistent with the General Plan. II. THE ADDENDUM FOR THE PROJECT IS LEGALLY DEFICIENT A. The Addendum Erroneously Declares that the Project Will Not Displace Substantial Numbers of Existing Housing or Substantial Numbers of People Necessitating the Construction of Replacement Housing Elsewhere. The Addendum (3 -27) claims that the "population and housing impacts have been previously analyzed as part of the General Plan EIR." It then goes onto explain that no new information has arisen since the time that the General Plan EIR was certified that would necessitate the preparation of a new environmental document. However, the discussion indicates that new information, or changed circumstances, are extant as part of this Project. First, the Addendum (3 -27) indicates that "the General Plan EIR analysis was based on a project with 600 units in Newport Center. The adopted 2006 General Plan allows for the development of 450 residential units within the MU -H3 designation." However, despite HCD noting that Newport Center is one of only two locations in the City where the development of affordable housing is likely in the near -term, the Project proposes not to develop any affordable housing in Newport Center as well as reduce the specified amount of housing specified for this area under the General Plan. Despite this fact, the Addendum failed to take into account Evidence Code section 669.5, which states in pertinent part: "(a) Any ordinance enacted by the governing body of a city, county, or city and county which (1) directly limits, by number, the building permits that may be issued for residential construction or the buildable lots which may be developed for residential purposes, or (2) changes the standards of residential development on vacant land so that the governing body's zoning is rendered in violation of Section 65913.1 of the Government Code is presumed to have an impact on the supply of residential units available in an area which includes territory outside the iurisdiction of the city, county. or city and county. 0 0 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City of Newport Beach City Council Re: North Newport Center Planned Community Development December 11, 2007 Page 7 (b) With respect to any action which challenges the validity of an ordinance specified in subdivision (a) the city. counz or city and county enacting the ordinance shall bearthe burden ofproof that the ordinance is necessary for the protection of the public health, safety, or welfare of the population of the city, county, or city and county." (Emphasis added.) Since State Law requires the Development Agreement No. DA2007 -002 to be adopted by ordinance (Government Code section 65867.5(a)), the City bears the burden of rebutting the presumption that the reduction of the residential density within Newport Center will have an impact on the supply of residential units available within and without the City. However, the Addendum failed to discuss this issue. B. The Addendum Fails to Analyze and Mitigate the Project's Global Warming Impacts The Addendum claims that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions were analyzed and addressed in the 2006 General Plan EIR. However, a text search of the 2006 General Plan EIR reveals that neither carbon dioxide nor other greenhouse gases were analyzed. Essentially, the Addendum's claim that the General Plan EIR analyzed impacts when, in fact, it did not is nothing more than a fig leaf trying to conceal this omission. Since the time that the 2006 General Plan EIR was adopted, the California Air Resources Board has adopted some interim guidelines to be used by local agencies in analyzing global warming impacts. These interim guidelines, as well as other legislation that became effective January 1, 2007, constitute new information of substantial importance which was not known at the time the 2006 General Plan EIR was certified and which shows that the Project will have global warming impacts that were not discussed in the previous EIR. Curbing greenhouse gas emissions to limit the effects of climate change is one of the most urgent challenges of our time. Fortunately, CEQA sets forth a clear and mandatory process for the City to deal with the Project's greenhouse gas and global warming impacts. As detailed below, an EIR must be prepared for the Project so as to provide a complete and adequate inventory ofthe Project's greenhouse gas emissions, a full discussion of the impacts from those emissions, a significance determination regarding these impacts, and a thorough and quantitative analysis of alternatives and avoidance and mitigation measures to reduce those impacts. The good news is that there are numerous feasible measures that can greatly reduce the Project's greenhouse gas emissions. 0 0 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City of Newport Beach City Council Re: North Newport Center Planned Community Development December 11, 2007 Page 8 The City is responsible for analyzing and reducing greenhouse gas pollution because the agency with primary responsibility for implementing California's Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, A.B.32, 2005 -06 Sess., codified at Cal. Health & Safety Code §§ 38500 -99, has not yet adopted regulations regarding mandatory greenhouse gas emission reporting, verification, and measurement to achieve the "maximum technologically feasible and cost - effective greenhouse gas emission reductions" from sources across the state as required by the statute. (Cal. Health and Safety Code §38560.) The new law repeatedly emphasizes that its greenhouse gas reduction mandates are in addition to all existing legal requirements to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and protect the environment. (See, e.g., Cal. Health and Safety Code § 38598 [ "Nothing in this division shall limit the existing authority of a state entity to adopt and implement greenhouse gas emission reduction measures... Nothing in this division shall relieve any state entity of its legal obligations to comply with existing law or regulation. "]; § 38592(b) [ "Nothing in this division shall relieve any person, entity, or public agency of compliance with other applicable federal, state, or local laws or regulations, including state air and water quality requirements, and other requirements for protecting public health and the environment. "]; and § 38592(b) [ "Nothing in this division shall relieve any person, entity, or public agency of compliance with other applicable federal, state, or local laws or regulations, including state air and water quality requirements, and other requirements for protecting public health or the environment. "].) The City cannot avoid its duty to analyze all of the Project's potentially significant impacts by pointing to laws that are complementary and in addition to CEQA's requirements. An EIR Must Be Prepared In Order To Provide an Inventory and Analysis of the Project's Projected Greenhouse Gas Emissions The first step in determining a project's greenhouse gas pollution impact is to complete a full inventory of all emissions sources in the City. In conducting such an inventory, all phases of the Project must be considered. (See 14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15126.) A basic requirement of CEQA is that "[a]n EIR should be prepared with a sufficient degree of analysis to provide decision - makers with information which enables them to make a decision which intelligently takes account of environmental consequences." (14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15151.) The greenhouse gas inventory for a project must include a complete analysis of all ofthe Project's substantial sources of greenhouse gas emissions, from building materials and construction emissions to operational energy use, vehicle trips, water supply and waste disposal. The greenhouse gas inventory can be conducted in conjunction with the required assessment of the project's energy consumption. As CEQA Guidelines Appendix F, entitled "Energy Conservation," clarifies: "In order to assure that energy implications are considered in project 0 9 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City of Newport Beach City Council Re: North Newport Center Planned Community Development December 11, 2007 Page 9 decisions, the California Environmental Quality Act requires that EIRs include a discussion of the potential energy impacts of proposed projects, with particular emphasis on avoiding or reducing inefficient, wasteful and unnecessary consumption of energy." (See also Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21000(b)(3) [EIR must include section discussing "[m]itigation measures proposed to minimize significant effects on the environment, including, but not limited to, measures to reduce the wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of energy. "].) The Addendum's assessment of the Project's energy consumption is inadequate because it does not address all of the Project's energy use as required by CEQA. A greenhouse gas inventory for the Project must include the Project's direct and indirect greenhouse gas emissions. (See 14 Cal. Code Regs § 15358(a)(1) [ "Indirect or secondary effects may include growth- inducing effects and other effects related to induced changes in the pattern of land use, population density, or growth rate, and related effects on air and water and other natural systems, including ecosystems. "].) Consequently, a complete inventory of the Project's emissions should include, at minimum, an estimate of emissions from the following: • Construction vehicles and machinery; • Manufacturing and transport of building materials; • Electricity generation and transmission for the heating, cooling, lighting, and other energy demands of the buildings; • Water supply and transportation to the Project; • Vehicle trips and transportation emissions generated by the Project; • Fugitive emissions, such as methane leaks from pipeline systems and leaks of HFCs from air conditioning systems; • Wastewater and solid waste storage or disposal, including transport where applicable; and • Outsourced activities and contracting. The City thus far has not conducted such an inventory, and the City has failed to analyze the Project's greenhouse gas pollution in a meaningful way. Without a complete inventory, the EIR cannot adequately inform the public and decision - makers about the Project's global warming impacts. Without a complete inventory, and without preparing an EIR, there is simply no way that the City can satisfy its obligations under CEQA to discuss alternatives, avoidance, and mitigation measures to reduce those impacts. An EIR must be prepared to include a full and adequate inventory of the Project's greenhouse gas emissions. Honorable Mayor and Members of the City of Newport Beach City Council Re: North Newport Center Planned Community Development December 11, 2007 Page 10 The absence of a quantitative threshold of significance for greenhouse gas pollutants cannot be used to justify the failure to omit discussion of this critical impact from the EIR, nor does it render a significance determination "speculative." (See, e.g., 14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15064(b) [ "An ironclad definition of significant effect is not always possible because the significance of an activity may vary with the setting "]; Cal. Pub. Res. Code §21068 [defining "significant effect" qualitatively as a "substantial adverse change "].) Not only are significance thresholds only "encouraged" [ 14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15064.7 (a)] as opposed to required, but lead agencies cannot rely solely on rigid matrices in determining impact significance; they must always consider "any fair argument that a certain environmental effect may be significant." (Protect the Historic Amador Waterways v. Amador Water Agency, (2004) 116 Cal. App. 4thl099, 1109.) To the extent the City relies on CEQA Guidelines section 15145 in refusing to find greenhouse gas impacts "significant," this effort must fail. Section 15145 only applies in limited circumstances, none of which apply here. There can be no serious contention that it is not possible to measure the Project's emissions, or that the impact of greenhouse gas emissions on human health, natural resources, and the environmenthave not been extensively studied and reported in the scientific literature. As discussed further below, determining the significance of the Project's greenhouse emissions is far from speculative. No reasonable argument can be made that the Project's greenhouse gas emissions would not be significant. As will be explained further below, the impact of greenhouse gas emissions on the climate system is not "uncertain." 2. The Impact of the Project's Greenhouse Gas Emissions Is Neither Uncertain nor Speculative' An EIR must include a discussion of climate change and greenhouse gas emissions in order to provide context for the discussion of impacts. By preparing an Addendum to the City's 2006 General Plan EIR, which did not analyze greenhouse gas emission, the City is skirting its obligation to meaningfully analyze greenhouse gas emissions. The Addendum's incomplete and belated discussion of greenhouse gas pollution is in large part incorrect, muddled, and misleading. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ( "IPCC ") was established by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environment Programme in 1988. The Many of the documents (and others) can be found on the CD we have submitted along with this letter. E 0 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City of Newport Beach City Council Re: North Newport Center Planned Community Development December 11, 2007 Page 11 IPCC's mission is to assess available scientific and socio- economic information on climate change and its impacts and the options for mitigating climate change and to provide, on request, scientific and technical advice to the Conference ofthe Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Since 1990, the IPCC has produced a series of reports, papers, methodologies, and other products that have become the standard works of reference on climate change. The Fourth Assessment Report is the most current comprehensive IPCC reference and has built and expanded upon the IPCC's past products (IPCC 2007a,b). We refer the EIR consultant and the City to "Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis: Summary for Policymakers" (IPCC 2007a) and "Climate Change 2007: Climate Change Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability: Summary for Policymakers" (IPCC 2007b), as well as the full scientific reports underlying these summary documents. The full scientific report underlying IPCC 2007a is currently available ath!W://www.ipcc.ch, and the full scientific report underlying IPCC 2007b will be available at this site shortly. Even more recent, peer reviewed works emphasize the urgent need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions immediately: just ten more years of "business as usual" emissions may commit us to climate feedbacks and impacts which would entirely transform the planet as we now know it (Hansen et al. 2007). There is nothing uncertain about the fact that higher levels of greenhouse gas pollution will lead to greater impacts, which is why the State of California has prioritized greenhouse gas pollution reductions. The EIR that should be prepared for the Project should also discuss greenhouse gas emissions and global warming impacts in California. The literature details many predicted and potential statewide environmental impacts. Some ofthe types of impacts and estimated ranges of severity are summarized as follows: • A 30 -90% reduction of the Sierra snowpack during the next 100 years, including earlier melting and runoff. O Greater difficulty with water storage, and an accompanying greater risk of drought; O Increased risk of flooding, especially in areas such as the Sacramento -San Joaquin Delta ( "Delta'); O Lower stream levels for much of the year including the summer, resulting in increased stream temperatures and deleterious effects on many fish, including species of salmon and steelhead trout listed as threatened or endangered by the State and federal endangered species acts, and other aquatic organisms; 0 Decreased albedo effect, with a resultant increase in global warming. Honorable Mayor and Members of the City of Newport Beach City Council Re: North Newport Center Planned Community Development December 11, 2007 Page 12 • An increase in water temperatures at least commensurate with the increase in air temperatures. o Deleterious effects on aquatic organisms, including the Delta smelt and species of salmon and steelhead trout currently listed as threatened or endangered by the State and federal endangered species acts. California already constitutes the southern end of many of these species' ranges, and further water warning could result in their extirpation. • A 6 -30 inch rise in sea level, before increased melt rates from the dynamical properties of ice -sheet melting are taken into account. o Increased salt water intrusion into fresh groundwater supplies, which could lead to decreased water supplies in coastal areas and an increased reliance on water from snowmelt; o Inundation of coastal marshes and estuaries; o Increased risk of flooding near river mouths due to backwater effects; o Increased chance of levee failure in the Delta and resultant flooding; o Increased salinity intrusion into the Delta with impacts on both estuarine species and California water supply from the State Water Project, Central Valley Project, and Contra Costa Water District. • An increase in the intensity of storms, the amount of precipitation and the proportion of precipitation as rain versus snow. o Increased risk of flooding generally, o Increased difficulty of water storage. • Profound impacts to ecosystem and species, including changes in the timing of life events, shifts in range, and community abundance shifts. Depending on the timing and interaction of these impacts, they can be catastrophic. o Approximately 59% of species in one survey of over 1600 species are already experiencing impacts in one of the three categories described above, and 85% of those changes are in the direction predicted (Parmesan and Galbraith 2004); o One leading study of over 1,100 species occurring over 20% of the Earth's surface predicts that 18 %, 24 %, and 35% of species will be committed to extinction by the years 2040 under low, medium, and high warming scenarios, respectively (Thomas et al. 2004). Honorable Mayor and Members of the City of Newport Beach City Council Re: North Newport Center Planned Community Development December 11, 2007 Page 13 • A 200 -400% increase in the number of heat wave days in major urban centers. o Increased risk of death and illness for the elderly, children and other at -risk populations, including persons with low- income. • An increase in the number of days meteorologically conducive to ozone (03) formation. o Increased risk to persons with asthma; o Reduction in crop and forest yields, increased plant susceptibility to disease and pest infection and foliar damage to plants. • At least a 10% increase in the potential for large wildfires (partially due to increase concentrations of 03 and its resultant effects on vegetation). This list of environmental, economic, and health impacts from global warming is not exhaustive, but only illustrative of the types of impacts that the EIR should describe and analyze since the Project would exacerbate or help precipitate them. (See Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21060.5.) Major sources that should be reviewed and considered include: California Department of Water Resources, (2006); California EPA (2006); Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2007a,b); Kim (2005); Murray and Weiss (2002); Parmesan and Galbraith (2004); Union of Concerned Scientists (2006); Thomas et al. (2004); WHO (2002).) There is also a robust, peer - reviewed literature on estimating the social costs of climate change and quantifying the cost of carbon dioxide emissions (Stern 2006). We now know that the cost of continued greenhouse gas emission trajectories would be astronomical (Stern 2006). Economic and Social Costs may be used to determine the significance of physical changes to the environment. (See CEQA Guidelines § 15046(e).) The Stern Review of the Economics of Climate Change, a comprehensive report commissioned by the British government, recently concluded that allowing current emissions trajectories to continue unabated would eventually cost the global economy between 5 to 20 percent of GDP each year within a decade, or up to $7 trillion, and warned that these figures should be considered conservative estimates (Stern 2006). By contrast, measures to mitigate global warming by reducing emissions were estimated to cost about one percent of global GDP each year, and could save the world up to $2.5 trillion per year (Stern 2006). If we take no action to control emissions, each ton of CO2 that we emit now is causing damage worth at least $85 (Stern 2006). Overall, the World Health Organization estimates that as of the year 2000, 154,000 deaths and the loss of 5.5 million daily adjusted life years per year worldwide are attributable to global warming (World Health Organization 2002). This toll is due to the combined impacts ofhigher temperatures, C C Honorable Mayor and Members of the City of Newport Beach City Council Re: North Newport Center Planned Community Development December 11, 2007 Page 14 increasing weather variability such as more frequent and intense droughts and floods, a pattern of more violent tropical storms, as well as more subtle, gradual changes that can also profoundly damage public health (Epstein and Mills 2005). The EIR fails to adequately analyze the global warming impacts associated with the Project. While the EIR mentions this topic generally and admits that it must be analyzed, the EIR fails to do so in any meaningful way. Many of the impacts described above will substantially affect the Project and its impacts in the areas of energy use and utilities, water supply, and biological resources, among others. The EIR must be revised to include a full discussion of these implications. 3. The Project's Greenhouse Gas Emissions Are Clearly Significant. Once an EIR is prepared and includes a complete inventory and analysis of the Project's greenhouse gas emissions, the City must determine whether or not there is substantial evidence that the project may have a "significant" effect on the environment. (Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21082.2(d).) "Said another way, if a lead agency is presented with a fair argument that a project may have a significant effect on the environment, the lead agency shall prepare an EIR even though it may also be presented with other substantial evidence that the project will not have a significant effect." (14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15064(f)(1), citing No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1974) 13 Cal.3d 68.) A significance determination by the lead agency is mandatory, not discretionary. (Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21082.2(a) [ "The lead agency shall determine whether a project may have a significant impact on the environment based on substantial evidence in light of the whole record. "].) CEQA defines "significant effect on the environment" as "a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in the environment." (Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21068; see also 14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15002(g); § 15382.) The EIR is also deficient because it has failed to make a significance determination for the Project's greenhouse gas emissions. In evaluating the significance of a project's environmental impacts, the lead agency must consider direct and reasonably foreseeable indirect physical changes in the environment which may be caused by the project. (14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15064(d).) Under CEQA, certain circumstances trigger a mandatory finding of significance. They are: (1) "A proposed project has the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, environmental goals;" (2) "The possible effects of a project are individually limited but cumulatively considerable. As used in this paragraph, `cumulatively considerable' means that the incremental effects of an individual 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;" and i Honorable Mayor and Members of the City of Newport Beach City Council Re: North Newport Center Planned Community Development December 11, 2007 Page 15 (3) "The environmental effects of a project will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly." (Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21083(b); see also 14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15065 [repeating and expanding on these three triggers].) It is clear from an examination of these factors, as well as the overall context and information in the record relating to the global warming issue that the Project's greenhouse gas emissions are significant. The State of California is working to identify all opportunities for major greenhouse gas reductions in order to meet the mandate of the California Global Warming Solutions Act, as well as comply with Executive Order S -3 -05 (June 1, 2005) and other authority. Any new source of greenhouse gas pollution must be considered significant, as approving a new source of emissions when the state is working to reduce its total emissions back to 1990 levels by 2020 and to 80% below 1990 levels by 2050 clearly impedes and frustrates that mandate. Creating an inventory of current emissions in the City is possible. The amount of greenhouse gas emitted from sources such as vehicle trips, electricity, and natural gas use can be readily calculated using standard emissions factors. For example, burning one gallon of gasoline in a car produces 8.87 kg CO2. Each cubic meter of natural gas burned for heat produces 1.93 kg CO2. And the average kWh of electricity purchased in California required .61 lbs of CO2 to produce. These and other emissions factors are available online at: http: / /www /wri.org/climate /pubs_ description. cfm ?pid -3756. Despite the inadequacy of the EIR, it is clear from some of the information that was disclosed, such as the thousands of daily vehicle trips that the Project would generate, that the Project will produce a large amount of greenhouse gas pollution. The Project clearly "has the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, curtail the range of the environment, or to achieve short -term, to the disadvantage of long -term, environmental goals." (Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21083(b).) The Project would also "cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly," particularly because as proposed it would obstruct California's mandate to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The greenhouse gas emissions from the Project exceed any reasonable threshold of significance. For example, included in the CD submitted along with this letter is a copy of the recent draft EIR [SCH No. 2005081149] for the proposed "High Desert Gateway Shopping Center" in Hesperia, with 393,400 square feet of retail building space on approximately 35.7 acres to be "anchored" by a 180,000 square foot Super Target. Section 5.6 of the Hesperia EIR [ "Global Warming /Greenhouse Gases "] analyzes that shopping center's "carbon footprint" based on "general assumptions about energy use/consumption, transportation loads, and market trade area." It then identifies "feasible mitigation measures, adopted to minimize the projects greenhouse gas emissions and cumulative contribution to climate change impacts." Finally, the Hesperia EIR concludes that, even with those mitigation measures, "because of • • Honorable Mayor and Members of the City of Newport Beach City Council Re: North Newport Center Planned Community Development December 11, 2007 Page 16 legislative declarations as to the severity of the environmental problem, the ongoing regulatory process at the [California Air Resources Board], and out of an overabundance of caution" the project's cumulative impacts to global climate change "will be treated as significant and unavoidable." As the Hesperia EIR indicates, the era ofpublic agencies preparing EIRs that fail to discuss and analyze a project's greenhouse gas emissions and incremental contribution to global climate change is now over. If the City of Hesperia is able to address these issues in the Hesperia EIR— a_proiect that is significantly smaller than the proposed Project here —then it is certainly possible to address them in a subsequent EIR to the General Plan EIR. A project's impacts also require a mandatory finding of significance if they are "cumulatively considerable." (Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21083(b).) The cumulative impacts analysis is a critically important part of CEQA environmental review. The Legislature put particular emphasis on cumulative impacts to ensure that environmental problems that result from the combined effects of many relatively small factors are not overlooked because any one project's contribution can be characterized by a project proponent or lead agency as small or insignificant. Importantly, the requirement to analyze cumulative impacts cannot be avoided by contending a project would only make a de minimis contribution to the problem as a whole. As the court noted in Communities for a Better Environment v. California Resources Agency, (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 98, 117, this interpretation of the cumulative impacts requirement would "contravene the very concept of cumulative impacts" and "turn the cumulative impact analysis on its head by diminishing the need to do a cumulative impact analysis as the cumulative impact problem worsens." (See id. at 120 [ "[j]n the end, the greater the existing environmental problems are, the lower the threshold should be for treating a project's contribution to cumulative impacts as significant. "]; Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford, 221 Cal. App. 3d 692, 721 (1990) [the EIR "improperly focused upon the individual project's relative effects and omitted facts relevant to an analysis of the collective effect this and other sources will have "].) Climate change is a classic example of a cumulative effects problem; emissions from numerous sources combine to create the most pressing environmental and societal problem of our time. The solution to climate change lies not in any one single action, but in systematically reducing emissions from all possible sources. The CEQA process is an ideal context in which to do this, as CEQA requires full analysis, avoidance, and mitigation of a proposed project's direct, indirect, and cumulative greenhouse gas emissions. The Addendum omits a meaningful discussion of greenhouse gases from the cumulative impacts section. This is particularly troubling since the cumulative impacts analysis is a key U Honorable Mayor and Members of the City of Newport Beach City Council Re: North Newport Center Planned Community Development December 11, 2007 Page 17 component of CEQA's scheme to protect the environment. There can be no reasonable argument that the Project's cumulative greenhouse gas emissions are not significant. Because the Project's greenhouse gas emissions are clearly significant, an EIR must be prepared in order to analyze alternatives and measures to mitigate or avoid those impacts. As discussed below, there are numerous measures available to greatly reduce the Project's greenhouse gas emissions. 4. An EIR Must Be Prepared In Order to Analyze Alternatives and Avoidance and Mitigation Measures to Reduce the Project's Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Because the Addendum relies on a 2006 General Plan EIR that did not analyze carbon dioxide or greenhouse gas emissions at all, it was inappropriate to rely on an Addendum because the 2006 General Plan EIR did not analyze alternatives and avoidance and mitigation measures to reduce these impacts. This analysis is the heart of CEQA, and must be undertaken once the EIR has been prepared to include a complete and adequate inventory of the Project's greenhouse gas emissions and a complete discussion of the Project's impacts. The EIR should utilize a hierarchy of options to reduce greenhouse gas emissions: (1) first, reduce the Project's energy use and greenhouse gas emissions as much as possible in the first instance; (2) second, generate the Project's remaining required energy from carbon -free sources, thereby reducing or eliminating the Project's emissions; and finally (3) offset or otherwise mitigate emissions that cannot be eliminated. There are many feasible options and measures to limit each of the Project's greenhouse gas emission sources. These measures must be discussed explicitly with regard to greenhouse gas emissions. The amount that each measure will reduce emissions must be quantified wherever possible. All feasible measures must be adopted [14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15065(c)(3)] and must be mandatory and enforceable, not aspirational or voluntary. (14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15126.4(a)(2).) Measures to reduce impacts may not be deferred until some future time. (14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15126.4(a)(1)(B).) Available measures include, but are not limited to the following: 1. Measures Relating to Protect Desbin and Transportation: • Analyze and incorporate alternative project locations and design to achieve urban in -fill, minimize commute distances and times, and locate buildings near existing transportation hubs. 0 n u Honorable Mayor and Members of the City of Newport Beach City Council Re: North Newport Center Planned Community Development December 11, 2007 Page 18 • Analyze and incorporate public transportation improvements as integral Project components to minimize individual vehicle trips as follows: O analyze the use of or availability of transportation impact or other fees to provide public transportation improvements; o analyze new infrastructure and service to serve the Project such as light rail, bus, and shuttle service, which will utilize alternative fuels and energy sources wherever possible; O analyze improvements to overcome barriers to public transportation use, including more frequent service, better coordination of transfers and connecting services, enhancements to safety, comfort, and cleanliness of conveyances, stations, and common areas, the provision of shuttle services, and other services and incentives. • Analyze and incorporate bicycle and pedestrian access pathways and access, including both the routes and availability of bicycle parking /storage, as well as access for bicycles to the stores, restaurants, and other buildings. • Analyze and incorporate measures to promote ride- sharing and car - sharing to reduce single- occupancy vehicle trips, including: o Utilizing fee structures for access and parking to encourage ride and car - sharing and discourage individual vehicle trips; O Provide convenient, accessible, and affordable, centrally - located car -share resources, including prioritizing parking spaces for such vehicles; o Encourage ride - sharing, van - pooling, and other measures with prioritized parking spaces, adequate and safe loading and unloading zones, etc.; o Develop the necessary infrastructure for alternative fuel vehicles, including plugin hybrid and electric vehicles, such as solar - powered plug -in hybrid and electric vehicle charging stations. 2. Measures Related to Project Construction: • f Honorable Mayor and Members of the City of Newport Beach City Council Re: North Newport Center Planned Community Development December 11, 2007 Page 19 • Utilize recycled, low- carbon, and otherwise climate - friendly building materials such as salvaged and recycled- content materials for building, hard surfaces, and non -plant landscaping materials; • Minimize, reuse, and recycle construction- related waste; • Minimize grading, earth - moving, and other energy- intensive construction practices; • Landscape to preserve natural vegetation and maintain watershed integrity; • Utilize alternative fuels in construction equipment and require construction equipment to utilize the best available technology to reduce emissions. 3. Measures Relating to Building Design and Project Operation: • Analyzing and incorporating the U.S. Green Building Council's LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) or comparable standards for energy- and resource - efficient building during pre - design, design, construction, operations and management. (See httv7 / /www.usabc.org and links; Alameda County 2005); • Designing buildings for passive heating and cooling, and natural light, including building orientation, proper orientation and placement of windows, overhangs, skylights, etc.; • Designing buildings for maximum energy efficiency including the maximum possible insulation, use of compact florescent or other low- energy lighting, use of energy efficient appliances, etc. • Reducing the use of pavement and impermeable surfaces; • Requiring water re -use systems; • Maximizing water conservation measures in buildings and landscaping, using drought- tolerant plants in lieu of turf, planting shade trees; • Ensure that the Project is fully served by full recycling and composting services; • Ensure that the Project's wastewater and solid waste will be treated in facilities where greenhouse gas emissions are minimized and captured. 4. Measures Relating to Renewable Energy Generation: • Installing the maximum possible photovoltaic array on the building roofs and/or on the project site to generate all of the electricity required by the Project, and utilizing wind energy to the extent necessary and feasible; • i Honorable Mayor and Members of the City of Newport Beach City Council Re: North Newport Center Planned Community Development December 11, 2007 Page 20 • Installing solar water heating systems to generate all of the Project's hot water requirements; • Installing solar or wind powered electric vehicle and plug -in hybrid vehicle charging stations to reduce emissions from vehicle trips. 5. Offsetting Emissions: • After all measures have been implemented to reduce emissions in the first instance, remaining emissions that cannot be eliminated may be mitigated through offsets. Care should be taken to ensure that offsets purchased are real (additional), permanent, and verified, and all aspects of the offsets should be discussed in the EIR. The Addendum's deficiencies as discussed throughout not onlyrender it legally defective but also represent an enormous missed opportunity to improve land use planning and decision - making and greatly slash the Project's greenhouse gas emissions. All of the measures listed above must be incorporated unless it is shown, with substantial evidence on the record, that they would be infeasible. Fortunately, these measures are eminently feasible and will result in a vastly improved Project that saves consumers energy costs, promotes local jobs and innovation, and complies with the mandates and aspirations of CEQA. C. The Addendum Fails to Identify or Address Potentially Significant Traffic Impacts of the Project. Please refer to Orosz Engineering Group, Inc.'s, peer review of the City's Traffic Study TS2007 -001 for an explanation of the Project's potentially significant traffic impacts. D. Our Comments Are Timely Submitted. This Project is being processed with such unseemly haste that our clients have had less than two weeks since the November 29"' Planning Commission hearing to prepare for this hearing. Lest the claim be made that our comments are somehow untimely, the following quote from Bakersfield Citizens forLocal Control v. City of Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal. App. 4th 1184, 1201, amply rebuts this claim: "City appears to have thought that the public's role in the environmental review process ends when the public comment period expires. Apparently, it 0 0 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City of Newport Beach City Council Re: North Newport Center Planned Community Development December 11, 2007 Page 21 did not realize that if a public hearing is conducted on project approval, then new environmental objections could be made until close of this hearing. (§ 21177, subd. (b); Guidelines, § 15202, subd. (b); Hillside, supra, 83 Cal.App.4th at p. 1263.) If the decisionmaking body elects to certify the EIR without considering comments made at this public hearing, it does so at its own risk. If a CEQA action is subsequently brought, the EIR may be found to be deficient on grounds that were raised at any point prior to close of the hearing on project approval." III. CONCLUSION In summary, the Project conflicts with the City's adopted Housing Element, and the Addendum does not adequately disclose, analyze, minimize, or mitigate the environmental impacts of the Project. Approval of the Project in its current form would violate the State Planning and Zoning Law and CEQA. In addition, by failing to honestly identify the extent of the traffic impacts that would result from the Project, the City has effectively forestalled the local citizenry's rights under Measure S. Because of the Project's shortcomings, and because the peoples' rights under the City's Charter would be circumvented, neither the public nor you as the City's elected decision - makers can make informed decisions about the proposed Project's costs in areas including affordable housing, greenhouse gas emissions and global climate change, urban decay, and traffic. We therefore urge that the City Council not approve the Project without first preparing a subsequent EIR for public review. Respectfully submitted, LEIBOLD MCCLENDON & MANN, P.C. PJoG.Bendon Attachments EXHIBIT A qo. HOUSING ELEMENT COMPLIANCE REPORT The Department makes every effort to ensure the following information is complete and accurate. For any questions or clarifications, please contact1he Division of Housing Policy Development at (916) 445 -4728. To determine the official status of each jurisdiction's housing element, refer to the column on the right. The definitions of terms used are: IN — local government adopted an element the Department found in compliance with State housing element law. OUT — either the local government adopted an element the Department found did not comply with State housing element law, or the local government has not yet adopted a housing element pursuant to the statutory schedule. IN REVIEW — element is under review by the Department as of date of this report. SC — only pertains to San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) in which the housing element has been "self certified pursuant.to a pilot program authorized by Government Code Section 65585.1. NA — indicates element is not due pursuant to Government Code Section 65361(d) General Plan Extension. IN LOCAL PROCESS — the local government is in the process of adopting an element whose draft element the Department found in compliance with State housing element law. M �,_ COMPLIANCE: SC indicates Self Certification pursuant to Government Code Section 65585.1; NA indicates element is not due pursuant to Government Code Section 65361 (d) General Plan Extension. Page 1 of 24 HOUSING ELEMENT COMPLIANCE REPORT 10/16/2007 1:19 pm COUNTY/ CITY TYPE DATE ADOPTED REVIEWED COMPLIANCE ALAMEDA ALAMEDA DRAFT 12/0812003 OUT ALAMEDA COUNTY ADOPTED 10/02/2003 11/14/2003 IN ALBANY DRAFT 08/23/2002 OUT BERKELEY ADOPTED 02/25/2003 03/27/2003 IN DUBLIN ADOPTED 06/0312003 07/11/2003 IN EMERYVILLE ADOPTED .. 11/20/2001 02/22/2002 IN FREMONT ADOPTED 05/13/2003 07/17/2003 IN HAYWARD ADOPTED. 10/2112003 01/22/2004 IN LIVERMORE ADOPTED 09/15/2003 10/31/2003 IN NEWARK ADOPTED 12/1212002 03/14/2003 IN OAKLAND. ADOPTED 06/15/2004 08123/2004 IN PIEDMONT ADOPTED 11/18/2002 01/07/2003 IN PLEASANTON ADOPTED 04/15/2003 03/0712005 OUT SAN LEANDRO ADOPTED 01/21/2003 04/15/2003 IN UNION CITY ADOPTED.— 03/26/2002 07/11/2002 IN ALPINE ALPINE COUNTY ADOPTED 03130/2004 05/07/2004 IN AMADOR AMADOR DRAFT, 12/15/2006 OUT AMADOR COUNTY ADOPTED 05/10/2005 07/0112005 IN IONE ADOPTED 05/17/2005 07/0112005 IN JACKSON ADOPTED OUT PLYMOUTH ADOPTED 03/11/2005 IN SUTTER CREEK ADOPTED OUT �,_ COMPLIANCE: SC indicates Self Certification pursuant to Government Code Section 65585.1; NA indicates element is not due pursuant to Government Code Section 65361 (d) General Plan Extension. :�IfjzI &7[giC BUTTE BIGGS BUTTE COUNTY CHICO GRIDLEY OROVILLE PARADISE CALAVERAS ' ANGELS CAMP CALAVERAS COUNTY COLUSA COLUSA COLUSA COUNTY WILLIAMS Page 2 of 24 HOUSING ELEMENT COMPLIANCE REPORT 10/1612001 1:19 pm TYPE DATE ADOPTED REVIEWED ADOPTED ADOPTED ADOPTED ADOPTED ADOPTED ADOPTED ADOPTED ADOPTED ADOPTED ADOPTED ADOPTED 05/23/2005 06/08/2004 03/01/2005 03/30/2004 02/13/2007 05/09/2005 03/30/2004 11/23/2004 12/21/2004 06/13/2005 09/08/2004 06/06/2005 04/16/2004 06/24/2004 05/23/2007 1 0/1 212 004 07/18/2005 06/30/2004 12/15/2004 12/30/2004 COMPLIANCE' IN IN IN IN IN IN IN IN OUT IN IN COMPLIANCE: SC indicates Self Certification pursuant to Government Code Section 65585.1; NA indicates element is not due pursuant to Government Code Section 65361(d) General Plan Extension. HOUSING ELEMENT COMPLIANCE.REPORT COUNTY/ CITY CONTRA COSTA ANTIOCH BRENTWOOD CLAYTON CONCORD CONTRA COSTA COUNTY DANVILLE EL CERRITO HERCULES LAFAYETTE MARTINEZ MORAGA OAKLEY ORINDA PINOLE PITTSBURG PLEASANT HILL RICHMOND SAN PABLO SAN RAMON WALNUT CREEK DEL NORTE CRESCENT CITY DEL NORTE COUNTY ELDORADO EL DORADO COUNTY PLACERVILLE SOUTH LAKE TAHOE 10/16/2007 1:19 pm 0 Page 3 of 24 TYPE DATE ADOPTED REVIEWED COMPLIANCE DRAFT 10/14/2005 OUT DRAFT 08/01/2005 IN . ADOPTED 09/06/2005 12/27/2005 IN ADOPTED 01/14/2003 03/07/2003 IN ADOPTED 12/18/2001 03/26/2002 IN ADOPTED 03/05/2002 04/15/2002 IN ADOPTED 01/21/2003 02/27/2003 IN ADOPTED 12/27/2004 12/30/2004 IN ADOPTED 10/28/2002 01/02/2003 IN ADOPTED 07/20/2005 08/24/2005 IN ADOPTED 06/04/2002 12/27/2002 OUT ADOPTED 03/07/2005 06/10/2005 IN ADOPTED 10/19/2004 02/04/2005 OUT ADOPTED. 05/05/2003 06/16/2003 IN ADOPTED 1110112004 01/21/2005 IN ADOPTED 03/03/2003 04/02/2003 IN ADOPTED 02/07/2006 02/27/2006 IN ADOPTED 08105/2002 08/23/2002 IN ADOPTED 07/27/2004 11/02/2004 IN ADOPTED 10/01/2002 12/18/2002 IN ADOPTED 10/31/2003 12/29/2003 IN ADOPTED 10/31/2003 12/29/2003 IN ADOPTED 07/19/2004 02103 /2005 OUT ADOPTED 02/03/2005 IN ADOPTED 09/16/2003 12/23/2003 IN COMPLIANCE: SC indicates Self Certification pursuant to Government Code Section 65585.1; NA indicates element is not due pursuant to Government Code Section 65361(d) General Plan Extension. Page 4 of 24 HOUSING ELEMENT COMPLIANCE REPORT 10/1612007 1:19 pm COUNTY/ CITY TYPE DATE ADOPTED REVIEWED COMPLIANCE' FRESNO ADOPTED 06122/2004 01/13/2005 IN CLOVIS ADOPTED 09103/2002 02/11/2003 IN COALINGA ADOPTED 01/1512004 04/17 /2004 IN FIREBAUGH ADOPTED 01/05/2004 06/24/2004 OUT FOWLER DRAFT 08/29/2003 OUT FRESNO ADOPTED 01/13/2004 05120/2004 IN FRESNO COUNTY ADOPTED 03/25/2003 05/22/2003 IN HURON ADOPTED 03/02/2005 04/14 /2005 IN KERMAN DRAFT 08/16/2006 OUT KINGSBURG ADOPTED 06/24/2002 09/2612002 'OUT MENDOTA ADOPTED 07/14/2004 09/10/2004 IN ORANGE COVE ADOPTED 03112/2003 04/04 /2003 IN PARLIER ADOPTED OUT REEDLEY ADOPTED 09/23/2004 12/23/2003 IN SAN JOAQUIN ADOPTED 09124/2003 12/05/2003 IN SANGER DRAFT IN REVIEW SELMA DRAFT 09/30/2003 OUT GLENN GLENN COUNTY ADOPTED 12/02/2003 12/29/2003 IN ORLAND ADOPTED 04 /01/2004 04/2312004 IN WILLOWS DRAFT 06/10/2005 OUT HUMBOLDT ARCATA ADOPTED 03/17/2004 04/27 /2004 IN BLUE LAKE ADOPTED 06122/2004 01/13/2005 IN EUREKA ADOPTED 05118/2004 05/28/2004 IN FERNDALE ADOPTED 09/14/2006 10/04/2006 IN FORTUNA ADOPTED 03/29/2004 06/22/2004 OUT HUMBOLDT COUNTY ADOPTED 06/0512006 IN RIO DELL ADOPTED 01/13/2004 04/27/2004 IN TRINIDAD ADOPTED OUT " COMPLIANCE: SC indicates Self Certification pursuant to Government Code Section 65585.1; NA indicates element is not due pursuant to Government Code Section 65361(d) General Plan Extension. Page 5 of 24 . HOUSING ELEMENT COMPLIANCE REPORT 10/16/2007 1:19 pim COUNTY / CITY TYPE DATE ADOPTED REVIEWED COMPLIANCE IMPERIAL BRAWLEY ADOPTED 05/29/2001 06/06/2001 IN CALEXICO ADOPTED 10/05/1999 03/01/2000 IN CALIPATRIA ADOPTED 03/24/2004 05/21/2004 IN EL CENTRO. ADOPTED 03115/2000 04120/2000 IN . HOLTVILLE ADOPTED 04109/2001 05/2312001 IN IMPERIAL ADOPTED 04/18/2001 05126/2001 IN IMPERIAL COUNTY ADOPTED 03/20/2001 03/27 /2001 IN WESTMORLAND ADOPTED 08121/2002 02/11/2003 IN INYO BISHOP ADOPTED 06128/2004 07/15/2004 IN INYO COUNTY ADOPTED 04106 /2004 09/02/2004 IN KERN ARVIN ADOPTED OUT BAKERSFIELD ADOPTED 01/29/2003 05/19/2003 IN CALIFORNIA CITY ADOPTED 03/16/2004 07/15/2004 IN DELANO ADOPTED 04102/2003. 07/01/2003 IN KERN COUNTY ADOPTED 09/10/2002 12/05/2002. IN 'MARICOPA ADOPTED OUT MCFARLAND ADOPTED OUT RIDGECREST ADOPTED 09/06/2002 10/24/2002 IN SHAFTER DRAFT 06/13/2005 OUT TAFT ADOPTED 12/21/2004 12/30/2004 IN TEHACHAPI ADOPTED 01/06/2004 06/22/2004 IN WASCO ADOPTED 11/05/2002 02/07/2003 IN KINGS AVENAL ADOPTED 03/14/2004 .04/21/2b04 IN CORCORAN ADOPTED 03/17/2004 04/21/2004 IN HANFORD ADOPTED 03/17/2004 04/21 /2004 IN KINGS COUNTY ADOPTED 03/16/2004 04/21 /2004 161 LEMOORE ADOPTED 03/16/2004 04/21 /2004 IN COMPLIANCE: SC indicates Self Certification pursuant to Government Code Section 65585.1; NA indicates element is not due pursuant to Government Code Section 65361(d) General Plan Extension. COUNTY/ CITY LAKE CLEARLAKE LAKE COUNTY LAKEPORT LASSEN LASSEN COUNTY SUSANVILLE R LJ HOUSING ELEMENT COMPLIANCE REPORT 10/16/2007 1:79 pm TYPE DATE ADOPTED. ADOPTED 07 /08/2004 ADOPTED 12/07/2004 ADOPTED 01/26/2005 ADOPTED 03/23/2004 ADOPTED 03/17/2004 Page 6 of 24 REVIEWED. COMPLIANCE 08/05/2004 IN 03/25/2005 IN 04/29/2005 IN 04/28/2004 IN 04/26/2004 IN a ' COMPLIANCE: SC indicates Self Certification pursuant to Government Code Section 65585.1; NA indicates element is not due pursuant to Government Code Section 65361(d) General Plan Extension. Y. COUNTY] CITY LOS ANGELES AGOURA HILLS ALHAMBRA ARCADIA ARTESIA AVALON AZUSA BALDWIN PARK BELL BELL GARDENS BELLFLOWER BEVERLY HILLS BRADBURY BURBANK CALABASAS CARSON CERRITOS CLAREMONT COMMERCE COMPTON COVINA CUDAHY CULVER CITY DIAMOND BAR DOWNEY .DUARTE EL MONTE ELSEGUNDO GARDENA GLENDALE GLENDORA HAWAIIAN GARDENS HAWTHORNE HERMOSA BEACH HIDDEN HILLS HUNTINGTON PARK INDUSTRY • HOUSING ELEMENT COMPLIANCE REPORT 10/16/2007 1:19 pm TYPE ADOPTED ADOPTED ADOPTED ADOPTED ADOPTED ADOPTED ADOPTED ADOPTED ADOPTED ADOPTED ADOPTED ADOPTED ADOPTED ADOPTED ADOPTED ADOPTED ADOPTED DRAFT ADOPTED . ADOPTED ADOPTED ADOPTED ADOPTED ADOPTED ADOPTED ADOPTED ADOPTED ADOPTED DRAFT ADOPTED ADOPTED ADOPTED ADOPTED ADOPTED ADOPTED DRAFT DATE ADOPTED 07/13/2001 12/10/2001 11/06/2001 11/10/2003 03/21/2006 12/03/2001 12121/2001 11/14/2005 11/24/2003 07/19/2001 12/19/2000 06/26/2001 10/03/2001 07/02/2002 02/28/2002 11/14/2006 06/27/2000 07/09/2001 01/16/2001 12111/2001 08/24/2004 07/03/2001 07/01/2001 12/12/2000 04/11/2002 10/28/2003 08/25/2003 08/18/2003 02/14/2005 12/18/2000 Page 7 of 24 REVIEWED COMPLIANCE" 10/11/2001 03/19/2002 02/11/2002 12/17/2003 06/16/2006 12/26/2001 10/23/2003 02121/2006 02/02/2004 10/23/2001 04/04/2001 08/22/2001 03/06/2002 08/14/2002 06/11/2002 02/21/2007 10/04/2007 10/03/2000 08/10/2001 03/22/2001 07/18/2002 11/03/2004 08/17/2001 10/24/2001 01/11/2001 10/17/2006 06/25/2002 02/03/2004 12/12/2003 09/12/2003 07/27/2005 04/26/2001 05/15/2007 IN IN IN IN IN IN IN OUT IN IN bUT IN IN IN IN IN IN OUT IN . OUT OUT IN IN IN IN IN IN IN IN IN IN IN IN OUT IN- OUT COMPLIANCE: SC indicates Self Certification pursuant to Government Code Section 65585.1; NA indicates element is not due pursuant to Government Code Section 65361(d) General Plan Extension. Page 8 of 24 HOUSING ELEMENT COMPLIANCE REPORT 10/16/2007 1:19 pm COUNTY / CITY TYPE DATE ADOPTED REVIEWED COMPLIANCE LOS ANGELES INGLEWOOD, ADOPTED 02/28/2006 IN IRWINDALE ADOPTED OUT LA CANADA FLINTRIDGE DRAFT 07/27/2001 OUT LA HABRA HEIGHTS ADOPTED 01/10/2002 04/26/2002 OUT LA MIRADA ADOPTED 05/08/2001 06/08/2001 IN LA PUENTE ADOPTED 12/12/2000 04/13/2001 IN LA VERNE ADOPTED 10/16/2000 12/1212000 IN LAKEWOOD ADOPTED 08/22/2002 11/08/2002 IN LANCASTER ADOPTED 06/26/2001 09/21/2001 IN LAWNDALE ADOPTED 05/21/2001 09/10/2001 IN LOMITA ADOPTED 06/04/2007 07/19/2007 JN LONG BEACH ADOPTED 04/17/2001 07/13/2001 IN LOS ANGELES ADOPTED 12118/2002 02127/2002 IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY ADOPTED 10/23/2001 02/15/2002 IN LYNWOOD DRAFT IN REVIEW MALIBU ADOPTED 02/12/2001 06/20/2001 OUT MANHATTAN BEACH ADOPTED 02/04/2003 05/14/2003 IN MAYWOOD ADOPTED 10/09/2001 08114/2002 IN MONROVIA ADOPTED 04/22/2003 05/12/2003 IN MONTEBELLO ADOPTED OUT MONTEREY PARK ADOPTED 07/18/2001 01/30/2002 IN NORWALK ADOPTED 07/17/2001 11/01/2001 IN PALMDALE ADOPTED 04/11/2001 07/19/2001 IN PALOS VERDES ESTATES ADOPTED 08/14/2001 11/20/2001 OUT PARAMOUNT ADOPTED 01/03/2005 03/24/2005 IN PASADENA ADOPTED 11/04/2002 02/13/2003 IN PICO RIVERA ADOPTED 11/20/2001 11/20/2001 IN POMONA DRAFT 02/20/2007 IN RANCHO PALOS VERDES ADOPTED' 08/21/2001 09/20/2001 IN REDONDO BEACH ADOPTED 10/17/2000 12/20/2000 IN ROLLING HILLS ADOPTED 07/09/2001 10/17/2001 OUT ROLLING HILLS ESTATES DRAFT 05/04/2001 OUT ROSEMEAD ADOPTED 03/26/2002 06/06/2002 IN SAN DIMAS ADOPTED 08/13/2002 11/19/2002 IN SAN FERNANDO ADOPTED 11/06/2000 12/15/2000 IN SAN GABRIEL ADOPTED 11/19/2002 01/07/2003 IN COMPLIANCE: SC indicates Self Certification pursuant to Government Code Section 65585.1; NA indicates element is not due pursuant to Government Code Section 65361(d) General Plan Extension. 1. COMPLIANCE: SC indicates Self Certification pursuant to Government Code Section 65585.1; NA indicates element is not due pursuant. to Government Code Section 65361(d) General Plan Extension. Page 9 of 24 HOUSING ELEMENT COMPLIANCE REPORT 10/16/2001 1:19 pm COUNTY/ CITY TYPE DATE ADOPTED REVIEWED COMPLIANCE' LOS ANGELES SAN MARINO DRAFT 06/22/2001 OUT . SANTA CLARITA ADOPTED 05/25/2004 08/13/2004 IN SANTA FE SPRINGS ADOPTED 12/14/2000 02/02/2001 IN SANTA MONICA ADOPTED 12/11/2001 03121/2002 IN SIERRA MADRE ADOPTED 03/24/2003 05/09/2003 IN SIGNAL HILL ADOPTED 12118/2001 03/26/2002 IN SOUTH EL MONTE ADOPTED 04/09/2002 04/23/2002 IN SOUTH GATE ADOPTED 04/11/2005 09/16/2005 OUT SOUTH PASADENA ADOPTED 03107/2001 09/07/2001 OUT TEMPLE CITY DRAFT 11/21/2001 OUT TORRANCE ADOPTED 02/27/2001 06/25/2001 IN VERNON DRAFT 05/02/2006 IN WALNUT ADOPTED 02/13/2002 06/12/2002 IN WEST COVINA DRAFT 02/14/2005 OUT WEST HOLLYWOOD ADOPTED 05/20/2002 09/16/2002 IN WESTLAKE VILLAGE ADOPTED 07/10/2002 09/06/2002 IN WHITiIER DRAFT 10/23/2006 OUT MADERA CHOWCHILLA ADOPTED 12/13/2004 01/24/2005 IN MADERA ADOPTED 12/17/2003 03/22/2004 IN . MADERA COUNTY ADOPTED 12113/2004 12/28/2004 IN 1. COMPLIANCE: SC indicates Self Certification pursuant to Government Code Section 65585.1; NA indicates element is not due pursuant. to Government Code Section 65361(d) General Plan Extension. Page 10 of 24 HOUSING ELEMENT COMPLIANCE REPORT 1011612007 1:19 pm COUNTY /CITY TYPE DATE ADOPTED REVIEWED COMPLIANCE MARIN BELVEDERE ADOPTED 0410412005 07/01/2005 IN CORTE MADERA ADOPTED 08%14/2002 11/20/2002 IN FAIRFAX ADOPTED 06/07/2006 101.18/2006 OUT LARKSPUR ADOPTED 10/20/2004 12/1012004 IN MARIN COUNTY ADOPTED 06/03/2003 07/24/2003 IN MILL VALLEY ADOPTED 0911512003 02/10/2004 IN NOVATO ADOPTED 03/25/2003 07/03/2003 IN ROSS ADOPTED 01/13/2005 04/27/2005 IN SAN ANSELMO ADOPTED 0411312004 0510712004 IN SAN RAFAEL ADOPTED 11/15/2004 12/29/2004 IN SAUSALITO DRAFT 0712612005 OUT TIBURON ADOPTED 0910712005 12109/2005 IN MARIPOSA MARIPOSA COUNTY ADOPTED 01/13/2004 04/13/2004 IN MENDOCINO FORT BRAGG ADOPTED 12/08/2003 01/05/2004 IN MENDOCINO COUNTY ADOPTED 12/14/2004 12/27/2004 IN POINTARENA ADOPTED 10125/2005 1111712005 IN UKIAH ADOPTED 06/1612004 07/12/2004 IN WILLITS ADOPTED 03/24/2004 0512112004 IN MERGED ATWATER DRAFT 09102/2004 OUT DOS PALOS ADOPTED 03/25/2003 03128/2003 IN GUSTINE ADOPTED OUT LIVINGSTON ADOPTED 05/24/2004 07112/2004 IN LOS BANOS ADOPTED 12/1712003 03/29/2004 IN MERGED ADOPTED 0612112004 08/12/2004 IN MERCED COUNTY ADOPTED 0912812004 12/14/2004 IN ` COMPLIANCE: SC indicates Self Certification pursuant to Government Code Section 65585.1; NA indicates element is not due pursuant to Government Code Section 65361(d) General Plan Extension. NAPA AMERICAN CANYON ADOPTED 11/03/2006 IN CALISTOGA ADOPTED 02/17/2004 05/1312004 IN NAPA ADOPTED 02/01/2005 Page 11 of 24 IN HOUSING ELEMENT COMPLIANCE REPORT ADOPTED. 10/26/2004 12/14/2004 10/16/2007 1:19 pm SAINT HELENA ADOPTED 08/13/2002 COUNTY/ CITY TYPE DATE ADOPTED REVIEWED COMPLIANCE 07/12/2004 MODOC ` ALTURAS ADOPTED 06/15/2005 08/09/2005 IN MODOC COUNTY ADOPTED 05/09/2006 07/06/2006 IN MONO MAMMOTH LAKES ADOPTED 12/17/2003 12/29/2003 IN MONO COUNTY ADOPTED 03/17/2004 08/0512004 IN MONTEREY CARMEL ADOPTED 12/10/2004 IN DEL REY OAKS DRAFT 10/04/2006 OUT GONZALES ADOPTED 04/21/2003 08/05/2003 IN GREENFIELD ADOPTED 02/24/2006 f)UT KING CITY ADOPTED 09/14/2004 12/17/2004 IN MARINA ADOPTED 12/14/2004 01/31/2005 IN MONTEREY 'ADOPTED 05/04/2004 05118/2004 IN MONTEREY COUNTY ADOPTED 11/04/2003 01102/2004. IN PACIFIC GROVE ADOPTED 12/13/2003 03/12/2004 OUT ._ SALINAS . ADOPTED 09/17/2002 04/09/2003 IN . SAND CITY ADOPTED 04/01/2003 05/08/2003 IN SEASIDE ADOPTED 05/15/2003 09/09/2003 IN SOLEDAD ADOPTED 03/26/2003 07/03/2003 IN NAPA AMERICAN CANYON ADOPTED 11/03/2006 IN CALISTOGA ADOPTED 02/17/2004 05/1312004 IN NAPA ADOPTED 02/01/2005 04/14/2005 IN NAPA COUNTY ADOPTED. 10/26/2004 12/14/2004 IN SAINT HELENA ADOPTED 08/13/2002 10/21/2002 IN YOUNTVILLE ADOPTED. 05/07/2004 07/12/2004 IN * COMPLIANCE: SC indicates Self Certification pursuant to Government Code Section 65585.1; NA indicates element is not due pursuant to Government Code Section 65361(d) General Plan Extension. * COMPLIANCE: SC indicates Self Certification pursuant to Government Code Section 65585.1; NA indicates element is not due pursuant to Government Code Section 65361(d) General Plan Extension. *-' Page 12 of 24 . HOUSING ELEMENT COMPLIANCE REPORT 10/16/2007 1:19 pm COUNTY/ CITY TYPE DATE ADOPTED REVIEWED COMPLIANCE* NEVADA ' GRASS VALLEY ADOPTED 01/27/2004 04/28 /2004 IN NEVADA CITY ADOPTED 07/14/2003 09/26/2003 OUT NEVADA COUNTY ADOPTED 10/05/2004 12/21/2004 IN TRUCKEE ADOPTED 03/30/2005 06/23/2005 IN * COMPLIANCE: SC indicates Self Certification pursuant to Government Code Section 65585.1; NA indicates element is not due pursuant to Government Code Section 65361(d) General Plan Extension. *-' S • HOUSING ELEMENT COMPLIANCE REPORT 10/16/2007 1:19 pm COUNTY/ CITY TYPE DATE ADOPTED • Page 13 of 24 REVIEWED COMPLIANCE ORANGE ALISO.VIEJO ADOPTED 04/21/2004 07/27/2004 IN ANAHEIM ADOPTED 10/29/2002 02106/2003 IN BREA ADOPTED 10/03/2000 03/28/2001 IN BUENA PARK ADOPTED 0611212001 08/17/2001 IN COSTA MESA ADOPTED 11/19/2001 02122/2002 IN CYPRESS ADOPTED 09/10/2001 11/09/2001 IN DANA POINT DRAFT 12/08/2006 OUT FOUNTAIN VALLEY ADOPTED 11/07/2000 03/22/2001 IN FULLERTON ADOPTED 12114/2001 03/21/2002 IN GARDEN GROVE . ADOPTED 02112/2002 05/30/2002 IN HUNTINGTON BEACH ADOPTED 12/18/2000 04/10/2001 IN IRVINE ADOPTED 11/27/2001 05/09/2002 IN LA HABRA ADOPTED 07/07/2003 10/20/2003 IN LA PALMA ADOPTED 01/07/2003 04103/2003 !N LAGUNA BEACH ADOPTED 07/17/2001 09/20/2001 IN LAGUNA HILLS ADOPTED 11/27/2001 03/07/2002 OUT LAGUNA NIGUEL ADOPTED 06/20/2000 09/25 /2000 IN LAGUNA WOODS ADOPTED 07/16/2003 10/0212003 IN LAKE FOREST ADOPTED 12/19/2000 05/08/2001 IN LOS ALAMITOS ADOPTED 03/26/2001 06/29/2001 IN MISSION VIEJO ADOPTED 06/18/2007 06127/2007 IN NEWPORT BEACH ADOPTED 07/25/2006 09/10/2007 OUT ORANGE ADOPTED 10/09/2001 11/29/2001 IN ORANGE COUNTY ADOPTED 06/20/2006 11/30/2006 IN PLACENTIA ADOPTED .1210212002 03/03/2003 IN RANCHO ST. MARGARITA ADOPTED 12/19/2002 07/2212003 IN SAN CLEMENTE ADOPTED 12120/2000 09/14/2001 IN SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO ADOPTED 11/06/2001 11/21/2001 IN SANTA ANA ADOPTED 12/18/2000 04/19 /2001 IN SEAL BEACH DRAFT 08/23/2001 OUT STANTON ADOPTED 06/12/2001 10/23/2001 IN TUSTIN ADOPTED 11/04/2002 02/05/2003 IN VILLA PARK ADOPTED 06/26%2001 12/18/2001 IN WESTMINSTER ADOPTED 04/04/2001 05/30/2001 IN YORBALINDA ADOPTED 03/19/2002 07/01/2002 IN * COMPLIANCE: SC indicates Self Certification pursuant to Government Code Section 65585.1; NA indicates element is not due pursuant to Government Code Section 65361(d) General Plan Extension. COUNTY/ CITY PLACER AUBURN COLFAX LINCOLN LOOMIS PLACER COUNTY ROCKLIN ROSEVILLE PLUMAS PLUMAS COUNTY PORTOLA Page 14 of 24 HOUSING ELEMENT COMPLIANCE REPORT 10116/2007. 1:19 pm TYPE DATE ADOPTED REVIEWED COMPLIANCE ADOPTED 1011112004 1210312004 IN .. ADOPTED 0312312004 05/2512004 IN ADOPTED 11125/2003 0110512004 IN ADOPTED 0211412006 05/2412006 IN ADOPTED 05/2012003 0711012003 IN ADOPTED 05/2512004 0810912004 IN ADOPTED 1010912002 1013012002 IN ADOPTED. 04/0412006 07/21/2006 IN ADOPTED 0212212006 0511912006 IN M COMPLIANCE: SC indicates Self Certification pursuant to Government Code Section 65585.1; NA indicates element is not due pursuant to Government Code Section 65361(d) General Plan Extension. A HOUSING ELEMENT COMPLIANCE REPORT COUNTY/ CITY RIVERSIDE BANNING BEAUMONT BLYTHE CALIMESA CANYON LAKE CATHEDRAL COACHELLA CORONA DESERT HOT SPRINGS HEMET INDIAN WELLS INDIO LA QUINTA LAKE ELSINORE MORENO VALLEY MURRIETA NORCO PALM DESERT PALM SPRINGS PERRIS RANCHO MIRAGE RIVERSIDE RIVERSIDE COUNTY SAN JACINTO TEMECULA 1011612007 1:19 pm TYPE DATE ADOPTED • Page 15 of 24 REVIEWED COMPLIANCE" DRAFT 11/04/2005 OUT ADOPTED 11/19/2002 03/03/2003 IN DRAFT 06/06/2003 OUT ADOPTED 01/07/2002 04/29/2002 IN DRAFT 02114/2003 OUT ADOPTED 12113/2000 01/11/2001 IN ADOPTED 08/22/2001 12104/2001 IN ADOPTED 07/1812001 08/1412001 IN ADOPTED 09/05/2000 12129/2000 IN ADOPTED 09/25/2001 11/09/2001 IN DRAFT 01/26/2007 OUT ADOPTED 03/02/2005 05/1212005 IN ADOPTED 11/02/2004. 1213012004 IN ADOPTED 02126/2002 06126/2002 IN ADOPTED 07/11/2006 07/26/2006 IN ADOPTED 12118/2001 12/26/2001 IN DRAFT 01/11/2001 OUT ADOPTED 02114/2002 05/2212002 IN DRAFT 08/09/2006 OUT . ADOPTED 02/13/2001 07/06/2001 IN ADOPTED 10/18/2001 11/09/2001 IN DRAFT 09/11/2007 OUT ADOPTED 10/04/2005 12/27/2005 IN ADOPTED 02108/2007 IN ADOPTED. 10/08/2002 12103/2002. IN COMPLIANCE: SC indicates Self Certification pursuant to Government Code Section 65585.1; NA indicates element is not due pursuant to Government Code Section 65361(d) General Plan Extension. COUNTY/ CITY HOUSING ELEMENT COMPLIANCE REPORT . 10/16/2007 1:19 pm TYPE DATE ADOPTED SACRAMENTO CITRUS HEIGHTS ELK GROVE FOLSOM GALT ISLETON RANCHO CORDOVA SACRAMENTO SACRAMENTO COUNTY SAN BENITO HOLLISTER SAN BENITO COUNTY SAN JUAN BAUTISTA ADOPTED ADOPTED ADOPTED ADOPTED DRAFT ADOPTED ADOPTED ADOPTED DRAFT ADOPTED DRAFT 11/13/2002 09/17/2003 06/25/2002 06/05/2003 06/26/2006 06/10/2003 12/08/2004 [ifF111 -Y X11111.1 'Page, 16 of 24 REVIEWED 05/30/2003 09/26/2003 09/26/2002 09/15/2003 08/28/2007 08/29/2006 09/09/2003 12/28/2004 03/30/2004 06/01/2005 07/31/2007 COMPLIANCE IN ,IN IN IN OUT IN IN IN OUT IN OUT COMPLIANCE: SC indicates Self Certification pursuant to Government Code Section 65585.1; NA indicates element is not due pursuant to Government Code Section 65361(d) General Plan Extension. Page 17'of 24 HOUSING ELEMENT COMPLIANCE REPORT 10/16/2007 1:19 pm COUNTY/ CITY TYPE DATE ADOPTED REVIEWED COMPLIANCE' SAN BERNARDINO ADELANTO DRAFT 06/01/2001 OUT APPLE VALLEY ADOPTED 06/27/2000 11/02/2000 IN BARSTOW ADOPTED 06/05/2000 07/26/2000 IN BIG BEAR LAKE ADOPTED. 02/11/2002 03/19/2002 IN CHINO ADOPTED 09/18/2001 12/21/2001 IN CHINO HILLS ADOPTED 08/14/2007 IN REVIEW COLTON ADOPTED 08/06/2002 11/26/2002 IN FONTANA ADOPTED 01/03/2007 IN GRAND TERRACE DRAFT 06/10/2005 OUT HESPERIA ADOPTED 08/07/2002 11/08/2002 IN HIGHLAND ADOPTED 09/25/2001 02/01/2002 IN LOMA LINDA ADOPTED 07/2512006 05/22/2007 OUT MONTCLAIR ADOPTED 06/19/2002 09/2612002 OUT NEEDLES DRAFT 12/28/2004 OUT ONTARIO ADOPTED 12/04/2001 03/26/2002 IN RANCHO CUCAMONGA ADOPTED 01/24/2002 08/09/2002 IN REDLANDS ADOPTED 10/15/2002 01/17/2003 IN RIALTO ADOPTED 03/06/2001 06/25/2001 IN SAN BERNARDINO ADOPTED 07/07/2003 09/10/2003 IN SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY ADOPTED 03/13/2007 06/05/2007 IN TWENTYNINE PALMS ADOPTED 06/27/2000 09/15/2000 IN UPLAND ADOPTED 08/13/2001 11/21/2001 IN VICTORVILLE ADOPTED 04/17/2001 06/25/2001 IN YUCAIPA ADOPTED 01/22/2001 04/30/2001 OUT YUCCA VALLEY ADOPTED 09/21/2000 11/02/2000 IN "COMPLIANCE: SC indicates Self Certification pursuant to Government Code Section 65585.1; NA indicates element is not due pursuant to Government Code Section 65361(d) General Plan Extension. COUNTY/ CITY SAN DIEGO CARLSBAD CHULA VISTA CORONADO DEL MAR EL CAJON ENCINITAS ESCONDIDO IMPERIAL BEACH LA MESA LEMON GROVE NATIONAL CITY OCEANSIDE POWAY SAN DIEGO SAN DIEGO COUNTY SAN MARCOS SANTEE SOLANA BEACH VISTA SAN FRANCISCO SAN FRANCISCO SAN JOAQUIN - ESCALON LATHROP LODI MANTECA RIPON SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY STOCKTON TRACY COMPLIANCE: SC indicates Self Certification pursuant to Government Code Section 65585.1; NA indicates element is not due pursuant to Government Code Section 65361(d) General Plan Extension. I. Page 18 of 24 HOUSING ELEMENT COMPLIANCE REPORT 10/16/2007 1:19 pm TYPE DATE ADOPTED REVIEWED COMPLIANCE ADOPTED OUT ADOPTED 10/24/2006 01/03/2007 IN DRAFT 05/11/2007 OUT ADOPTED OUT ADOPTED 03/27/2007 08/22/2007 IN DRAFT 10/08/2007 OUT ADOPTED 12114/2005 03/08/2006 IN DRAFT 11/22/2006 OUT ADOPTED 06/28/2005 08/1012005 IN ADOPTED 07/11/2006 01/0312007 IN DRAFT IN REVIEW DRAFT 11/15/2005 OUT DRAFT 0211612006 OUT ADOPTED 12105/2006 02105/2007 IN DRAFT 07/19/2007 OUT ADOPTED 12113/2005 03/10/2006 IN DRAFT _IN REVIEW ADOPTED 08/24/2006 01/10/2007. IN DRAFT 07/10/2007 OUT ADOPTED 09/28/2004 10/2812004 IN ADOPTED 07/19/2004 09/15/2004 IN ADOPTED 06/1512004 08/1312004 IN ADOPTED 10/2012004 12122/2004 IN ADOPTED 08/02/2004 11/0212004 IN ADOPTED 09/19/2006 02/1612007 OUT ADOPTED 08/10/2004 11/24/2004 IN ADOPTED 09/14/2004 11/24/2004 IN ADOPTED 07/20/2006 10/31/2006 OUT COMPLIANCE: SC indicates Self Certification pursuant to Government Code Section 65585.1; NA indicates element is not due pursuant to Government Code Section 65361(d) General Plan Extension. I. Page 19 of 24 HOUSING ELEMENT COMPLIANCE REPORT 10/1612007 1:19 prn COUNTY/ CITY TYPE DATE ADOPTED REVIEWED COMPLIANCE SAN. LUIS OBISPO ARROYO GRANDE ADOPTED 03/08/2005 06/22/2005 IN ATASCADERO DRAFT 03/04/2005 OUT GROVER BEACH ADOPTED 12/15/2003 04/0212004 OUT MORRO BAY ADOPTED 10/25/2004 .12122/2004 IN PASO ROBLES ADOPTED 12/07/2004 12/2912004 IN PISMO BEACH ADOPTED OUT SAN LUIS OBISPO ADOPTED 121412004 12122/2004 IN SAN LUIS OBISPO CO. ADOPTED 07/20/2004 08/20/2004 IN SAN MATEO ATHERTON ADOPTED 11/20/2002 04/14/2003 OUT BELMONT ADOPTED 08/27/2002 10/16/2002 IN BRISBANE ADOPTED 10/15/2002 12/13/2002 IN BURLINGAME ADOPTED 07/01/2002 09/11/2002 IN COLMA ADOPTED 04/14/2004 05/24/2004 IN DALY CITY ADOPTED 11/08/2004 12/03/2004 IN EAST PALO ALTO ADOPTED 12/18/2001 05/22/2002 JN FOSTER CITY ADOPTED 12/03/2001 03/06/2002 IN HALF MOON BAY ADOPTED OUT HILLSBOROUGH ADOPTED 07/08/2002 10/17/2002 IN MENLO PARK ADOPTED OUT MILLBRAE DRAFT 0511212005 OUT PACIFICA DRAFT 05/31/2005 OUT. PORTOLA VALLEY: DRAFT 06/29/2004 OUT REDWOOD CITY DRAFT 03/04/2004 OUT SAN BRUNO ADOPTED 04 /08/2003 05/08/2003 IN SAN CARLOS ADOPTED 121012001 03/26/2002 IN . SAN MATEO ADOPTED 05/06/2002 08/26/2002 IN SAN MATEO COUNTY ADOPTED 09/29/2004 IN SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO ADOPTED 12J1112002 03/18/2003 IN WOODSIDE ADOPTED 04/22/2003 07/23/2003 IN " COMPLIANCE: SC indicates Self Certification pursuant to Government Code Section 65585.1; NA indicates element is not due pursuant to Government Cade Section 65361(d} General Plan Extension. • HOUSING ELEMENT COMPLIANCE REPORT 10/16/2001 1:19 pm COUNTY/ CITY TYPE DATE ADOPTED U Page 20 of 24 A, REVIEWEQ COMPLIANCE * SANTA BARBARA ADOPTED 03/25/2004 05/07/2004 IN ' BUELLTON ADOPTED 06110/2004 1212212004 IN CARPINTERIA ADOPTED 03/22/2004 07/2212004 IN GOLETA ADOPTED 11/01/2006 03/19/2007 OUT GUADALUPE ADOPTED 06101/2004 07/09/2004 IN LOMPOC ADOPTED 11/18/2003 02/19/2004 IN SANTA BARBARA ADOPTED 08/10/2004 09/28/2004 IN SANTA BARBARA COUNTY ADOPTED 05/09/2006 08/02/2006 IN SANTA MARIA ADOPTED 12/19/2006 02/21/2007 IN SOLVANG ADOPTED 04/24/2006 05/19/2006 IN, SANTA CLARA CAMPBELL ADOPTED 11/20/2001 03/04/2002 IN CUPERTINO ADOPTED 11/15/2005 08/2312006 IN GILROY DRAFT 12119/2003 OUT LOS ALTOS ADOPTED 03/12/2002 06/18/2002 IN LOS ALTOS HILLS ADOPTED 01/15/2004 04/20/2004 IN LOS GATOS ADOPTED 11/03/2003 02/26/2004 IN MILPITAS ADOPTED 10/22/2002 12/02/2002 ITV MONTE SERENO ADOPTED 12/17/2002 01/28/2003 IN MORGAN HILL ADOPTED 07/19/2006 11/2012006 IN MOUNTAIN VIEW ADOPTED 12/10/2002 01/03/2003 IN PALO ALTO ADOPTED 12/02/2002 05/23/2003 IN SAN JOSE ADOPTED 04/1512003, 06124/2003 IN SANTA CLARA ADOPTED 07/23/2002 08/14/2002 IN SANTA CLARA COUNTY ADOPTED 03/25/2003 11/05/2004 IN SARATOGA ADOPTED 08/19/2002 08/01/2002 IN SUNNYVALE ADOPTED 01/08/2002 05/08/2002 IN SANTA CRUZ CAPITOLA ADOPTED 03/25/2004 05/07/2004 IN SANTA CRUZ ADOPTED 10/28/2003 11/10/2003 IN SANTA CRUZ COUNTY ADOPTED 11/07/2006 12/12/2006 IN SCOTTS VALLEY DRAFT 12129/2006 OUT WATSONVILLE ADOPTED 08/12/2003 09/2612003 IN * COMPLIANCE: SC indicates Self Certification pursuant to Government Code Section 65585.1; NA indicates . element is not due pursuant to Government Code Section 65361(d) General Plan Extension. a COMPLIANCE: SC indicates Self Certification pursuant to Government Code Section 65585.1; NA indicates element is not due pursuant to Government Code Section 65361(d) General Plan Extension. Page 21 of 24 HOUSING ELEMENT COMPLIANCE REPORT 10/16/2007 1:19 pm COUNTY/ CITY TYPE DATE ADOPTED REVIEWED COMPLIANCE." SHASTA ANDERSON ADOPTED 12/02/2003 12129/2003 IN REDDING ADOPTED 11/1612004 12/10/2004 IN SHASTA COUNTY ADOPTED 09/21/2004 10/21/2004 IN SHASTA LAKE ADOPTED 09/07/2004 12/2112004 IN SIERRA LOYALTON DRAFT IN REVIEW SIERRA COUNTY ADOPTED 09/05/2006 01/03/2007 IN SISKIYOU DORRIS ADOPTED 04 /03/2006 07/18/2006 IN DUNSMUIR DRAFT 03/2712006 IN ETNA ADOPTED 05/1712004 06/1412004 IN FORT JONES ADOPTED 05/10/2004 04/09 /2004 IN MONTAGUE ADOPTED 03/29/2004 06/24/2004 OUT MOUNT SHASTA ADOPTED 05/23/2005 09123/2005 IN, SISKIYOU COUNTY ADOPTED 05/18/2004 05/2712004 IN TULELAKE ADOPTED 07/1912004 09/0312004 IN WEED ADOPTED 03125/2004, 04/2712004 IN YREKA ADOPTED 12/18/2003 01/2912004, IN SOLANO BENICIA ADOPTED 05/20/2003 07/31/2003 IN DIXON ADOPTED 10/22/2002 10/30/2002 IN FAIRFIELD ADOPTED 10/16/2001 09/14/2007 IN RIO VISTA ADOPTED 01/19/2006 04/24/2006 IN SOLANO COUNTY. ADOPTED 10/11/2005 01/25/2006 OUT SUISUN CITY ADOPTED 02/15/2005 04/07/2005 IN VACAVILLE ADOPTED 10/28/2003 01/06/2004 IN VALLEJO ADOPTED 01/16/2004 IN COMPLIANCE: SC indicates Self Certification pursuant to Government Code Section 65585.1; NA indicates element is not due pursuant to Government Code Section 65361(d) General Plan Extension. •. 0 ` COMPLIANCE: SC indicates Self Certification pursuant to Government Code Section 65585.1; NA indicates element is not due pursuant to Government Code Section 65361(d) General Plan Extension. Page 22 of 24 HOUSING ELEMENT COMPLIANCE REPORT ,a 10/16/2007 1:19 prn COUNTY/ CITY TYPE DATE ADOPTED REVIEWED COMPLIANCE SONOMA CLOVERDALE ADOPTED 11/13/2002 04/11/2003 IN COTATI ADOPTED 07/23/2002 09/12/2003 IN HEALDSBURG ADOPTED 09/16/2062 12/19/2002 IN PETALUMA ADOPTED 10/11/2002 IN ROHNERT PARK ADOPTED 08/28/2001 12/03/2001 IN SANTA ROSA DRAFT 06/05/2007 IN SEBASTOPOL DRAFT 05/04/2007 IN SONOMA ADOPTED 01/21/2004 02/20/2004 IN SONOMA COUNTY ADOPTED 12/18/2001 02/11/2002 IN WINDSOR ADOPTED 08/07/2002 11/13/2002 IN STANISLAUS CERES ADOPTED IN REVIEW HUGHSON ADOPTED 06/10/2004 b7/15/2004 IN MODESTO ADOPTED 04127/2004 05/11/2004 IN NEWMAN ADOPTED 12/09/2003 04102/2004 IN OAKDALE ADOPTED 05/17/2004 06/22/2004 IN PATTERSON ADOPTED 09/07/2004 11/24/2004 IN " RIVERBANK ADOPTED 12/26/2004 12/30/2004 IN STANISLAUS COUNTY ADOPTED 12/16/2063 03/26/2004 IN TURLOCK ADOPTED 10/14/2003 12/16/2003 IN WATERFORD DRAFT 01/14/2005 OUT SUTTER LIVE OAK ADOPTED 12/21/2005 02/07/2006 IN SUTTER COUNTY ADOPTED 09/28/2004 12/14/2004 IN YUBA CITY ADOPTED 06/17/2003 09/10/2003 IN TEHAMA CORNING ADOPTED 05/24/2005 07/08/2005 IN RED BLUFF ADOPTED 09/07/2004 12/07/2004 IN TEHAMA ADOPTED 03/09/2004 04/20 /2004 IN . TEHAMA COUNTY ADOPTED 08/16/2005 12/06/2005 IN ` COMPLIANCE: SC indicates Self Certification pursuant to Government Code Section 65585.1; NA indicates element is not due pursuant to Government Code Section 65361(d) General Plan Extension. COUNTY/ CITY TRINITY. TRINITY COUNTY 0 0 Page 23 of 24 HOUSING ELEMENT COMPLIANCE REPORT 10/16/2007 1:19 pm TYPE DATE ADOPTED REVIEWED COMPLIANCE ADOPTED 02/02/2004 04116/2004 IN TULARE DINUBA ADOPTED 12/1412004 1213012004 IN EXETER ADOPTED 0111112005 .06/09/2005 OUT FARMERSVILLE ADOPTED 0311412005 06/10/2005 IN LINDSAY ADOPTED 0912812004 1012012004 IN PORTERVILLE ADOPTED 03116/2004 07109/2004 IN TULARE ADOPTED 12116/2003 01/27 /2005 IN TULARE COUNTY ADOPTED 12/09/2003 04/2712004 IN VISALIA ADOPTED 12/1912005 03/2712006 IN WOODLAKE ADOPTED 1012512004 12/0312004 IN TUOLUMNE SONORA ADOPTED 03/01/2004 03117/2004 IN TUOLUMNE COUNTY ADOPTED 12109/2003 12/1612003 IN VENTURA r: CAMARILLO ADOPTED 1111912003 12/16/2003 IN FILLMORE ADOPTED 05113/2003 07/24/2003 IN MOORPARK ADOPTED 12/1912001 03/0812002 IN OJAI ADOPTED 01/2212002. 05/1412002 IN OXNARD ADOPTED 12/1912000 05/10/2001 IN PORT HUENEME ADOPTED. 05102/2001 09106/2001 IN SAN BUENAVENTURA ADOPTED 0412012004 07130/2004 IN SANTA PAULA ADOPTED 08/19/2002 09/20/2002' IN SIMI VALLEY ADOPTED 11/19/2001 0311312002 IN THOUSAND OAKS ADOPTED 12/12/2000 03130/2001 IN VENTURA COUNTY ADOPTED 0611912001 .10118/2001 IN COMPLIANCE: SC indicates Self Certification pursuant to Government Code Section 65585.1; NA indicates element is not due pursuant to Government Code Section 65361(d) General Plan Extension: & 1 • r * COMPLIANCE: SC indicates Self Certification pursuant to Government Code Section 65585.1; NA indicates element is not due pursuant to Government Code Section 65361(d) General Plan Extension. 1 Page 24 of 24 HOUSING ELEMENT COMPLIANCE REPORT 10/16/2001 1:19 pm - COUNTY/ CITY TYPE DATE ADOPTED REVIEWED COMPLIANCE* ' YOLO DAVIS ADOPTED 07/20/2004 10/20/2004 IN WEST SACRAMENTO ADOPTED 03/12/2003 04/03/2003 IN WINTERS ADOPTED 12/14/2004 03/23/2005 IN WOODLAND ADOPTED 10/07/2003 10/23/2003 IN YOLO COUNTY ADOPTED ., 03/25/2003 05/15/2003 IN YUBA MARYSVILLE ADOPTED 04 /01/2003 07/01/2003 IN . WHEATLAND ADOPTED 01/27/2005 06/27/2005 IN YUBA COUNTY ADOPTED 12/30/2004 IN r * COMPLIANCE: SC indicates Self Certification pursuant to Government Code Section 65585.1; NA indicates element is not due pursuant to Government Code Section 65361(d) General Plan Extension. 1 EXHIBIT IS DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Division of Housing Policy Development 1800 Thud steel, Suite 430 P. 0. Box 952053 Secmm W CA 942522053 (916)323 -3177 FAX (916) 327.2643 June 20, 2005 Mr. Homer-Bludau, City Manager City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear Mr. Bludau: RE: Review of the City. of Newport Beach's Adopted Housing Element �t,. . Thank you for submitting Newport Beach's housing element, as amended and adopted by the City Council on April 12, 2005 and received for review on May 5, 2005. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65585(h), the Department is required to review adopted housing elements and report the findings to the locality. A series of telephone conversations and e-mail exchanges with Mr. Jaime Murillo, Assistant Planner, facilitated the review. The Department's February 25, 2005 review found the draft amendments, which clarified and corrected references to household income levels and municipal code sections, would not a€fect the compliance status of the City's housing element. Given these amendments were formally adopted by the City Council, the Department is pleased to find the housing element remains in compliance with State housing element law (Article 10.6 of the Government Code). The Department's February 2005 review also required an update outlining the progress in meeting conditional compliance requirements, specifically the status of the approval process for the Avocado/MacArthur site, along with a description of the steps the City. is taking to make a portion of the 45.2 acre Banning Ranch site available for residential development. This report, received on March 14, 2005, indicates the Banning Ranch site remains zoned for multifamily uses, however, no. development applications have yet been submitted. The report also indicates the necessar.y general plan amendment, rezoning, and environmental analysis for the Avocado/MacArthur site has been initiated by the City Council (pursuant to Program 3.2.3). However, the project is currently on -hold pending the outcome of negotiations between the City and the property. owner. According to the City's status report, negotiations are expected to be completed by October 2005. Depending on negotiation results, the City acknowledges it may have to identify an alternative site to remain in compliance with the "adequate sites" statutory requirements for lower - income households. Therefore, the Department's finding of compliance remains conditioned on the City ensuring the supply of appropriately zoned sites is adequate to accommodate its regional housing need for lower - income households. If the City's October 2005 annual report, as required by Government Code Section 65400, reveals the Avocado/MacArthur site is not available for multifamily development and an alternative site has not been identified, the element will no longer comply with the "adequate Mr. Homer Bludau,. City Manager Page 2 sites" statutory requirement and will necessitate immediate amendment to provide the necessary sites. Any alternative site must be suitable, available, and appropriately zoned to encourage and facilitate the development of housing for lower- income households. Since the City of Newport Beach's adopted housing element is in compliance, it has met one of the threshold requirements for an innovative new program that rewards local governments for approving, affordable workforce housing. The Workforce Housing Program, funded by Proposition 46, provides grant fimds to eligible local governments for every qualifying unit permitted, beginning calendar year 2005. Grant awards can be used to fund any capital wet project, such as transportation or park improvements. More specific information about the program is available on the. Department's website at ham. -1AM v.hcd.caQOV /cahvhro% It is important to note that in addition to housing element compliance, the City must submit an annual report on the implementation of the housing element in accordance with Government Code Section 65400, by December 31, 2005 to be eligible for fimding. The Department wishes the City of Newport Beach continued success in implementing its housing, land -use, and development assistance programs, and looks forward to receiving the City's 2005 general plan implementation progress report. If the Department can provide any additional assistance in implementing the City's housing element, please contact Don Thomas, of our.staff, at (916) 445 -5854. Sincerely, Cathy swell Deputy irector cc: Patricia Temple, Planning Director, City of Newport Beach Jaime Murillo, Assistant Planner, City of Newport Beach EXHIBIT C MATE OF CAI IF(M2NIA AI LCINFRG_ IRAN <_PDRTATN]N AND HDI ISINC_ AC.ENCV ARNDI D ACAWARJFNF/1GFR. Qnw,mnr DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Division of Housing Policy Development 1800 Third Street Suite 430 P. O. Box 852053 Sa m ft, CA 94252-2053 (916) 323 -3177 FAX (916) 327.2643 November 2, 2006 Mr. Homer Bludau, City Manager City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Dear Mr. Bludau: RE: Review of the City of Newport Beach's Revised Adopted Housing Element Thank you for submitting Newport-Beach's revised housing element, adopted by the City Council on July 25, 2006 as part of a comprehensive general plan update. The element was received for review on August 3, 2006. Pursuant to Govemment Code Section 65585(h), the Department is required to review adopted housing elements and report the findings to the locality. A series of telephone conversations with Mr. Gregg Ramirez, Senior Planner, facilitated the review. As you know, the Department found Newport Beach's 2003 adopted housing element, along with a subsequent revision in April 2005, in conditional compliance. The Department's finding of compliance was contingent on the City's commitment to rezone. the Avocado /MacArthur site and continuing to encourage and facilitate development on the Banning Ranch site. The revised element no longer proposes to rezone the MacArthur site as a means to address the adequate sites statutory requirement. Also, the element indicates the updated Land Use element is now prioritizing the retention of Banning Ranch as open space. This is an especially critical point as the previously adopted element relied on Banning Ranch to accommodate 406 multifamily units without the need for a zone change or general plan amendment. Instead, the adopted element now includes a general land inventory which focuses on potential housing opportunities in the John Wayne Airport, Banning Ranch, Newport Center, Mariners' Mile, and Balboa Peninsula. areas. The element, however, only contains general descriptions and potential dwelling unit capacity figures for those areas (described on pages 5 -34 through 5 -49). The element does not contain the necessary information and analysis to determine which specific sites are suitable and available to accommodate the City's remaining housing need within the current planning period. As a result, the element no longer identifies adequate sites, and further, requires revisions to analyze potential governmental constraints. As discussed with Mr. Ramirez, the following specific revisions are needed to bring the element into compliance with State housing element law (Article 10.6 of the Government Code). ,>.4- • 0 Mr. Homer Bludau, City Manager Page 2 Include an inventory of land suitable for residential development, including vacant sites and sites having the potential for redevelopment, and an analysis of the relationship of zoning and public facilities and services to these sites (Section 65583(a)(3)).. The inventory of land suitable for residential development shall be used to identify sites that can be developed for housing within the planning period (Section 65583.2). The element must be expanded to include a complete land inventory with specific site desctiptions and analysis. The inventory and analysis should include the following: • A.parcel specific listing. of sites describing general plan designation, zoning, maximum density, and parcel size. • A description of existing uses on the identified non - vacant sites. • A description of the impact of parcel size on development feasibility, capacity, and affordability. • An analysis that demonstrates how the City calculated its projected buildout capacities for the identified. sites. This analysis should evaluate the impact of the City's land -use controls and site improvement requirements on buildout capacity estimates. For example, the City must consider the imposition of maximum lot coverage requirements, open space, parking, and floor area ratios (FARs), when establishing its realistic unit capacity, rather than relying on a theoretical number based on maximum buildout. • A general analysis of the existing infrastructure capacity (i.e., water and sewer), including access to distribution facilities along with an indication of whether capacity is, or will be, sufficient to serve the identified sites within the planning period. • A general description and analysis of known environmental constraints. • Identification of which zones and densities can accommodate the City's lower - income housing need (see Item 2, page 2 of the Department's AB 2348 technical assistance paper). • A map or other method for identifying specific sites in the inventory For example, the Land Use element now prioritizes Banning Ranch as open space, yet the housing element continues to identify it as a potential housing site (1,375 units). Table H30 indicates the site will have both Open Space (OS) and Residential Village (RV) the General Plan designations, while zoned Planned Community (PC). Therefore, the element must clearly describe how much of the 465 acre site will be designated specifically for residential uses, including timing of adoption of the zoning'that can accommodate residential development. The element should also explain how the future master plan /specific plan, including development standards, acres of the various residential components, density levels, and design guidelines will allow residential development this planning period. Mixed -Use: Table H30 indicates several areas have mixed -use development potential. Based on the general land -use descriptions in the element, it appears a large percentage of the Airport, Newport Center, Mariners' Mile, and Balboa Peninsula, areas are builtout. Mr. Homer Bludau, City Manager Page 3 Therefore, the element must demonstrate that mixed -use development or stand alone residential uses are realistic and viable development strategies for those sites with active uses. For example, the element should describe the condition or age of existing development and describe the potential for such uses to be discontinued and replaced with housing, or provide a clear indication of whether housing could be added to the existing use (such as adding second story residential to ground floor retail). Also, "the analysis should evaluate whether the redevelopment or intensification of a site would require lot consolidation to allow additional residential development. The element should further describe the City's experience in facilitating mixed -use development of non - residentially zoned sites, including current market conditions, redevelop ent trends (i.e., high land and.construction costs in concert with limited supplies of avatiable and developable land resources could promote the market conditions necessary to facilitate more compact and efficient residential development) and incentives and policies to encourage the development of underutilized and /or mixed -use sites. To assist the City in addressing the adequate sites requirement, the Department has provided Mr. Ramirez the AB 2348 technical assistance memo (via the Department's website). Given the City's reliance on mixed -use development to accommodate its remaining need, the element should also include strong programs and policies to facilitate such development. 2. Analyze potential and actual governmental constraints upon the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing for all income levels. The analysis shall also demonstrate local efforts to remove'govemmental constraints that hinder the locality from meeting its share of the regional housing need in accordance with Section 65584 (Section 65583(a)(4)). Land -Use Controls: Table H30 lists several zoning designations that are not described or analyzed In the element's governmental controls section (Table H31). The element should describe /define the applicable development standards and, permitted and conditional residential uses allowed in each of these zones (e.g., MU, RV PC, SP, RSC -MM, APF). The element should also describe and analyzepow implementation of allowed density, building setbacks, height provisions, parking and open space requirements help to facilitate and encourage housing for all income groups. Should the requisite analysis determine the City's land -use controls are impeding residential development, the element should describe efforts to mitigate and /or remove any identified constraints. :,f Measure "S ": The Measure, approved in November 2000, establishes threshold residential density and /or land -use intensity increases that trigger voter approval. According to the adopted element, this Measure will not Impact the City's ability to accommodate its share of the regional housing need (pg 5 -54). However, the element must be expanded to include a more detailed description and evaluation of Measure "S" impacts on the cost and supply of new residential development. Mr. Homer Bludau, City Manager Page 4 For example, the element should explain how Measure "S" is implemented, including how the "vested rights" provisions are applied and whether any exception pr6Visions exist for affordable housing or housing needed to meet the City's Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA). Requiring "major" general plan amendments to be decided on by the local electorate could be costly and result in significant fiscals impacts to individual development projects. The element should clarify if a project applicant is 100 percent responsible for election costs and explain the methodology for determining these costs.-"!" Also, pursuant to Government Code Section 65583(c)((3) the element must include a program action that specifically addresses, and where appropriate, removes any identified residential development constraints associated with Measure S. This would be in addition to Program 2:3.1 as this action only commits the City to studying the impacts of major commercial and industrial projects on the existing housing supply. The Department hopes these comments are helpful and would be glad to assist the City in addressing the above requirements. If you would like to schedule a technical assistance meeting or site visit, please contact Don Thomas, of our staff, at (916) 445 -5854. Sincerely, Cathy . Creswell Depu Director y fl:.: M EXHIBIT IM ATATF OF CALIFORNip .auciNCAF_ TRANRPORTATION pND NOI ISM[: A(.FNCV ARNOI ❑ RCHWAR]ENEC- CER_'C- nvemnr DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Division of Housing Policy Development 1800 Thhd Street, BOO 430 - P. O. Box 952053 .. . . Sacmmento, CA 94252.2053 (978) 32"177 FAX (998) 327.2e43 September 10; 2007 Mr. Greg Ramirez, Senior Planner City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Dear Mr. Ramirez: RE: Review of the City of Newport Beach's Revised Housing Element Thank you for submitting revisions to Newport Beach's housing element. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65585 (b), the Department is required to review draft housing elements and report the findings to the locality. A series of telephone conversations with you facilitated the review. The revised adopted element addresses some of the findings described in the, Department's November 2, 2006 review. For example, the draft revisions indicate4hat Measure "S" (Section 423 of the City Charter) will not impact the development of the sites identified in the inventory (Table H -30 and Appendix H5) due to the increased densities/ intensities established as part of the recent comprehensive general plan update (approved by the voters in November of 2006). Newport Beach should be diligent in monitoring the potential impacts of Charter Section 423 as identified in Housing Program 2,3.1. Should monitoring reveal that residential projects are being subjected to the voter approval process, the City must take the appropriate steps (in a timely manner) to remove governmental constraints and provide adequate sites. The revisions also indicate the City is continuing to work on a comprehensive zoning ordinance update, which when completed, will establish zoning designations consistent with the new land - use designations established as part of the general plan update. However, according to the revised element, the John Wayne Airport and Newport Center areas offer the greatest residential development potential during the. remainder of the planning period, through a variety of development strategies, including mixed -use, infill and reuse. Therefore, as described in the Department's previous review, and discussed with you, the element must demonstrate these strategies are realistic and viable such that they can accommodate Newport Beach's remaining share of the regional housing need, particularly for lower- income households. Mr. Greg Ramirez, Senior Planner Page 2 0 Include an inventory of land suitable for residential development, including vacant sites and sites having the potential for redevelopment, and an_ analysis of the relationship of zoning and public facilities and services to these sites (Section 65583(a)(3)). The inventory of land suitable for residential development shall be used to identify sites that can die developed for housing within the planning period (Section 65583.2). Given that most of the sites listed in Appendix H5 are developed with existing uses, the element must be expanded to describe the condition and age of existing development and describe the realistic potential for these uses to be discontinued and replaced with housing this planning period. The expanded analysis should describe the City's experience in facilitating redevelopment and mixed -use development of non - residentially zoned sites, including current market-conditions, and redevelopment trends. Please refer to the Department's November 6, 2006 review. Also, as discussed with you and described in the Department prior review, given the City's strong reliance on a combination of mixed -use and redevelopment to accommodate its remaining housing need, Policy H.2.3 must be complemented with strong programs and implementation actions to facilitate such development (i.e., specific commitment to provide regulatory and/or financial incentives and promote.the development of underutilized and/or mixed -use sites). Under a separate cover, examples of program implementation actions from other jurisdictions that have or are currently relying on mixed use and recycling development strategies will be sent to you. The element's analysis of the identified sites in the John Wayne Airport and Newport. Centers areas must be expanded to include the following: • A description of the impact of parcel size on development feasibility, capacity, and affordability. • An analysis that demonstrates mixed -use development or stand alone residential uses are realistic and viable development strategies for those sites identified in Appendix H5. • An indication whether redevelopment, recycling, or intensification of a site would require lot consolidation to allow additional residential development. • A darification that the noise and height restrictions set forth in the JWA Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) (page 5 -35) will not impact the projected residential buildout capacities described in Table H30.for the identified situ listed in Appendix H5. 2. Analyze potential and actual governmental constraints upon the maintenance; improvement, and development of housing for all income levels. The analysis shall also demonstrate local efforts to remove governmental constraints that hinder the locality from meeting its share of the regional housing need in accordance with Section 65584 (Section 65583(a)(4)). Mr. Greg Ramirez, Senior Planner Page 3 Land -Use Controls: According to the draft revisions, City staff is currently working on a comprehensive zoning ordinance update to address inconsistencies between recently established general plan land use designations and outdated zoning categories. As indicated in the element, the City Council.adopted a resolution (as an interim measure) that allows projects to be "reviewed" in spite of this general plan /zoning inconsistency (page 5 -66). However, the element must be expanded to demonstrate that in addition to "reviewing° residential projects, they can actually receive final approval during the time period which the zoning ordinance is being updated. In addition, the element should also include a timeline for completing the zoning ordinance update. Finally, as indicated in the Department's prior review the element must describe and analyze how implementation of allowed density, building setbacks, height provisions, parking, and open space requirements of all nevyly established zoning categories, particularly the Planned Community (PC) zone`, will facilitate and encourage housing for all income groups. Should the requisite analysis determine the City's new land -use controls will impede residential development, the element must include a program to mitigate and /or remove any identified constraints. The Department-is committed to assisting the City of Newport Beach in bringing its housing element into compliance and would be pleased to provide any additional assistance necessary, including another meeting in Newport Beach. If you have any questions, or wish to schedule a visit, please contact Don Thomas, of our staff, at (916) 445 -5854. Sincerely, y reswell Depu irector ,#- . EXHIBIT E • is Final Regional Housing Need Allocation Plan - Planning Period (January 1, 2006- June 30, 2014) for Jurisdictions within the Six-County SCAG Region (approved by the SCAG Regional Council on July 12, 2007) m such cases, communities may choose which of the Income categories it will adjust by. one unit to maintain consistency with the approved total housing need. M'.JohnsonlRHNA1RHNAFinal.xls Final 07/12/2007 Pagel 110°/ Adjustment toward County Distribution Number of % . %above Number of Number of above %very low %low moderate moderate very low Number of low moderate moderate County City income Income :Income households households households Income households %total income income'_.. Income Income households households households households Total SLAG Region 23.7% 18.2% 18.1% 420% 100% '165,457113.W 126,715 293,547 699,368 Imperial Brawley city 24.5% 16.6% .16.0% 429% 100% 757 511 494 1,328 3,088 Imperial Calexico city 24.6% 16.2% 15.7% 43.5% 100% 815 405 391 1,086 Impeded Celipatria city 25.0% 18.0% 18.0% 43.0% 100% 50 32 2.498 Imperial H Centro city 24.8% 16.6% 16.1% 428% 100% 720 483. 32 467 87 202 Impede) . Holtviile city 25.4% 16.7% 15.9% 420% 100% 35 23 1,238 2908 Impede] Impede] city 26.0% 17.1% 16.3% 40.7% 100% 470 309 22 295 59 736 199 Imperial Weshnoriand city 23.6% 16.5% 15.7% 44.1% 100% 81 42 1,810 Impede] wincorporated 24,70/ 16.3% 15.7% 43.2% 100% 3,317 2,194 40 2,109 113 256 Los Angeles . Agcuia Hills p$' , 26.6% 16.5% 17.4% 39.4% 1 oo % 29 5,806 13.427 Los Angeles . Alhambra city 24.5% . 15.5% 16.8% 43.2% 100% 379 18 239 19 260 43 110 Los Angeles Arcadia city 25.5% 15.8% 17.1% 41.5% 100% 549 4 34 0 668 1.546 Los Angeles Artesia city 25.2% 15.3% 1&8% .427% 100% 33 3 6 6 6 892 2,17414 9 Los Angeles Avalon city 25,2% 15.0% 17.0% 429% 100% 37 22 56 Los Angeles Azusa city 24.6% 15.4% 16.6% 43.3% 100% 184 115 25 124 64 146 Los Angeles Baldwin Park city 24.9% 15.4% 1 6.5% 43.1% 100% 186 123 323 745 Los Angeles Bell city 23.4% 14.9% 17.0% 44.71% t00% 11 .115 7 321 744 Los Angeles Boll Gardens dry 24.0% 14.9% ` 16.5% 44.6% 100% 29 18 8 21 47 Los Angeles 'Bellflower city 24.7% '15.4% 16.69/6 43.3% 100% 263 164 20 178 54 122 Los Angeles Beverly Hills dry . 25.5% 16.2% 17.6% 40.7% 100% 111 71 462 1,067 Los Angeles Bradbury dU' 26.7% 17.1% 17.1% 40.0% 100% 9 77 178 436 Los Angeles Burbank city 25.0% 15.8% . 1 6.9% 423% 100% 947 6 597 6. 642 14 1,600 35 Los Angeles - Calabasas city 2 6.4% 16.5% 17.8% 39.3% t00% 137 88 3,786 Los Angeles . • Carson city 25.4% 15.8% 1 &9% 41.8% 100% 461 287 93 205 521 Los Angeles Cerritos city 26.6%. 16.0% 17.0% 40.4% 100% 25 15 307 757 . 1,812 Los Angeles Claremont city 25.6% 16.1% 17.4% 40.8% 100% 117 74 18 38 95 Los Angeles . Commerce city 23.8% 15.9% 15.9% 44.4% 100% 15 to 80 187 457 Los Angeles Compton city 23.5% 14.7% 17.6% 44.1% 100% 16 to 10 28 64 Los Angeles Covina city 26.1% 15.8% 16.9% 42.2%, 100% 336 211 12 226 30 564 69 1,337 Los Angeles Cudahy city 23.5% 14.9% 16.7% 44.9% 100% 94 6o 67 180 Nate: There is a one unit rounding difference in some localities between the total housing heed and the sum of the 4Income nmum: 399 m such cases, communities may choose which of the Income categories it will adjust by. one unit to maintain consistency with the approved total housing need. M'.JohnsonlRHNA1RHNAFinal.xls Final 07/12/2007 Pagel Final Regional Housing Need Allocation Plan - Planning Period (January 1, 2006 - June 30, 2614). for Jurisdictions within the Six - County SLAG Region (approved, by the SLAG Regional Council on July 12, 2007) Page 2 % %above Number of Number of above %very low %low moderate moderate very low Number of low moderate moderate County income income Income Income income income Income Income City households households households households .% total households households households households Total Las Angeles Culver city ., 25.6% 15.8% 16.8% 41.8% 100% 128 80 85 Los Angeles Diamond Bar city 26.1% 164% 17.2% 40.3% 100% 284 179 788 211 504 Las Angeles Downey city 25.0% 15.7% 16.8% 42.4% 100% 277 174 440 1,04 Las Angeles Duarte city 25.1% 15.9% 17.1% 41.9% 100% 92 187 470 1,108, • Las Angeles El Monte dry 24.1% 15.1% 168% 44.1% 100% 532 58 333 63 154 367 Los Angeles 0 Segundo city 26.2% 16.1% 16.7% 41.1% 100% 44 370 973 2,208 Los Angeles Gardena city 24.4% 15.5% 17.0% 43.1% 100% 270 27 171 28 69 168 Las Angeles Glendale city 24.5% 15.71/6 17.0% 448% 100% 767 491 188 534 476 1,105 Los Angeles Glendora city 25.7% 16.0% 17.1% 41.2% 100% 192 119 1,340 3,131 Las Angeles Hawaiian Gardens city 24.3% 15.3% 16.7% 43.8% 100% 35 127 307 744 Las Angeles Hawthorne city 24.1% 15.1% 16.8% 44.1% 100% 219 22 137 24 153 64 145 Los Angeles Hermosa Beach city 26.2% 16.5% 17.4% 39.8% 100% 147 93 401 910 Los Angeles Hidden Hills city 26.5% 17.6% 17.6% 362% 100% 9 6 98 224 562 Los Angeles Huntington Park city 23.7% 14.8% 16.8% 44.6% 100% 240 150 6 170 13 34 4 Las.Angelea Industry city _ 33.3% 167% 16.7% 33.3% 100% 2 .1 452 1,013 Los Angeles Inglewood city 24.0% 15.4% 16.8% 43.8% 100% 388 255 1 278 2 727 6 Los Angeles Irwindale city 23.9% 16.4% 16.4% 43.3% 100% 16 1,658 Los Angeles La Canada Flintridge city 26.2% 16.7% 18.0% 39.1% 100% 62 .11 11 29 68 88 Los Angeles La Habra Heights city 267% 16.4% 18.1 % 38.8% 100% 21 39 42 92 Los Angeles La Mirada city 25.8% 160% 17.3% 40.9% 100% 452 13 280 14 303 31 80 Los Angeles La Puente city 24.9% 15.4% 16.9% 42.91/6 100% 201 124 136 716 1,751 • Las Angeles Los Angeles La Verne city Lakewood city 25.80/6 25.6% 15.9% 160% 17.3% 41.0 %, 100% 220 136 148 346 351 807 854 17.1% 41.2% 100% 172 108 115 277 673 Los Angeles Lancaster city 24.69/6 15.5% 16.9% 43.0% 100% 3,144 1.988 2,165 51501 12,799 Los Angeles Lawndale city 24.80/6 15.4% 165% 43.4% 100% 116 72 77 ` Los Angeles Lomta city 25.1% 15,6% 16.8% 42.5% 100% 87 54 203 468 Los Angeles Long Beech city 24.20% 15.5% 17.1% 43.20/6 100% 2,321 1,485 58 1,534 147 346 Los Angeles Los Angeles city 24.1% 15.5% 17.1% 43.3% 100% 27.238 17,495 19,304 4,143 9.583 Los Angeles Lynwood city 24.4% 15.3% 16.4% 43.9% 100% 88 48,839 112,876 Los Angeles Malibu city 26.1% 16.5% 17.8% 39.6% 100% 115 55 73 60 159 363 Los Angeles Manhattan Beach cIty 26.4% 16.6% 17.9% 39.1% 100% 236 149 79. 160 175 441 Note: There is a one unit rounding difference in some localities between the total housing need and the sum of the 4 Income groups. 350 895 In such cases, communities may choose which of the income categories it will adjust by one unit to maintain consistency with the approved total housing need Final M.'johnson\RHNA1RHNAFinal.xls 07/1212007 Page 2 Final Regional Housing Need Allocation Plan - Planning Period (January 1, 2006 - June 30, 2014) for Jurisdictions within the Six- County SCAG Region (approved by the SCAG Regional Council on July 12, 2007) I County . City % %above . %very low %low moderate moderate income Income Income Income households households households households 'Alotal Number of very low Income households Number of low Income households Number of moderate income households above moderate income households Total Los Angeles Maywood city 227% 13.8% 18.2% 46.5% 100% 5 3 4 . Los Angeles Monrovia city 25.1% 15.5% 16.8% 42.5% 100% 142 Be 96 10 22 Los Angeles Montebello city 24.5°/ 15.5% 16.9% 43.2% 100% 123 78 241 567 Los Angeles Monterey Park city 24.6% 15.5% 17.0% 43.0% 100% 280 177 85 217 502 • Los Angeles Norwalk city 25.2% 15.5% 18.7% 42.8% 1001/6 75, 46 194 490 1.141 Los Angeles Palmdale city 25.0% 15.8% 16.9% 42.3% 100% 4.481 2.822 50 3.024 126 297 Loa Angeles Palos Verdes Estates city 26.4% 16.7% 18.1% 38.9% 100°/, 19 7.583 17,910 Los Angeles Paramount city 24.4% 15.4% 16.8% 43.70/6 100% 248 12 156 13 28 72 Los Angeles Pasadena city 24.8% 15.8% 17.1 %. 423% 100% 711 168 444 1.017 Los Angeles Pico Rivera city 24.8% 15.70/. 16.7% 429% 100% 211 462 134 491 1,215 2,869 Los Angeles Pomona city 24.5% 15.5% 16.8% 43.1% 100% 901 571 143 619 387 1,587 855 Los Angeles Rancho Palos Verdes city 26.7% 16.7% 17.8% 38.9% 100% 16 10 3,678 Los Angeles Redondo Beach city 26.0% 16.2% 17.3% 40.5% 100% 580 363 11 11 23 3 60 Los Angeles Rolling Hills city 27.3% 18.2% 18.2% 36.4% 100% 6 4 8 260 Los Angeles Roiling Hills Estates city 26.9% 15.41/6 19.2% 38.5% 100% 7 4 4 8 22 Los Angeles Rosemead city 24.3% 15.3% 16.8% 43.6% 100% 190 119 5 131 10 26 Los Angeles San Dimas city 25.90/6 16.1% 17.2% 40.8% 100% 162 101 340 780 Los Angeles San Fernando city 24.7% 15.1% 16.7% 43.4% 100% 62 38' 107 255 625 Los Angeles San Gabriel city 24.9% 15.4% 17.0% 42.8% 100% 206 127' 42 140 109 251 Las Angeles San Marino city 26.9% 15.4% 19.2% 38.5% 100% 7 4 5 354 827 Los Angeles Santa Cladta city 26.0% 16.21/6 17.3% 40.5% 100% 2.494 1,560 1,657 10 3.888 26 • Los Angeles Los Angeles Santa Fe Springs city Santa Monica city 25.0% 24.8% 15.8% 16.0% 16.7% 17.2% 425% 100% " 115 73 77 196. 9.598 460 41.9% 100% 164 106 114 277 662 Los Angeles Siena Madre city 26.1% 15.9% 17.4% 40.6% 100% 36 22 24 Los Angeles Signal HUI city 25.3% 15.8% 16.7% 420% 100% 56 35 37 56 139 - Los Angeles South El Monte city 24.5% 15.0% 17.0% 43.5% 100% 49 30 93 222 Los Angeles South Gate city 24.5% 15.1% 16.6% 43.9% 100% 322 ; 196 34 218 86 578 202 Los Angeles South Pasadena city 25.7% 15.8% 17.0% 41.5% 100% 43 26 1,313 Los Angeles Temple city 25.3% 15.8% 16.8% 421% 100% 249 156 28 165 68 416 166 987 .. Los Angeles Torrance city 25.6% 16.0% 17.1% 41.4% 100%, 468 292 312 756 1,828 Los Angsles Vernon city 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%. 0.0% 0% 0 0 0 Note: There is a one unit rounding difference in some localities between the total housing need and the sum of the 4 income 0 0 groups. In such cases, communities may choose which of the income categories it will adjust by one unit to maintain consistency with the approved total housing.need. Final M: yahnsonlRHNA1RHNAFihal.xis 0711 2120 0 7 Page 3 I Page 4 -- Final Regional Housing Need Allocation Plan -. Planning Period (January 1, 2006 - June 30, 2014) for Jurisdictions within the Six- County.SCAG Region (approved by the SCAG Regional Council on July 12, 2007) Number of % % above Number of Number of above - %very low %low moderate moderate very low Number of low moderate moderate County Income Income Income Income Income Income income income City households households households households %total households households households households .Total Los Angeles Walnut city 26.1% 76.5% 17.9% 39.5% 100% 153 87 105 Los Angeles West Covina city 2516% 15.8% 16.9% 41.7% 100% 631 388 417 232 587 Los Angeles . West Hollywood city 24.4% 15.5% 16.9% 43.2% 100% 142 91 1,026 2,461 Los Angeles Westlake Village city 26.976 '17.3% 17.3% 38.5% 100% 14 99 252 584 Los Angeles Whittler city 25.2% 15.7% 17.0%' 42.1 %. 100% 225 9 140 9 20' 52 • Los Angeles Unincorporated 252% 15.9% 17.2% 41.7% 100% 14,425 9,073 151 375 892 Orange Also, Viejo city 22.6% 18.0% 19.4% 40.0% 100% 9,816 23,862 57,176 Orange Anaheim city 20.8% 17.0% 19.7% 42.5% 100% 208 1,971 165 1,618 179 1,874 367 4,035 919 . Orange area city 21.5% 17.4% 19.7% 41.4% 100% 441 358 404 9,498 Orange . Buena Pads city 21.0% 17.1% 18.5% 42.3% 100% 142 116 132 847 2.048 Orange Costa Mesa city 21.0% 17.2% 19.6% 42.2% 100% 353 289 286 677 Orange Cypress city 21.7% 17.5 9/6 19.7% 41.0% 100% 98 79 330 710 .1,682 Orange Dana Point city 22.1% . 17.6% 19.1% 41.2% 160% 15 12 89 185 450 Orange Fountain Valley city 22.1% 17.7% 19.7% 40.5% 100% 103 83 13 28 6 9 Orange Fullerton city 20.9% 17.2% 19.7% 42.2% 100% 398 329 92 376 189 806 49 Orange Garden Grove city 20.7% 17.1% 19.6 %, 425% 100% . 116 96 110 11910 Orange Huntington Beach city 21.7% 17.6% 19.6% 40.9% 100% 464 369 414 238 855 560 Orange livine city 21.7% 18.0% , 20.0% 40.3% 100% 7,735 6,408 7,139 14,378. 2,092 Orange La Habra city 20.7% 17.2% ' 19.5% 42.6% 100% 53 44 5o 35,660 Orange La Palma city . 25.0 % 18.8% 18.8% 37.5% 100% 4 3 110 258 Orange Laguna Beach city 23.3% 16.7% 20.0% 40.0% 100% 7. 5 3 6 16 • Orange Orange. Laguna Hills city Laguna Niguel city 25.0% 22.4% 12.5% 17.9% 25.0% 19.9% 37.5% 100% 2 1 6 2 12 3 30 8 . 39.8% 100% 80' 64 71 141 355 Orange Laguna Woods city 18.7% 17.2% 20.1% 44.0% 100% 25 23 Orange Lake Forest city 20.7% 17.2% 20.7% 41.4% 100% . 6 5 27 60 135 Orange Los Alamitos city 22.0% 17.1% 19.5% 41.5% 100% 9 7 6 12 29 Orange Mssion Viejo city 22.6% 17.8% 19.9% 39.7% 100% 33 26 6 17 41 Orange Newport Beach city 22,0% 18.0% 20.3% 39.7% 100% 392 322 29 362 59 147 Orange Orange city 21.40A 17.59/6 19.8% 41.4% 100% 1,086 897 1,004 708 2,102 1,784 5,079 Orange Placentia city 21.6% 17.5% 19.6% 41.2% 100% 21 17 19 Orange Random Santa Margarita city 22.8% 17.9% 19.5% 39.8% 100% 28 .: 22 40 98 Note: There is a one unit rounding difference In some localities between the total housing need and the sum of the 4 Income groups. . 24 49 124 In such cases, communities may choose which of the income categories It will adjust by one unit to maintain conslatency with the approved total housing need. Final M:gohnson \RHNA \RHNAFinal.xls 07112/2007 Page 4 • Final Regional Housing Need Allocation Plan - Planning Period (January 1, 2006 - June 30, 2014) for Jurisdictions within the Six - County SCAG Region (approved by the SCAG Regional Council on'July 12, 2007) ...... ,. County . city % %above %very low N. low moderate moderate Income. income Income income households households households households %totals Number of very tow income households Number of low Income households. Number of moderate Income households Number of above moderate income households Total Orange San Clemente city, 21.6% 17.6% 19.9% 40.9% 100% 126 103 116 239 584 Orange San Juan Capistrano city 21.6% 17.7% 19.8% 41.0% 100% 229 188 210 436 1,062 Orange Santa Ana city. 20.5% 16.9% 19.6% 43.0% 100% 694. 574: 665 1,461 3,393 Orange Seal Beach city 19.3% 17.5% 21.1% 42.1% 100% 11 10 12 24 57 Orange . Stanton city 19.9% 17A% 19.7% 43.4% 100% 108 93 107 236 544 Orange Tustin city 21.5% 17.2% 19.6% 41.6% 100% 512 410 468 991 2,380 Orange vma Park city 27.3% 18.2% 1 &2% 36.4% 100% 3 2 2 .4 11 Orange Westminster city 20.5% 17.1% 19.9% 42.5% 1009 30 25 29 63 147 Orange Yorba Linda city 22.8% 18.2% 20.2% 39.0% 100% 460 371 412 796 2,039 Orange Unincorporated 22.3% 18.1% 20.0% 39.6% 100% 1,777 1,445 1,597 3,159 7,978 Riverside Banning city 227°/ 16.1% 18.4% 42.8% 100% 873 618 705 1,645. 3,841 Riverside Beaumont city 224% 18.2% 1 &7% 42.7% 100% 1,586 1,146 1,320 3,019 7,071 Riverside Blythe city. 227% 16.5% 1 &5% 42.3% 10D% 177 128 144 329 778 Riverside Callmesa city 23.2% '16.2% 1 &4% 42.2% 100% 528 367 419 957 2,271 Riverside Canyon Lake city 25.0% 17.0% 19.0% 39.0% 100% 25 17 19 39 101 Riverside Cathedral city 23.5% 16.3% 18.3% 42.0% 100% 782 542 608 3,329 Rverside Coachella city 225% 15.6% 18.5% 43.5% 100% 1.288 893 1,059 .1,397 2.493 5,733 Riverside Corona city 24.8% 16.9% 18.5% 39.8% 100% 819 560 611 1,317 3,308 Riverside Desert Hot Springs city 21.8% 15.8% 18.9% '435% 100% 2.161 1,570 1,871 4,322 9,923 Riverside Hemet city _ 22.1% 15.8% 18.5% 43.6% 100% 2.484 1,781 2,080 4,898 11,243 Riverside Indian Wells city 24.8% 17.4% 19.4% 3&4% 100% 61 42 47 94 244 Riverside Indio city .23.1% 1 &1% 18.1% 427% 100% 955 667 752 1,769 4,143 Riverside La Ouinta city 24.60/6 16.7% 18.4% 40.2% 100% 1,065 724 796 1,741 4,327 Riverside Lake Minors city 23.5% 16.5% 1 &8% 41.4% 100% . 1,311 921 1.041 2,316 5,590 Riverside Moreno Valley city 24.2% 16.6%, 1 8.2% 41.0% 100% 1,806 11239 1,362 3,068 7,474 Riverside Munieta city 24.9% 16.9% 1 &6% 39.6% 100% 1,568 1,067 1.171 2,497 6,303 Riverside Norco city 24.9% 17.1% 1 &6% 39.016 100% 236 162 177 374 949 Riverside Palm Desert city 24.1% 16.5% 1 &5% 40.9% 100% 1,105 759 847 1,875 4,586 Riverside Palm Springs city 23.1% 16.2% 18.6% 42.1% 100% 523 366 421 951 .2.261 Riverside Perris city 23.2% 16.1% 18.0% 42.7% 100% 967 669 7461,778 4,163 Riveretde gaucho Mirage cty 24.3% 16.8% Nan• TAxa ie9 n.. e. .ar.,....d,....w:a,._...... -.. ____,___n.:__��..___.._._... .__ 18.8% _•____. 40.1% ... ._ 100% _. 781 539 603 1,285 3,208 _..__._..__.__„ .......... _ ... __.. ._ ............... --- ,. �„ a.uv uuu M 6A aim me aunt m me v mwme groups In such cases, communities may choose which of the income categories it will adjust by one unit to maintain consistency with the approved total housing need. M:yohnson\RHNA\RH NAFinal.xls Final 07/12/2007 Page 5 • Final Regional Housing Need Allocation Plan - Planning Period (January 1, 2006 - June 30, 2014) for Jurisdictions within the Six - County SCAG Region (approved by the SCAG Regional Council on July 12, 2007) °."e:r: County City % %above %very low % low moderate moderate intone Income income income households households households households %total Number of very low income households Number of low Income households., Number of moderate income households 'Number of above moderate income households Total Riverside Riverside city 23.6% 16,4% 18.4% 41.5% 100% 2.687 1.866 2.099 4.728 11.381 Riverside San Jacinto city 22,5% 16.1% 18.3% 43.1% 100% 2.707 1.931 2.206 5.183 12.026 Riverside Temecula city 24.8% 17.0% 18.5% 39.7% 100% 1.014 693 757 1.622 4.085 Riverside Unincorporated 23.7% 16.4% 18.50/6 41A% 100% 13.343 9.267 1OA28 23.331 56.368 San Bernardino Adelanto city 226% 16,0% 18.5% 42.9% 100% 1.908 1.344 1.561 3.610 eA22 San Bernardino Apple Valley town 23.59% 16.1% 18.91yo 41.4% 100% 912 627 736 1.611 3.887 San Bernardino Barstow city 22.79/6 16.3% 18.8% 42.2% 100% 1.018 728 842 1.890 4A79 San Bemarrbno Big Bear Lake city 22.8% 16.1% 19.3% m.8% 100% 113 80 96 207 495. San Bernardino Chino city 24.3% 16.9% 19.1% 39.8% 100% 739 513 581 1.212 3.045 San Bernardino Chino Hills city . 25.20/6 17.3% 19.7% 37.8% 100% 262 180 205 393 1.040 San Bernardino Colton city 23.1% 16.1% 16.7% . 42.2% 100% 854 595 693 1.563 3.705 San Bernardino Fontana city 23.9% 16A% 18.8% 40.9% 100% 1.365 932 1.073 2.329 5.699 San Bernardino Grand Terrace city 24.20/6 16.9% 19.0% 39.9% 100% 80 55 63 131 329 San Bernardino Hesperia city 23.5% 16.2% 18.8% 41.6% 100% 2.135 1.469 1.707 3.784 9.094 San Bernardino Highland city 23.39/6 16.5% 19.0% 41.3% 100% 502 355 409 890 2.156 San Bernardino Loma Linda city 23.1% 16.3% 18.9% 41.7% 100% 610 432 501 1.103 2.646 San Bernardino Montclair city 23.5% 16.2% 19.0% 41.45/6 100% 426 293 343 748 1.810 San Bernardino Needles city 21.2% 16.7% 19.7% 42A916 100°/.14 11 13 28 67 San Bernardino Ontario city 23.9% 16.2% 18.6% 41.3% 100% 1.828 1,243 1A25 3.165 7.662 San Bernardino Rancho Cucamonga city 24.7% 16.8% 19.1% 39.3% 100% 317 216 245 504 1.282 San Bernardino Redlands city 24.0% 16.5% 18.9% 40.6% 100% 682 469 639 1.155 2JM San Bemardne Rialto City 23.7% 16.2% 18.8% 41 A% 100% 1.023 700 812 1,788 4.323 San Bernardino San Bernardino city 224% 16.1% 19.0% 426% 100% 1275 913 1.079 2.420 5,687 San Bernardino Twentynine Palms city 22.8% 15.6% 18.8% 42.8% 100% 702 480 578 1.317 3.078 San Bernardino Upland city 23.9% 16A% 19.2% 40.5% 100% 476 328 382 809 1.995 San Bernardino Victorville city 22.9% 16.3% 18.9% 41.9% 100% 1.972 1.401 1.630 3.614 8,618 San Bernardino Yucaipa city 23.3% 16.29/6 19.0% 41.5 %. 100% 476 _ 332 389 850 2.048 San Bernardino Yucca Valley town 223% 15.9°A 18.9% 42.9% 100% 550 399 474 1.076 2,510 San Bernardino Unincorporated 23.3% 18.1% 18.9% 41.7% 100% 4.802 3.324 3.899 8.598 20,622 Ventura Camarillo city 21.80/6 17.7% 20.6 % .40.0% 100% 727 591 687 1.335 3.340 Ventura FBmore city 20.6% 17.3% 20.5% 41.6% 100% 203 170 202 410 985 rvvre: n nere is a one una rouncnng amerence in some tocafines eelween me total nousing need anal me sum of me 4 Income groups. In such cases. communities may choose which of the income categories It will adjust by one unit to maintain consistency with the approved total housing need. M:yohnson\RHNA \RHNAFinal.xls Final 07/12/2007 Page 6 " aaocr..,u..r Final Regional Housing Need Allocation Plan - Planning Period (January 1, 2006 - June 30, 2014) for Jurisdictions within the Six - County SCAG Region (approved by the SCAG Regional Council on July 12, 2007) ...�..n Number of %above Number of Number of above %very low. %low moderate moderate very low Number of low moderate moderate Income Income income Income Income Income Income Income County City households households households households %total households households _households households Total Vemura Moorpark city 22.4% 18.1% 20.7% 38.8% 100% 363 292 335 627 1,617 Ventura Ojai city 20.8% 17.1% 20.8W 41.3% 100% .90 74 90 179 Venture Oxnard city 21.0% 17.2% 20.4% 41.4% 100% 1,491 1,221 1,445 2,936 433 7,093 Ventura Port Hueneme city 20.0% 17.2% 20.6% 422% 100% 36 37 • Venture San Buenaventura (Venture) 21.2% 17.5% 20.3% 41.0% l00% 849. .31 703 76 180 Ventura Same Paula city 20.2% 17.40% 20.6% 41.8% 100% 453 390 816 462 1,643 ' 4,011 Venture Simi Valley city 223% 17.9% 20.5% 39.3% 100% 754 605 694 936 1.330 2,241 . Ventura Thousand Oaks city 223% 18.0% 20.8% 3&9% 100% 411 333 385 718 31383 1,847 Venture unincorporated 21.7% . 17.8% 20.7% 39,7% 100% 305 250 291 5511 1,404 Note: There Is a one unit murMag difference in some localities between the total housing need and the sum of the 4Income groups. In such cases, communities may choose which of the income categories it will adjust by one unit to maintain consistency with the approved total housing need. • Final M:yohnsonlRHNA1RHNAFinal.xls 07/12/2007 Page 7 • • " Final Regional Housing Need Allocation Plan - Planning Period (January 1, 2006 - June 30, 2014) for Jurisdictions within the Six - County SCAG Region (approved by the SCAG Regional Council on July 12, 2007) e.nl ,,,,,,. Number of % %above Number of Number of above %very low %low moderate moderate very low Number of low moderate moderate income income income income income income income Income County households households households households %total households households households households Total summery Wy wumy % %above %very low %low moderate moderate income income income Income households households households households %total Number of very low Income households Number of low income households Number of moderate income households Number of above moderate income households . Imperial IVAG 24.8% Imperial 24.8% 16.4% 15.8 %; 43.0% 100% 6.025 4.000 3.851 10.451 24.327 Los Angeles 24.7% 15.7% 17.1% 42.6% 100% 70.117 44.469 48,472 120.869 283.927 Orange 21.59/6 17.70/. 19.9% 40.9% 100% 17.733 14.566 16,380 33.653 82,332 Riverside 23.4% 16.3% 18.59/6 41.8% 100% 40.849 28.535 32.292 73.029 174.705 San Bernardino . 23.3% 16.2% 18.8% 41.6% 100% 25.051 17.420 20,275 44.797 107.543 Ventura 21.4% 17.6% 20.5% 40:5% 100% 5.682 4.660 5.444 10.748 26.534 SCAG 23.7 %. 16.2% 18.1% 42.0% 100% 165.457 113.649 126.715 293.547 699.368 or ImWmranon Willy Summary by Subregion . County Subregion % %above %very low %low moderate moderate income income income Income households households households households %total Number of very low Income households Number of low income households Number of moderate income households Number of above moderate income households Total Imperial IVAG 24.8% 16.4% 15.8% 43.0% 100% 6.025 4,000 3.851 10.451 24.327 Los Angeles North LA 25.2% 15.9% 17.1% 41.8% 100% 18.499 11.661 12.554 30.639 73.352 Laos Angeles LA City. 24.1% 15.5% 17.1% 43.3% 100% 27.436 17.620 . 19.443 49.199 113.698 Los Angeles Arroyo Verdugo 24.9% 15.8% 17.0% 42.3% 1001Y. 1.871 1.187 1282 3.184 7.524 Los Angeles San Gabriel Valley Assoc. 25.2% 15.7% 17.0% 42.1% 100% 10.690 6,675 7.220 17.893 42.478 Los Angeles Westside Cities 25.49/6 16.0% 17.20/6 41 A% 100% 893 564. 605 1.457 3.519 Los Angeles South Bay Cities Assoc 25.1% 15.8% 17.1% 42.0% 100% 3,450 2.173 2,345 5.765 13.733 Los Angeles Gateway Cities 24.5% 15.4% 18.9% 43.2% 1o0% 6.914 4.360 4.777 12,185 28.236 Los Angeles Las Vegenes. Gonejo 26.3% 16.59/6 17.7% 39.5% 100% 364 229 246 548 1.387 Orange Orange 21.5% 17.7% 19.9% 40.9% 100% 17.733 14.566 16.380 33.653 82,332 Riverside W RCOG 23.59/6 16.4% 18.51/6 41.7% 100% 30.798 21.501 24.208 54.625 131.133 Riverside CVAG 23.1% 16.1% .18.6% 42.2% 100% 10.050 7.034 8.084 18.404 43.572 San Bernardino SANBAG 23.3% 16.2% 18.8% 41.6% 100% 25.051 17.420 20.275 44.797 107.543 Ventura VCOG 21.4% 17.6% 20.51/. 40.5% 100% 5.682 4.660 5.444 10.748 26.534 SCAG 23.7% 16.2% 18.1% 42.0% 100% 165.457 113.649 126.715 293.547 699.368 For Information Dory M. johnson\RH NA \RHNAFihal.xls Final 07/1212007 Page 8 EXHIBIT F PROGRESS IN MEETING 1O )NAT, HOUSING NEEDS • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH . PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: Planning Department Brandon Nichols, Assistant Planner (949) 644 =3234, bnichols @city .newport- beach.ca.us Page 1 of 21 Agenda Item No. 5 October 5, 2006 SUBJECT: Housing Element Implementation - Annual Progress Report RECOMMENDATION- Review and forward the Annual Housing Element Implementation Report to the City Council for final review. DISCUSSION: California Government Code Section 65400 requires the City to file an annual report every October to its "legislative body," the State Office of Planning and Research ((OPR), and the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). The report is required to provide information on'the status of the General Plan and the City's progress in implementing its programs as well as its progress in meeting regional housing needs goals. The City must also report on its efforts to remove governmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing for all income levels. Since the comprehensive update of Newport Beach General Plan will not be complete until the election in November, an annual review of the entire General Plan is not required. at this time. Consistent with the guidelines from OPR, the City will submit a brief letter to the State describing the scope of the General Plan Update and its anticipated completion date. http: / /www. city. newport- beach. ca. us /PlnAgendag2006 /i100506- 05.htm 12/10/2007. PKU(iKENN IN Mt EIINU F* VAL HUUNINU NEEDS • Page 2 of 21 As required by State Housing Element law, staff has completed a detailed Housing Element Implementation Report which provides the following information: (A) a review of the City's progress in fulfilling its share of the Regional Housing Needs Assessment; (B) a complete detailed status report on the implementation of each of the housing programs of the City's Housing Plan; and (C) a review of actions and programs adopted to remove or mitigate governmental constraints on the development of housing for all income levels. Since the City is in the midst of updating its General Plan, the report contains an additional section that discusses the options for future residential development that are being considered as part of the General Plan Update (D). Environmental Review Not subject to CEQA, as the action is not a project as defined in Section 153718(b)(2) of the Public Resources Code. Prepared by: Submitted by: Brandon Nichols Assistant Planner Exhibits: 1. Housing Element Implementation Report Patricia Temple Planning Director http: / /www.city- newport- beach. ca. us /PlnAgendas /2006 /i100506- OS.htm 12/10/2007 PROGRESS IN MEEHNU R#6 'NAL HOUSING NEEDS • . Page 3 of 21 0 Exhibit 1 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca. us /PlnAgendas/2006 /i100506- 05.htm 12/10/2007 YROUKCJJ IN Mh1r'LLNU NAL HUUNINU NEEDS Yage 4 of 21 V • HOUSING REPORT ELEMENT IMPLEMENTATION Fiscal Year 2005 -2006 The Newport Beach Housing Element was adopted in August, 2003. The element was subsequently amended in April, 2005: Since then, City staff has been diligent in their attempts to implement the Housing Element's • goals and programs. This report evaluates these programs and outlines attempts made to pursue program and goal fulfillment. California Government Code Section 65400 specifically mandates that the report provide the following information: (A) a review of the City's progress in fulfilling its share of the Regional Housing Needs Assessment; (B) a complete detailed status report on the implementation of each of the housing programs of the City's Housing Plan; and (C) a review of actions and programs adopted to remove or mitigate governmental constraints on the development of housing for all income levels. A. PROGRESS IN MEETING REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS (RHNA GOALS) The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) prepared a Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) to identify the housing need for each jurisdiction - within the SCAG region. SCAG, through the RHNA process, has assigned Newport Beach a certain share. of housing units that it should provide between the 1998 — 2005 planning period in an effort to satisfy housing needs resulting from the 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. With the annexation of Newport Coast in 2001, the City agreed to transfer 945 units from the Orange County Regional Housing Needs allocation to the Newport Coast area. This agreement was made since the Irvine Company committed to the County to fulfill its allocation. However, since the County is still responsible for issuing building permits for the area, the analysis on meeting the RHNA allocation does not include the 945 Newport Coast units. Data from the County of Orange regarding, the number of issued building permits is forthcoming. Due to proposed changes in RHNA methodology, jurisdictions in the SCAG region will not receive new RHNA allocation numbers until 2007. This will result in a "gap period" from the end.of the 2005 RHNA cycle until 2007. During this period, the City of Newport Beach will continue to track housing unit production at all income levels. This information will be used to monitor the City's progress towards providing its share of regional housing needs. The table below indicates the future need for housing in Newport Beach and its distribution by income group as calculated through the RHNA process (excluding Newport Coast). TOTAL RHNA CONSTRUCTION NEED BY INCOME 1998 -2005 http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca. us /P1nAgendas/2006/i10050&05.htm 12/10/2007 PROUKhNS IN MEEI NU F6 '.NAL NV US NU N!~bl)S 0. Page ) of 21. VERY LOW I LOW MODERATE ABOVE MODERATE TOTAL 86 53 83 254 476 18% 1 11% 17% 53% 100% The ,City Building Department maintains a detailed Building Activity Report for each fiscal year. The report lists the total number of.different types of construction permits issued, as well as the number of demolition permits issued. This data was used to create the following table illustrating the total number of new additional units that were permitted from 1998 -2006. TOTAL NUMBER OF NEW ADDITIONAL HOUSING UNITS PERMITTED 1998 -2006 FISCAL YEAR NEW UNITS DEMOLISHED UNITS TOTAL ADDITIONAL UNITS 1ST 6.MONTHS OF 1998 315 180 135 1998 -1999 1018 158 860 1999 -2000 742 258 484 2000 -2001 234 168 66 2001 -2002 159 130 29 2002 -2003 162 174 -12 2003 -2004 198 162 36 2004 -2005 329 170 159 2005 -2006 170 159 1,11 -42 183 TOTAL 13327 1 1559 11768 The City issued a total of 1,757 new additional residential building permits during the 1998- 2005 RHNA period. This number well exceeds the total 476 units projected by SCAG. During the 2004 -2005 reporting period the City issued 159 permits for new additional dwelling units. 120 of the new units are a result of building permits issued for the Bayview Landing Senior Affordable Housing Project. With. the exception of one "mangers unit" all of the 120 units are designated for very low.and low income seniors. CITY'S PROGRESS IN MEETING IT'S SHARE OF THE REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT DURING RHNA PERIOD 1998 -2005 VERY LOW MODERATE ABOVE TOTAL LOW I I MODERATE PROJECTED NEED 86 53 83 254 476 TOTAL NEW UNITS 24 95 0 1637 1757 PERMITTED 1/98 -6/05 REMAINING NEED 62 -42 183 10 103 B. HOUSING PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION STATUS http: / /www. city. newport- beach. ca. us /PlnAgendas/2006 /i100506- 05.htm 12/10/2007 rxuvxrab uv 1v1=1h`4V NAL 11UUbuvv Nrrus rage o or zi GOAL - PROGRAM GOAL STATUS 1.1.1 improve housing quality and prevent On -going deterioration of existing neighborhoods by strictly enforcing building code The Uniform Housing Code is regulations.and abating code violations Adopted and continually and nuisances. Enforcement activities_ enforced by the Building will focus on property maintenance, Department and Code eliminating derelict or abandoned Enforcement Department. vehicles,- outdoor storage, or other situations that may constitute health, The Water Quality and Code safety or fire hazards. Enforcement Department continually administers an enforcement program to correct violations of municipal codes and land use requirements. A quarterly report is kept on file on code enforcement activities throughout the City. 1.1.2 Reduce the potential for criminal On -going activity by providing guidelines for maintaining the security of existing Planning staff recommends development with emphasis on site design elements to maintain design (such as security lighting, security and coordinates plan vegetation removal, electronic garage review with Newport Beach door openers, window security, and Police Department. other crime prevention techniques). A brochure was created and placed in the public lobby containing Guidelines for Maintaining Home Security. 1.1.3 Promote the maintenance and upkeep Out -dated and unenforceable. of rental housing by encouraging the California State Franchise Tax Board to This program will be deleted enforce the Tax Code preventing from the Housing Element owners of rental housing from claiming during the next update cycle. depreciation, amortization, mortgage.. interest and property tax deductions on State Income Tax Reports. 1.1.4 Continue to participate with the OCHA On -going and Pending and HCD in their administration of rehab loans and grants for low- and Research is in progress and an moderate- income homeowners and analysis of different programs rental property owners to encourage and the financial feasibility of preservation of existing housing stock. participating in these programs will be assessed. 1.1.5 Continue to require replacement of I On -going housing demolished within the Coastal. http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca. us /PlnAgendas/2006 /i100506- 05.htm 12/10/2007 rKLRACMIN EN 1V1=1nAj �NAL tIMNLINU ALLON Yage / of 21' http: / /www. city .newport- beach.ca.us/PlnAgendas /2006 /i100506- 05.htm 12/10/2007 Zone when housing is (or has been) Chapter 20.86 of the Zoning occupied ` by low- and moderate Code, "Low and.Moderate households within the last 12 months). Income Housing within the The City shall prohibit demolition unless Coastal Zone," establishes the a Coastal Residential Development standards and requirements to Permit has been issued. The specific implement this program. provisions implementing replacement unit requirements are contained in- Municipal Code Section 20: 1.1.6 Participate in a cooperative program On -going and Pending with the OCHA and Community Development program office for Research is in progress, and administration of the HUD Rental an analysis of different Rehab Program. Energy efficient programs and the financial products shall be required when feasibility of participating in appropriate. these programs will be assessed. 1.1.7 Should need arise, consider using a Pending portion of its CDBG funds for establishment and implementation of Staff will prepare a study to an emergency home repair program. analyze whether or not a need Energy efficient products shall be for this program exists. If it is required whenever appropriate. determined that a need exists, a program will be developed. 1.2.1 As part of its annual -General Plan On -going Review, the City shall provide information on the status of all housing Due to the comprehensive programs. The portion of the annual General Plan Update, the City report discussing housing programs is is not conducting an annual to be distributed to HCD in accordance General Plan review. with State law in January of each year Consistent with the guidelines via US postal service. from the State Office of Planning and Research (OPR), the City will be presenting OPR with a brief letter describing the scope of the General Plan Update and the anticipated completion date. 1.2.2. Investigate availability of Federal, State Pending and local programs (including in -lieu funds) and pursue these programs if Research is in progress, and found feasible, for the preservation of an analysis of different low- income housing that may increase programs and the financial to market rates during the next ten feasibility of participating in any years. A list of these programs, of these programs (if any) will including sources and funding amounts be assessed. will be identified as part of this program and maintained on an on -going basis. 1.2.3 As part of the annual GP review, On -going monitor existing programs designed to http: / /www. city .newport- beach.ca.us/PlnAgendas /2006 /i100506- 05.htm 12/10/2007 rK( -)UK rss IN n.IINU NAL NUUN NU Nt&UJ • rage x or 21 http: / /www. city. newport- beach.Ga.us/PlnAgendas/2006/i 100506- 05.htm 12/10/2007 preserve assisted housing development for very low- and low - income households to determine whether additional actions are available and should be required to protect these developments. 1.3.1 Continue to contract with the OC Fair On -going Housing Council for administration of- the Fair Housing Program including The City contracts with the OC . updating the analysis of impediments to Fair Housing Authority fair housing. In addition, continue to annually. contract with OCHA to refer fair housing complaints. Pamphlets The Regional Fair Housing containing information related to fair Impediments Analysis was housing complaints will continue to be completed in 2000. provided to the public at the Planning Department. Pamphlets containing information of Fair Housing and Dispute Resolution Services are provided at the public counter. 1.3.2 Support .fair housing opportunities by On -going using CDBG funds whenever necessary to enact Federal, State and For the 2005 -2006 Fiscal Year, City fair housing policies. Newport Beach allocated $13,068 in CDBG funding to the Fair Housing Council of Orange County to assist the City in furthering fair housing through education, landlord/tenant counseling, and legal action when necessary. 1.4.1 Monitor progress on each program and On -going periodically report findings to the Planning - Commission and City Council. In conjunction with Program 1.2.1, staff will present the Planning. Commission and the City Council with an annual status report for their review and approval prior to submission to HCD. 1.4.2 whenever land use regulations, land On -going use designations or Housing Programs are proposed for adoption or This is a standard procedure modification, the City of.Newport Beach for all Planning Department Planning Department shall undertake staff. Consistency with the an analysis to determine if the General Plan is a standard proposed action or regulation is finding of approval. consistent with the Housing Element, all other elements of the General Plan, If an inconsistency exists, staff http: / /www. city. newport- beach.Ga.us/PlnAgendas/2006/i 100506- 05.htm 12/10/2007 YKU(-TKCJJ EN N1Ct IINU KJ~r •NAL riuuJllV(i NJ hVN • rage `J o1 21 GOAL 2 STATUS 2.1.1 and with all adopted City Council takes the appropriate actions . to policies. If the proposal is inconsistent, amend policies, plans, or the policy, plan or Element shall be Elements to ensure- amended in conjunction with approval . consistency. of the proposed regulation or action to monitor consistency with this ensure consistency. Consistency shall policy. be achieved whenever a regulation, action or project is approved. 1.5.1 Investigate the use of Federal funds to Pending 2.1.2 provide technical and financial On -going assistance, if necessary, to all eligible Research is in progress, and homeowners and residential rental an analysis of different property owners to rehab existing programs and financial, dwelling units through low- interest feasibility of participating in loans or potential loans, or grants to these programs will be very low, low, and mod- income owner assessed. occupants. 1.5.2 Periodically inform mobile home Pending owners of,financial assistance available from State HCD for eligible owner- Research is in progress, and. occupants to rehab existing dwelling an analysis of different units through deferred payment low- programs and financial interest loans. feasibility of participating in these programs will be assessed. 1.5.3 Per Government Code Section On =going 65863.7, a Mobile Home Park Conversion Pen-nit shall be required as City staff requires special a prerequisite for conversion of an permits for all proposed existing mobile home park. In addition, conversions of mobile home the owner of the mobile home park parks and as required by State shall provide a detailed relocation Law, requires detailed impact report. The report shall be filed relocation impact reports. concurrently with filing for any discretionary permit on such property. GOAL 2 STATUS 2.1.1 Maintain rental opportunities by restricting On -going conversions of rental units to condominiums unless the vacancy rate in A vacancy rate survey is Newport Beach for rental housing is 5% or completed every quarter to higher for four (4) consecutive quarters, monitor consistency with this and unless the property owner complies policy. with condominium conversion regulations contained in Chapter 20.83 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 2.1.2 Take all feasible actions, through use of On -going development agreements, expedited http: / /www. city .newport- beach.ca.us/P1nAgendas /2006 /il00506- 05.hun 12/10/2007 YXVU cr YN 1tv NIhhIINU INAL nVUNIIN T JNhhVJ rage iu or Yi 2.1.4 2.1.5 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. 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. 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. 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. Planning staff continually evaluates all proposed affordable housing projects for potential incentives, including expedient processing of permits. During the entitlement process, the Bayview Landing Senior Affordable Housing Project was granted a partial entitlement fee waiver, expedited permit processing, and entitlement Staff continually evaluates proposed affordable housing projects to determine potential incentives, including the waiver of fees and flexibility with development standards. The Bayview Landing Senior Affordable Housing Project was granted a partial fee waiver as a financial incentive. The City of Ngwport Beach continually complies with State Law as it applies to. the permitting and installation of mobile homes and factory built housing. The participation with the County of Orange in the issuance of tax exempt mortgage revenue bonds is project driven. Usually the developer applies for the tax exempt bonds. The City will encourage and inform developers of the use and http: / /www.6ity.newport- beach. ca. us /PlnAgendas /2006/i100506- 05.htm 12/10/2007 YKUVKCJJ UN 1V1L"1~, IINU NAL HUU511VV 1V=I)b rage 11 or L1 http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca. us /PlnAgendas /2006ti100506- 05.htm 12/10/2007 availability of tax exempt bonds. The Bayview Landing Senior Affordable Housing Project was awarded a total of $4,583,727 in tax credits. (See Bayview Landing status report for details on roiect 2.1.6 Develop and implement an annual Completed compliance- monitoring program for units required to be occupied by very low -, low -, It has been determined by the and moderate income households as County of Orange, that the approved with the development of Newport affordable housing obligations Coast and in accordance with the Newport for Newport Coast have been Coast Affordable Housing Implementation met through the provision of off - Program (AHIP). site affordable apartments. 2.2.1 Continue to require a proportion of On -going affordable housing in new residential developments or levy an in -lieu fee. The Staff continues to enforce the City's. goal over the five -year planning requirements for affordable period is for an average of 20 % of all new housing and/or the payment of housing units to be affordable to very low- in -lieu fees. In addition, the City and low- income households. Given is in the process of updating its considerations of proper general planning, in -lieu fee and affordable the California Environmental Quality .Act, housing ordinance to reflect project development incentives, and current land costs and to clarify government financial assistance, the City existing requirements. 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: . See Housing Element forspecific criteria). 2.2.2 The City-shall provide more assistance for On -going projects that provide a higher number of affordable units or a greater level of The City will provide financial affordability. More than 20 % of units shall assistance based on a project by be affordable when assistance is provided project analysis, depending on . from Community Development Block Grant need and overall project merits. funds or the City's in -lieu housing fund. The City.continues to participate in this Housing Program. The Bayview Landing Senior Affordable housing project received $1 million dollars from the City's "in -lieu" housing fund reserves. (See Bayview Landing status report for details on http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca. us /PlnAgendas /2006ti100506- 05.htm 12/10/2007 rKUItK bllVnnr.r.IINU NALY1UUb1NkJINhhUb rageILoIL1 http: / /www. city. newport- beach. ca. us /PlnAgendas /2006/i100506- 05.htm 12/10/2007 ro'ect 2.2.3 For new developments proposed in the On- going Coastal Zone areas of the City (comprising approximately 40% of the area of Newport Staff, continues to implement the Beach), the City shall require provision of provisions of Chapter 20.86 of housing affordable to persons or families of the Zoning Code (Low and low- and moderate- income, where feasible Moderate Income Housing within in projects of 10 or more units. Whenever the Coastal Zone "). 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 (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. 2.2.4 All required affordable units shall have On -going restrictions to maintain their affordability for - a minimum of 30 years. Staff continues to include this affordability restriction as a standard condition on all affordable housing projects, unless an otherwise longer affordability covenant is agreed. upon. A comprehensive affordable housing ordinance is currently being developed which will clearly specify all conditions for. incentives, including the minimum affordability period of 30 years. Bayview Landing was required to provide a restricted affordability covenant of a minimum of 55 ears. 2.2.5 Attempt to ensure that existing landowners On -going and prospective developers are aware of affordable housing development City staff continues to provide opportunities available within the Newport prospective developers with Banning Ranch, . Bayview, and information on the City's Avocado /MacArthur properties. available land and its incentive http: / /www. city. newport- beach. ca. us /PlnAgendas /2006/i100506- 05.htm 12/10/2007 PROGRESS IN MEETING R6 NAL, HOUSING NEEDS • Page 13 of 21 httpJ /www.city.newport- beach. ca. us /PlnAgendas/2006/i 100506- 05.htm 12/10/2007 program. For example, as part of the General Plan update, the potential for affordable housing was discussed with property. owners. 2.2.6 The Affordable Housing Task Force and/or On -going City staff shall periodically contact known local developers and landowners to solicit The City Manager's Office and new affordable housing construction. Community and Economic Development periodically discuss the construction of new affordable housing with local. developers and landowners. City staff also introduces the idea of constructing affordable housing to developers who propose large residential projects and discuss Density Bonuses to assist in the construction of affordable housing. 2.2.7 The Affordable Housing Task Force shall On -going create a program for the expenditure of in- lieu housing funds. Upon completion of developing an In -Lieu Fee program and ordinance, a meeting will be scheduled with the Affordable Housing Task Force to develop a program for the expenditure of in -lieu fees. 2.2.8 When it is determined to be of benefit, the On -going City shall participate in other housing assistance programs that assist production City staff continues to investigate of housing. feasible housing assistance programs. 2.3.1 Newport Beach Staff and developers of On -going proposed major commercial /industrial projects shall study housing impact(s) of Staff is monitoring legal .such project(s)-during the development challenges to inclusionary review process. Prior. to project approval, housing requirements, and will . a housing impact assessment shall be research the idea of developing developed by the . City with the active housing impact fees for all new involvement of the developer. Such commercial and industrial assessment shall indicate the magnitude of developments as an additional or jobs to be created by the project, where alternative resource for providing httpJ /www.city.newport- beach. ca. us /PlnAgendas/2006/i 100506- 05.htm 12/10/2007 YKUL]rXb, 1A Al h11NU NAL11MN]AUf4h -bDJ 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 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 JWA. • eage 14 OP L 1. affordable housing. Staff will monitor all new planning applications for applicability. The updated General Plan approved by the City Council in July includes new housing opportunities (1,166 units) in Newport Center, the JWA area and other areas. The City Charter requires voter approval of General Plan amendments that increase the number of residential units by more than 100, and the General Plan is on the November 2006 ballot. . GOAL 3 PROGRAM GOAL STATUS 3.1.1 Increase the efficiency of the building On-going. permit process by insuring that the initial plan review be completed within 4 The City has an automated weeks for 90% of all submittals. This tracking system in place. will include an automated tracking If a target date is missed, an email system allowing applicants to monitor notification is sent to all plan check progress via the Internet. department supervisors. Efficiency Implementation of this program began in of plan check review is monitored September 2002 and operates on an on- monthly to ensure a 90% success .going basis. rate. The City completed an evaluation of the building permit process in August 2006, and is beginning to implement recommendations to improve efficiency.. 3.1.2 When a residential developer agrees to On -going construct housing : for persons and families of low and moderate income, The City considers density bonuses the City shall either (1) grant a density and other incentives on a project by bonus or (2) provide other incentives of project basis, depending on the equivalent financial value. need and project merits. 3.2.1 Identify the following sites as adequate, On -going which will be made available through appropriate zoning and .development All three of these sites have been http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca. us /PlnAgendas/2006 /ilOO506- OS.htm 12/10/2007 YKUIiKVSN UN NltbIUNUK NAL11UUM INU1VLL11J •: rage 1:) oIL1 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. - identified in the Housing Element under, "Inventory of Land Suitable for Residential Development'. A project proposal has not been received for the Banning Ranch site, although the updated General Plan retains it as a housing 3.2.2 Require the developer(s) of the 4.5 -acre Completed site located on the southwesterly corner 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 twenty -five .of 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. 3.2.3 Encourage the developer(s) of a 3.5- Pending acre site located northerly of San Miguel, easterly of Avocado Avenue, The Avocado /MacArthur site and westerly of MacArthur Boulevard remains available for multifamily (known as the Avocado /MacArthur site) development. However, the to provide at least fifty -six (56) multiple- updated General Plan re- family residential units for Senior Citizen designates this site as open space, Households. The City shall assist the and instead makes other sites developer(s) by initiating a Change . of available for more housing units Zone within one (1) year of certification than could be developed at this of this Housing Element to allow such site. Voter approval is required for senior residential units on said site, by additional units. 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 http: / /www. city .newp6rt- beach.ca.us/PlnAgendas /2006 /i100506- 05.htm 12/10/2007 PROGRESS IN MEETING R *: NAL HOUSING NEEDS • rage 16 of 'll http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca. us /PinAgendas/2006 /i100506- 05.htm 12/10!2007 lieu of providing affordable residential units to facilitate meeting the City's Very Low -, Low -, and Moderate- Income Regional Housing Needs Assessment construction require -ments on the Avocado /MacArthur site. 3.2.4 When requested by property owners, On-going the the City of Newport Beach shall continue to approve rezoning of developed or The City continually monitors vacant property from non - residential to requests for zone changes of residential uses when appropriate. vacant and developed properties These rezoned. properties shall be from non - residential to residential added to the list of sites for residential and approves when determined to development. be compatible and feasible. When approved, these sites are mapped for residential uses on both the zoning district map and General Plan Land Use Map. 3.2.5 The City shall consider a potential Pending reduction of commercial zoning within some of its village commercial areas Several commercial areas in the within the Coastal Zone to allow for Coastal Zone have been re- additional residential development. designated for mixed use Economic feasibility studies to support (residential/commercial) such a reduction will be evaluated development in the updated concurrently with the City's General Plan General Plan, which is on the ballot Update projected for completion in 2005. for November 2006. 3.2.6 Encourage the participation in a Joint On -going Powers Authority of Orange County jurisdictions for the purpose of financing Due to potential legal conflicts, the and administering a lease purchase lease purchase program has been program for first -time homebu ers. discontinued indefinitely. 3.2.7 Continue to participate as a member of On -going the Orange County Housing Authority Advisory Committee and work in City Staff regularly attends the cooperation with the Orange County quarterly meetings of the Cities Housing. Authority to provide Section 8 Advisory Committee. Rental Housing Assistance to residents of the community. The City shall, in In addition, staff continually works cooperation with the Housing Authority, in cooperation with the County to recommend and request use of modified provide Section 8 rental housing fair market rent limits to increase assistance to residents. number of housing units within the City that will be eligible to participate in the. The City is currently working with program. The Newport Beach Planning the OCHA to help disseminate Department shall prepare and information regarding the upcoming implement a publicity program to opening of the Section 8 waiting educate and encourage landlords, within list. http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca. us /PinAgendas/2006 /i100506- 05.htm 12/10!2007 PROGRESS IN MEETING R6 NAL HOUSING NEEDS 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. rage ri or zi A link to the Orange County Housing Authority website has been placed on our City website to provide information on the Section 8 program. GOAL 4 PROGRAM GOAL STATUS 4.1.1 Periodically contact owners of affordable On -going units for those developments listed on Table 29 to obtain information regarding Staff is currently updating the their plans for continuing affordability on contact list for affordable units. A their properties. survey maybe developed and sent out annually to each - contact. 4.1.2 Consult with property owners regarding Pending CDBG funds and in -lieu funds to maintain affordable housing opportunities in those Will be discussed during the developments listed in Table 29. AHTF meetings in conjunction with Program 2.2.7. 4.1.3 Prepare written communication for tenants On -going and other interested parties about OCHA Section 8 renewals to assist tenants and Information pamphlets informing prospective tenants to acquire additional prospective tenants and understanding of housing law and related landlords about the OCHA policy issues. Section 8 program have been made available in the public lobby. In addition, information about the Section 8 program has been posted on the City website. 4.1.4 Continue to pursue Community Pending Development Grant Funds to facilitate construction of housing for very low- and Research is in progress, and an low- income households. Use of CDBG analysis of the financial feasibility funds may include but shall not be limited of using CDBG funds will be to site acquisition, "off- setting" . of land assessed. and/or construction costs. GOAL 5 PROGRAM I GOAL I STATUS 5.1.1 Apply for US Department of Urban On -going Development CDBG funds and allocate a http: / /www.ciry:newport- beach. ca. us /P1nAgendas/2006 /i100506- 05.htm 12/10/2007 PROGRESS IN MEETING 'NAL HUUSINU NhFA S rage 16 or/ i http: / /www. city. newport- beach. ca. us /PlnAgendas/2006 /i100506- 05.htm 12/10/2007 portion of such I funds to sub- recipients The Action Plan for Fiscal year who provide shelter and other services 2005/2006 has been approved for the homeless. and the City will, provide funding to the following organizations to preserve the supply of emergency and transitional housing: Orange Coast Interfaith Shelter, Serving People In Need (SPINI. WISEP_.lace, and Mercy House. The following organization has been funded to assist homeless battered women and children: WISEPIace 5.1.2 As a ..condition of receiving housing On -going funding through the City, the City shall require social service agencies receiving Reports are submitted on a such funds record information on clients quarteriy.basis with each invoice they serve and provide an annual audit of from CBDG recipients. These their activities. records are kept on file at the rant administrator's office (MDG). 5.1.3 Cooperate with OCHA to .pursue Pending establishment of a Senior/Disabled or Limited Income Repair Loan and Grant Research is in progress, and an Program to underwrite all or part of the analysis of different programs and cost of necessary housing modifications the financial feasibility of and repairs. Loans would be repaid or participating in these programs will forgiven on an ability to pay basis. be assessed. HeaRh and safety deficiencies would receive priority. Modifications for accessibility also would be appropriate. Administration of funds would be the responsibility of the OCHA. Cooperation with OCHA will include continuing City of Newport Beach participation in the OC Continuum of Care and continuing to provide CDBG funding. 5.1.4 Continue to permit development of senior On -going citizen housing facilities in all residential and commercial zoning districts pursuant Bayview Landing is a senior to Zoning Code Sections 20.10.020 and affordable housing project 20.15.020(b). consisting of 120.units. All units are age restricted to those 62 ears of a e and older. 5.1.5 Continue to permit, where appropriate, On -going development of "granny" units in single - family areas of the, City. Consider Code Amendment No. 2003 -001 amending the zoning code to allow (PA 2003 -054) was approved by http: / /www. city. newport- beach. ca. us /PlnAgendas/2006 /i100506- 05.htm 12/10/2007 PROGRESS IN MEETING RT� NAL HOUSING NEEDS rage iY oL /i http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca. us /PinAgendas/2006 /i100506- 05.htm 12/10/2007 approval of "granny units" at the staff . City Council May 13, 2003 to level instead of by the Planning grant the Planning Director Commission. approving authority over Second Unit Use Permits, rather than the Planning Commission. 5.1.6 Consistent with the development On -going standards 'in residential and commercial areas, continue to permit emergency Emergency shelters and shelters and transitional housing under transitional housing are monitored group housing provisions in its Zoning for compliance with the Code. development standards regulations contained in the Zoning Code. 5.1.7 The City of Newport Beach shall On -going investigate State Housing Opportunities for Persons With AIDS (HOPWA). On February 9, 2005, the City participated in the 2005 HOPWA Strategy Meeting hosted by the City of Santa Ana, to provide recommendations for the. allocation of HOPWA funds for the 2005 program year. As the most populous city in Orange County, the City of Santa Ana receives HOPWA funding from HUD on behalf of the entire County. Authorized uses of these funds include: acquisition, rehabilitation, conversion, or lease of facilities to provide short -term shelter, new construction, project or tenant based rental assistance, short term rent and utility payments, and supportive services. Should the City wish to partner in the acquisition, development, or rehabilitation of affordable housing for persons with HIV /AIDS , the City may request funding at future HOPWA Strategy meetings. 5.1.8 Notify residential developers (upon On -going application for a discretionary permit) and to. interested individuals and families, the -Project planners regularly inform following. Table, entitled "Public and developers about affordable Private Resources Available for Housing housing opportunities and and Community Development Activities. programs. Table included in Appendix 4 I I http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca. us /PinAgendas/2006 /i100506- 05.htm 12/10/2007 PROGRESS IN MEETING F* NAL HOUSING NEEDS • Page 20 of 21 5.1.9 By December 2003, the City shall analyze and determine whether there are constrairits on the development, maintenance and improvements of housing intended for persons. with .disabilities, consistent with SB 520 enacted Jan. 1, 2002. If any constraints are found, the City will take subsequent actions within 6 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. Completed As required by SB520, a Constraints Analysis report was completed in January 2004, however due to anticipated changes to the Zoning Code pertaining to "Residential Care Facilities ", the report was postponed until a resolution was adopted. The City has adopted amendments to the Zoning Code which includes the addition of a Federal Exception Permit process as a mechanism for persons to request a reasonable accommodation pertaining to residential care facilities for 7 or more persons within residential zones. Changes have been made to the SB520 Constraints Analysis consistent with the amendments and the report was submitted to HCD on July 20. 2004. C. MITIGATING GOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS In accordance with Senate Bill SB520 and Newport Beach Housing Program 5.1.9, a thorough analysis of constraints on the development, maintenance and improvement of housing for persons with disabilities was conducted in January of 2004. The analysis specifically addresses constraints related to zoning and land use controls, permit and processing procedures, and building codes. Although a potential constraint was. recognized, the City of Newport Beach complies with both the federal Fair Housing Act (FHA) and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) in providing reasonable accommodations through the use of existing regulatory procedures not specially designed for people with disabilities. A potential constraint may exist at times when there are conflicts between the California Building Code requirements pertaining to access and adaptability for. persons with physical disabilities and the Newport Beach Zoning Code requirements. The City recognizes that a person with disabilities may require special accommodations for retrofitting their existing residential units for purposes of accessibility and safety. A remedy for dealing with these conflicts between building code requirements for accessibility and adaptability, and the City Zoning Code would be to amend Zoning Code Section 20.60, "Site Regulations ", to incorporate a subsection which would allow the City to utilize a "Director/ Staff Approval ". This type of approval is an existing administrative review process and is intended to allow the review and analysis of conflicts and requests for accommodations at the staff level. Staff is exploring this option as part of a review of development standards contained in the zoning code. D. THE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE http: / /www. city .newport- beach.ca.us/PIDAgendas /2006 /i100506- 05.htm 12/10/2007 PROGRESS.IN MEETING RONAL HOUSING NEEDS •: Page 21 of 21 In order to accommodate City s fair share of regional population growth, a significant part of the comprehensive General Plan Update process has focused on identifying areas of the City that may be suitable for future residential development. Since the City is largely built out, most of the options being considered involve redesignating some commercial/office/industrial areas for residential or mixed residential /commercial uses. Of these, properties in the Airport Area and Newport Center have been identified as having the potential to yield a substantial number of new dwelling units. These two areas, in addition to severalothers identified as possible new residential sites, were included in the updated General Plan approved by the City Council on July 25, 2006; adding the potential for 1,166 more housing units than the previous General Plan. City Charter Section 423 requires voter approval of General Plan amendments that increase development potential by more than 100 dwelling units, and the General Plan is on the November 2006 ballot.. Future development in these areas would be subject to affordable housing regulations and will yield additional affordable units or, generate - additional in lieu affordable housing fees. http: / /www. city. newport- beach. ca. us /PlnAgendas/2006 /i lOO506- 05.htm 12/10/2007 EXHIBIT G CITY OF NEWPORT BEACF* • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING. COMMISSION STAFF REPORT TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: City Manager's Office Sharon Wood, Assistant City Manager 949 -644 -3222, swood @city.newport- beach.ca.us Page 1 of 12 Agenda Item No. 2 June 15, 2006 SUBJECT: General Plan Update: Land Use and Housing Elements PROPONENT: City of Newport Beach RECOMMENDATION: Receive public comments on the referenced elements of the Draft General Plan; provide direction to staff, and continue public hearing to June 22, 2006. DISCUSSION: The Planning Commission continued. their review of the Land Use Element on June 1, 2006, and made recommendations to the City Council regarding the "Other Land Use Areas," additional policy questions, the Circulation Element, the Draft Environmental Impact Report and the format of the Implementation Program. The City Council will consider those recommendations at their June 13, 2006 hearing. The actions of the City Council will be reported to the Commission at the meeting. Xmas-and Issues for Discussion at this Hearing_ At this hearing, staff recommends that the Planning Commission consider the land use plan for Banning Ranch, revised policies for the Airport Area, and the policy additions and revisions requested by the Planning Commission and City Council at prior hearings on the Land Use Element. Also, staff recommends that the policy comparison table for the Housing Element be reviewed, including the specific policy regarding the inclusionary housing requirement previously discussed by the Planning Commission. Banning Ranch The owners of Banning Ranch have been working with the City on a letter of understanding, through which they would agree on a process and timeline to make the property available for acquisition for open space, while at the same time processing applications for developing a residential village through the City of Newport Beach. The City would commit to including 1,375 dwelling units, 75,000 square feet of commercial space, and 75 hotel rooms in the General Plan, and to working with the property owners on a pre- annexation and development http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca. us /PhiAgendas /2006/i06l5O6- 02.htm 12/10/2007 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH* • Page 2 of 12 agreement. Staff expects. the letter of understanding to be reviewed by the City Council on June 27. We are asking the Commission to affirm that the development levels listed above should be included in the General Plan. Land Use Policies Staff has consolidated all the land use policy changes in one attachment (Attachment 1). Policies include Transfer of Development Rights, land use policies for the Airport Area, including a new land use category for the Campus Tract, and Newport Center policies on the conversion of hotel rooms and a development agreement requirement for new residential entitlement that does not require replacing other development. The Airport Area policies reflect the change in number of residential units and new land use designation for the Campus Tract requested by the Planning Commission and City Council, as well as additional and revised policies that respond to comments on our General Plan from the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC). The City Council has directed staff to include policies in the General Plan that will enable Newport Beach to be deemed a "consistent agency" by ALUC; most of these policies appear in the Airport Area section of the Land Use Element. Housing Element The Housing Element Policy Comparison Table (Attachment 2) shows the .changes recommended by the Planning Commission when they considered the Housing Element on March 9, 2006. At that time, the Commission recommended that the inclusionary requirement for housing affordable to lower income households be changed from 20% to 15 %. That recommendation was based on the requirements of other cities, the resources available to assist affordable housing development in Newport Beach, and the potential for housing development provided in the updated General Plan compared to an estimate of Newport Beach's share of the regional need for affordable housing over 25 years. The Planning Commission and City Council have reduced the potential for housing development as they have reviewed and adjusted the land use plan during public hearings. Revised Table H30 reflects these changes (Attachment 3). Staff has used these lower residential numbers to recalculate the comparison of Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) goals to housing potential that we provided to the Commission in March (Attachment 4). Following are the two, 25 -year estimates of RHNA goals that were prepared in March. Newport Coast #1 includes the full number of Newport Coast units that was negotiated for annexation, and Newport Coast #2 includes half that amount. Goals for a planning period of 20 years have been added, because that is the General Plan "life" that we refer to most often. http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca. us /PlnAgendas/2006 /i06l506- 02.htm 1 12/10/2007 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACI* • Page 3 of 12 The total number of new units that could be developed pursuant to the revised Land Use Element is 9,286. To achieve the 25 -year affordable goals shown above would require that 20% to 30% of total new units be affordable. Assuming a 20 -year goal would require 16% to 24% affordable. And looking at a more realistic scenario again, which assumes that only the units listed below will be built during the term of this General Plan, 38% to 57% of new units would need to be affordable to achieve the estimated RHNA affordable goals over 25 years. For a 20 -year period, 30% to 45% would be needed. Airport Area 2,200 Newport Coast # 1 N Coast # 2 5 -Year RHNA Goal - City 476 476 5 -Year RHNA Goal — Coast 245 473 Total 5 -Year RHNA Goal 1,421 949 Total 1 -Year RHNA Goal 284 190 x 25 xx2r Total 25 -Year RHNA Goal 71105 4,750 Affordable Percent x .40 x,40 25 -Year Affordable Goal 2,842 1,900 Total 20 -Year RHNA Goal 5,680 3,800 Affordable Percent x .40 x.40 20 -Year Affordable Goal 2,272 1,520 The total number of new units that could be developed pursuant to the revised Land Use Element is 9,286. To achieve the 25 -year affordable goals shown above would require that 20% to 30% of total new units be affordable. Assuming a 20 -year goal would require 16% to 24% affordable. And looking at a more realistic scenario again, which assumes that only the units listed below will be built during the term of this General Plan, 38% to 57% of new units would need to be affordable to achieve the estimated RHNA affordable goals over 25 years. For a 20 -year period, 30% to 45% would be needed. Airport Area 2,200 Banning Ranch 1,375 Mariners' Mile 300 Newport Center 450 Newport Coast 400 Balboa Peninsula Area 250 Total Likely Units 4,975 Regardless of the percent of new units required to be affordable, the City will need a system to implement this requirement. Staff and the City Council Affordable Housing Task Force have been working on an inclusionary housing ordinance, a draft of which is included as Attachment 5. Some notable provisions include Section 20.68.020, which sets forth different percent requirements, depending on which level of affordability is being provided, so that a developer meeting very low- income criteria may provide fewer units than one meeting moderate - income criteria. Sections 20.68.030 and 20.68.100 allow for the use of credits when a developer provides more than the required percent of affordable units. Section 20.68.040 provides the option of paying fees in lieu of providing affordable units for smaller projects. There are also alternatives, exemptions and waiver provisions. If the Commission favors continuing with the ordinance approach, staff recommends that Implementation Measure 2.1f be revised as follows. Adopt an Inclusionary Housing Ordinance that guides implementation of Housing Element Policy H2.2, including a relationship between affordability criteria and number of units required, alternative means of satisfying the requirement, an in- lieu fee, and waivers for special circumstances. Another approach would be to require developers of housing projects, perhaps of a certain http: / /www. city. newport- beach. ca. us /P1nAgendas /2006/i0615O6- 02.htm 12/10/2007 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACIO • Page 4 of 12 size, to prepare Affordable Housing Implementation Plans (AHIPs) to demonstrate how they will meet Newport Beach's inclusionary requirement. This would allow each developer to customize his program for affordable housing. An example. of an AHIP provided by Commissioner Tucker is included as Attachment 6. Iry this example, a number of points are required, and points are awarded for number of affordable units, number of bedrooms, lower income criteria, conversion of market rate units to affordable units, etc. If the Commission prefers the AHIP approach, staff recommends that Housing Program 2.2.1 be amended to read as follows: Housing Program 2.2.1 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 -, low -, and moderate - income households. The City shall either (a) require the payment of an in- lieu fee, , or (b) require the preparation of an Affordable Housing. Implementation Plan (AHIP) that specifies how the development will meet the City's affordability requirement, the petyment ef em mig liou fee, depending on the following criteria for project size: (imp 2.1) 1. Projects of fifty or fewer units shall have the option of providing the units or paying the in -lieu fee. 2. Projects where more than fifty units are proposed shall be required to provide the uniteprepare'an AHIP. 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 20% affordability requirements, the City will include conditions in the approval of discretionary permits and Tentative Tract Maps to require ongoing monitoring of those projects. Finally, staff recommends the following change to Housing Program 3.2.1, in response to comments from the ALUC: 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): Banning Ranch, Airport Area, Newport Center, Weet Newport Mesee, Mariners' Mile, West Newport Highway, and the Balboa Peninsula Area. Development of new housing in the Airport Area will be restricted to areas outside the 65 dB CNEL contour as defined in the Airport Environs Land Use Plan for John Wayne Airport. http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca. us /PlnAgendas /2006/i06l506- 02.htm 12/10/2007 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACI* • Page 5 of 12 Notice of this public hearing, and subsequent public hearings on the General Plan update and EIR, was provided by a quarter page display advertisement in the Daily Pilot on June 3, 2006. Government Code Section 65091 provides that, when the number of property owners to whom notice would be required to be mailed is greater than 1,000 (which is the case with a comprehensive General Plan update), notice may be provided by placing a one- eighth page advertisement in the local newspaper. Submitted by: Sharon Wood Assistant City Manager Attachments: Prepared by: Patricia Temple Planning Director 1. Land Use Policy changes 2. Housing Element Policy Comparison Table (previously distributed) 3. Revised Housing Element Table H30 4. March 9, 2006 staff report on Housing Element 5. Draft Inclusionary Housing Ordinance 6. Draft Affordable Housing Implementation Plan http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca. us /PhiAgendas/2006 /i06l5O6- 02.htm 12/10/2007 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACI� • Page 6 of 12 Attachment 1 Land Use Policy Changes Ci -wide LU_ Transfer of Development Rights Consider the transfer of development rights from a property to one or more other properties when: a. The donor and receiver sites are within the same Statistical Area b. The reduced density /intensity on the donor site benefits the City such as the (1) provision of extraordinary open space, public visual corridor(s), parking or other amenities; (2) preservation of an historic building or property or natural landscapes; (3) improvement of the area's scale and development character; and /or (4) reduction of local vehicle trips and traffic congestion; and c The increment of growth transferred to the receiver site complements and is in scale with surrounding dcvelopment, complies with community character and design policies contained in this Plan, and does not adversely degrade local traffic conditions and environmental quality: W 6.15 A mixed -use community that provides jobs, residential, and supporting services in close proximity, with pedestrian- oriented amenities that facilitates walking and enhance livability. Policies Urban Form and Structure (REFER TO FIGURE LU22) W 6.15.1 Land Use Districts and Neighborhoods Provide for the development of distinct business park, commercial, and airport- serving districts and residential neighborhoods that are integrated to assure a quality environment and compatible land uses. (Imp 1.1, 2.1) LU 6.15.2 Airport Compatibility Require that all development be constructed in conformance with the height restrictions set forth by Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 77, Caltrans Division of Aeronautics and the Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) for John Wayne Airport. (Imp 2.1, 3.1, 4.1, 12.1, 12.2, 19.3) Businesr atk-Mixed Use DIstriCtS (Subarea C. MU-88 H2" destanal(on) Land Uses http: / /www. city. newport- beach. ca. us /PlnAgendas/2006 /iO6l5O6- 02.htm 12/10/2007 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACI-0 LU 6.15.33 Priority Uses is Page 7 of 12 Accommodate office, research and development, and similar uses that support the primary office and business park functions such as retail and financial services, as prescribed for the "CO -G" designation, while allowing for the re -use of properties for, the development of cohesive residential villages that are integrated with business.park uses. (Imp 2.1, 12.1) W 6.1544 Underperforming Land Uses Promote the redevelopment of sites with underperforming retail uses located on parcels at the interior of large blocks for other uses, with retail clustered along major arterials (e.g., Bristol, Campus, MacArthur, and Jamboree), except where intended to serve and be integrated with new residential development. (Imp 2.1, 34.6) Campus Tract (Subarea s. WY-W AO" designation) Land Uses LU 6.15.45 Primary Uses Accommodate professional office, ai�a viation retail, automobile rental-�, hotels, and ancillary retail, restaurant, and service uses that are related to and support the functions. of John Wayne Airport, as permitted by the "@C E AO" designation 6.f5.25. (Imp 2.1, 12.1) Strategy LU 6.15.56 Economic Viability Provide incentives for lot consolidation and the re -use and improvement of properties located in the "Campus tract," west of Birch Street. (Imp 2.1, 34.6) W 6.15.67 Automobile- Rental and Supporting Uses Work with automobile rental and supporting uses to promote the consolidation and visual improvement of auto storage, service, and storage facilities. (Imp 12.1, 34.6) W 6.15.78 Site Planning and Architecture Encourage and, when subject to redevelopment, require property owners within the Campus Tract to upgrade the street frontages of their properties with landscape, well- designed signage, and other amenities that improve the area's visual quality. (Imp 12.1) Commercial Nodes (Subarea A. "CG -C " designation) LU 6.15.89 Priority Uses Encourage the development of retail, financial services, dining, hotel, and other uses that support the John. Wayne. Airport, the Airport Area's office uses, and, as developed, its residential neighborhoods, as well as automobile sales and supporting uses at the MacArthur Boulevard and Bristol Street node. (Imp 2.1, 12.1, 34.6) http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca. us iP1nAgendas /2006/i06l5O6- 02.htm 12/10/2007 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH* • Page 8 of 12 Residential Villages (Subarea C and Subarea A "MU-0 H2" desionafion) Land Uses LU 6.15.410 Residential and Supporting Uses Accommodate the development of a maximum of 2,200 multi- family'residential units, including work force housing, and mixed -use buildings that integrate residential with ground level office or :retail uses, nraaeasrd along with supporting retail, grocery stores, and parklands. +his� Residential units may be developed as the replacement of existing buildings, with a maximum of 550 units-er as infill on surface parking lots on properties east of MacArthur Boulevard, provided that the parking is replaced in n -site. (Imp 2.1, 12.1, 12.2) Minimum Size and Density LU 6.15.1$1 Number and Size of Residential Villages (refer to Figure LU23) Allow development of a maximum of four (4) mixed use residential villages, each centered on a neighborhood park and other amenities (as conceptually illustrated in Figure LU23). The fast phase of residential development in each-village ri*Tborhood , shall encompass at least * 5 gross acres of land, exclusive of existing rights -of -way. Thris 16 acres acreage may include multiple parcels provided that they are contiguous or face one another across an existing street. Aimperti°rrca. The "Comprehensive Plan" area shown on Figure LU23 shall be exempt from the 5 -acre minimum, but a comprehensive plan described in Policy LU 6.15.15 shall be required. (Imp 2.1, 3.1, 4.1, 12.1, 12.2) LU 6.15.12 Overall Density and Housing Types Require that residential units be developed at a minimum density of 30 units and maximum of 50 units per net acre. Net acreage shall be exclusive of existing and new rights -of- way, public pedestrian ways, and neighborhood parks. Within these densities, provide for the development of a mix of building types ranging from townhomes to high - rises to accommodate a variety of household types and incomes and to promote a diversity of building masses and scales LU 6.15.4+13 First Phase Development Density Require a rrr�mrnarrresidential density of 50 units per net acre, averaged over the first phase for each residential village. This shall be applied to 100% of properties in the first phase development area whether developed exclusively for residential or integrating service commercial horizontally on the site or vertically within a mixed use LU 6.154.214 Subsequent Phase Development Location and Density http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca. us /PlnAgendas /2006/i06l506 -02.htm 12/10/2007 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACI* • Page 9 of 12 Subsequent phases of residential development shall abut the first phases or shall face the first phases across a street. The minimum density of residential development (including residential mixed -use development) shall be 30 units per net acre and shall not exceed the maximum of 50 units per net acre. (IMP 2.1, 3.1, 4.1, 12.1, 12.2) Strategy and Process LU 6.15.145. Regulatory Plans Require the development of a regulatory plan for each residential village to coordinate the location of new parks, streets, and pedestrian ways, set forth a strategy to accommodate neighborhood- serving commercial uses and other amenities, establish pedestrian and vehicular connections with adjoining land uses, and assure compatibility with office, industrial, and other nonresidential uses. (Imp 2.1, 3.1, 4.1, 15.1) LU 6.15.16 Boll Center and Conexant Development Plans Require the development of none comprehensive plan for the Koll Center and Conexant properties, should residential units be proposed on either property. This plan shall defines strategies for the cohesive on-site integration of housing, parking structures, open spaces, and other improvements with existing non - residential structures, in addition to the elements required for all regulatory plans defined by Policy 6.15.14. (Imp 2.1, 3.1, 4.1, 15.1) LU 6.15.17 Development Agreements Require the execution of Development Agreements for residential and mixed use development projects that use the 550 infill units identified in Policy LU 6.15.9. Development Agreements shall define the improvements and benefits to be contributed by the developer in exchange for the City's commitment for the number, density, and location of the housing units. Design and Development Neighborhood Parks LU 6.154518 Standards To provide a focus and identity for the entire neighborhood and to serve the daily recreational and commercial needs of the community within easy walking distance of homes, require dedications and improvement of at least eight percent of the gross land area (exclusive of existing rights -of -way) or one -half acre, whichever is greater, of the first phase of development in each neighborhood . as a neighborhood park. This requirement may be waived by the City where it can be demonstrated that the development parcels are too small to feasibly accommodate the . park or inappropriately located to serve the needs of local residents, and when an in -lieu fee is http : / /www.city.newport- beach. ca. us /PlnAgendas/2006 /i06l506- 02.htm 1 1 12/10/2007 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACF* • Page 10 of 12 paid to the City for the acquisition and improvement of other properties as parklands to serve the Airport Area. In every case, the neighborhood park shall be at least vnt-acieneight percent of the total Residential Village Area or one -half acre in area, whichever is greater, and shall have a minimum dimension of 150 feet. Park acreage shall be exclusive of existing or new rights -of -way, development sites, or setback areas. A neighborhood park shall satisfy some or all of the requirements of the Parklarel Dedication Ordinance, as prescribed by the Recreation Element of the General Plan. fcasibly .. .. 4 W 6.15. 619 Location Require that each neighborhood park is clearly public in character and is accessible to A residents of the neighborhood. Each park shall be surrounded by public streets on at least two sides (preferably with on -street parking to serve the park), and shall be linked to residential uses in its respective neighborhood by streets or pedestrian ways. (Imp 2.1, 3.1, 4.1, 12.1, 12.2) LU 6.15.20 Aircraft Notification Require that all neighborhood parks be posted with a notification to users regarding proximity to John Wayne Airport and aircraft overflight and noise. On -Site Recreation and Open Space LU 6.15.21 Standards Require developers of multi-family residential developments on parcels eight acres or larger, to provide on -site recreational amenities. For these developments, 44 square feet of on -site recreational amenities shall be provided for each dwelling unit in addition to the requirements under the City's Park Dedication Ordinance and in accordance with the Parks and Recreation Element of the General Plan. On -site recreational amenities can consist of public urban plazas or squares where there is the capability for recreation and outdoor activity. These recreational amenities may also include swinuning pools, exercise facilities, tennis courts, and basketball courts. Where there is insufficient land to.provide on -site recreational amenities, the developer shall be required to pay cash in -lieu that would be used to develop or upgrade nearby recreation facilities to offset user demand as defined in the City's Park Dedication Fee Ordinance. The acreage of on -site open space developed with residential projects may be credited against the parkland dedication requirements where it is accessible to the public during daylight hours, visible from public rights -of -way, and is of .sufficient size to accommodate recreational use by the public. However, the credit for the provision of on -site open space shall not exceed 30% of the parkland dedication requirements. (Imp 2.1, 3.1, 4.1, 12.1, 12.2, 44.3) Streets and Pedestrian Ways http: / /www. city. newport- beach. ca. us /PlnAgendas/2006tiO6l5O6- 02.htm 12/10/2007 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACI* • Page 11 of 12 W 6.15.4$22 Street and Pedestrian Grid Create a pattern of streets and pedestrian ways that breaks up huge blocks, improves connections between neighborhoods and community amenities and is scaled to the predominantly residential character of the neighborhoods. (Imp 3.1, 4.1, 11.1, 12.2, 21.1) W 6.154423 Walkable Streets Retain the curb -to -curb dimension of existing streets, but widen sidewalks to provide park strips and generous sidewalks by means of dedications or easements. Except where traffic loads preclude fewer lanes, add parallel parking to calm traffic, buffer pedestrians and provide short-term parking for visitors and shop customers. (Imp 3.1, 4.1, 12.2, 21.1, 29.1) W 6.15.4624 Connected Streets Require dedication and improvement of new streets as shown on Figure LU23. The illustrated alignment's are tentative and may change as long as the routes provide the intended connectivity. If traffic conditions allow, connect new and existing streets across Macarthur Boulevard with signalized intersections, crosswalks, and pedestrian refuges in the median. (Imp 11.1, 12.2, 21.1) W 6 MA+25 Pedestrian Improvements Require the dedication and improvement of new pedestrian ways as shown on Figure LU23. The alignment is tentative and may change as long as the path provides the intended connectivity. For safety, the full length of pedestrian ways shall be visible from intersecting streets. To maintain an intimate scale and to shade the path with trees, pedestrian ways should not be sized as fire lanes. Pedestrian ways shall be open to the, public at all hours. (Imp 11.1, 12.2, 21.12) Parking and Loading W 6.15.22.26 Required Spaces for Primary Uses Consider revised parking requirements that reflect the mix of uses in the neighborhoods and overall Airport Area, as well as the availability of on -street parking. (Imp 2.1) Relationship of Buildings to Street W 6.15.4327 Building Massing Require that high -rise structures be surrounded with low and mid -rise structures fronting public streets and pedestrian ways or other means to promote a more pedestrian scale. (Imp 3.1, 4.1, 12.1, 12.2) http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca. us /PinAgendas/2006 /i06l506- 02.htm 12/10/2007 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH. • Page 12 of 12 W 6.15.%28 Sustainable Development Practices Require that development achieves a high level of environmental sustainability that reduces pollution and consumption of energy, water, and natural resources. This may be accomplished through the mix and density of uses, building location and design, transportation modes, and other. techniques. Among the strategies that should be considered are the integration of residential with jobs - generating uses, use of alternative transportation modes, maximized walkability, use of recycled materials, capture and re -use of storm water on -site, water conserving fixtures and landscapes, and architectural elements that reduce heat gain and loss. (Imp 3.1, 4.1, 12.2, 21.12, 23.1, 25.1 -27.1) Newport Center LU_ Development Agreements Require the execution of Development Agreements for residential and mixed use development . projects that use the 450 units identified in Figure LU 21. Development Agreements shall define the improvements and benefits to be. contributed by the developer in exchange for the City's commitment for the number, density, and location of the housing units. LU_ Conversion of Hotel Rooms Consider the conversion of hotel entitlement to residential entitlement when it is demonstrated that no additional vehicle trips will result from the conversion. Hotel rooms existing at the time of adoption of this plan may not be converted to residential use. http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca. us /Ph Agendas/2006 /i06l506- 02.htm 12/10/2007 DRAFT ORDINANCE NO. 2006- _ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, ADDING CHAPTER 20.68 TO THE NEWPORT BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO INCLUSIONARY HOUSING REGULATIONS AND AMENDING SECTION 20.03.030 PERTAINING TO DEFINITIONS OF THE NEWPORT BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE WHEREAS, the City of Newport Beach ("City) is a Charter City, governed by a charter adopted by the citizens of the City; and WHEREAS, it is a public purpose of the City and a policy of the State to achieve a diverse and balanced community with housing available for households of all income levels; and WHEREAS, economic diversity fosters social and environmental conditions that protect and enhance the social fabric of the City and are beneficial to the health, safety and welfare of its residents; and WHEREAS, the lack of affordable housing has a direct impact upon the I health, safety and welfare of the residents of the City; and WHEREAS, State law pertaining to general plans and the Housing Element of the City General Plan require that City ordinances regulate land use development and that the City.and its agencies otherwise use their authority in a manner that provides an adequate supply of housing for.all economic segments of the community; and WHEREAS, the..Gi#y ig experiencing an increasing shortage of.housing affordable to very low -, low- and moderate- income households and will not be able to fully contribute to the attainment of the State housing goals or to retain a healthy environment without additional affordable housing; and WHEREAS, new residential development .does not provide housing opportunities for very low -, low- and moderate - income households due to the high cost of land in the City; and WHEREAS, as a result, very low -, low, and moderate - income households are de facto excluded from many new neighborhoods, creating economic stratification in the City detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare; and 3`� WHEREAS, an increasing number of persons In very low -, low, and moderate - income households live in overcrowded or substandard housing and devote an overly large percentage of their income to pay for housing; and WHEREAS, the amount of land in the City - available . for residential development is limited; and WHEREAS, the consumption of this remaining land for residential development without providing affordable housing to persons of all income levels would work counter to housing, environmental and planning policies and have a substantial negative impact on the environment and economic climate because (i) housing will have to be bulk elsewhere, far from employment centers and therefore, commutes will increase, causing increased traffic and transit demand and consequent noise and air pollution; and (i) City businesses will find it more difficult to attract and retain the workers they need; and WHEREAS, new residential development in the City which does not provide for affordable units aggravates the existing shortage of affordable housing by absorbing the supply of available residential land, reducing the supply of land for affordable housing and increasing the price of the remaining residential land; and. WHEREAS, at the same time, new residential development contributes to the demand for goods and services in the City, increasing local service employment at wage levels which often do not permit employees to afford housing in the City; and WHEREAS, Federal and State funds for the construction of new affordable housing are insufficient to fully address the problem of affordable housing within the City; and WHEREAS, the private _.housing market has failed to provide adequate housing opportunities for very low -, low -, and moderate- income households; and WHEREAS, on March 14, 2000 the City Council established an Affordable Housing Task Force that was charged with recommending an appropriate affordable housing program; and WHEREAS, the Affordable Housing Task Force conducted an investigation, held hearings and solicited comments from the community regarding a range of options; and WHEREAS, on the Affordable Housing Task Force recommended this ordinance to the Planning Commission; and 1 35 WHEREAS, on the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this ordinance and recommended this ordinance to the City Council for adoption; and WHEREAS, the City is aware that there may be times when the inclusionary housing requirements make market -rate housing more expensive; and WHEREAS, in weighing all the factors, including the significant need for affordable housing, the City Council has made the decision that community's interests are best served by the adoption of inclusionary housing regulations; and WHEREAS, to implement the City General Plan, to carry out the policies of the State and federal law and policy, and to ensure the benefits of economic diversity of the residents of the City, it is essential that new residential development in the remaining new growth areas of the City contain housing opportunities to households of very low -, low- and moderate - income, and that the City provide a regulatory framework which ensures development of an adequate supply and mix of new housing to meet the future housing needs of all income segments of the community; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that it is necessary to adopt an inclusionary housing ordinance to address the City's housing crises. NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Newport, Beach, California, hereby ordains as follows: SECTION 1: Chapter 20.68 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code is hereby added to read as follows: .Sections: 20.68.010 20.68.020 20.68.030 20.68.040 20.68.050 20.68.060 20.68.070 20.68.080 20.68.090 20.68.100 CHAPTER 20.68 INCLUSIONARY HOUSING REGULATIONS Purpose Inclusionary Housing Regulations Credit Transfers In -Lieu Fees Alternatives Exemptions Adjustments, Waivers Compliance Procedures Eligibility for Affordable Units Affordable Unit Credit V_ 20.68.11.0 Affordable Housing Trust Fund 20.68.120 Enforcement } 20.68.130 Appeals 20.68.010 Purpose The purpose of this Chapter is to: A. 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-, and moderate- income households. B.. Promote the City's goal to add affordable housing units to the City's housing stock in proportion to the overall increase in neW housing units. C. Offset the demand on housing that is created by residential development and mitigate environmental and other impacts that accompany residential development by protecting the economic diversity of the Citys housing stock, reducing traffic, transit and related air quality impacts, promoting jobs/housing balance and reducing the demands placed on transportation infrastructure in the region. D. Ensure that the limited remaining developable land in the City's planning area is utilized in a manner consistent with the City's housing policies and needs. 20.68.020 Inclusionary Housing Regulations A. - - Affordability Requirement. Unless otherwise provided in this Chapter, all new residential development projects of eleven or more dwelling units, designed and intended for permanent occupancy, shall construct the following percentage of the total number of dwelling units within the residential development project as affordable units restricted for occupancy by very low -, low- or moderate- income households: (1) 11.5 percent very low-income households; (2) 20 percent low- income households; or (3) 30 percent moderate- income households. The number of affordable units required for a particular residential development project will be determined only once, at the time of tentative or parcel map approval, or for developments not processing a tentative or parcel map, prior to issuance of a building permit, regardless of the changes in the character or ownership of the residential development, provided the total number of units does not change. If 51 a change in the residential development project design results in a change in the total number of units, the number of affordable units required will be recalculated to coincide with the final approved residential development project. B. Calculation. In determining the number. of whole affordable units required, any decimal fraction less than 0.50 shall be rounded down to the nearest whole number, and any decimal fraction greater than or equal to 0.50 shall be rounded up to the next whole number. For purposes of calculating the number of affordable units required by this Section, any additional units authorized as a density bonus under Califomia Government Code Section 65915(b) (1) or (2) will not be counted in determining the required number of affordable un its. C. Design and Distribution of Affordable Units. All affordable units shall reflect the range of numbers of bedrooms provided in the residential development project as a whole and shall be comparable in infrastructure (including sewer, water, and other utilities), construction quality and exterior design to the market -rate units. The affordable units may be smaller in aggregate size and have different interior finishes and features than the market -rate units in the residential development project so long as the interior features are durable, of good quality and are consistent with contemporary standards for new housing. The affordable units shall .be dispersed throughout the residential development, unless clustering is expressly authorized by the City. D. Tenure of Affordable Units. For all affordable units provided pursuant to this Section, the applicant shall have the option of selling the affordable units at an affordable housing price or renting the affordable units at an affordable rent subject to the terns and conditions imposed on the residential development project and the provisions contained in the Affordable.Housing Agreement. E. Timing. All affordable units shall be constructed and offered for occupancy concurrently with or prior to the construction and marketing of the market -rate units. In phased residential development projects, affordable units may be. constructed and marketed in, proportion. to the number of market -rate units constructed and marketed in each phase of the residential development project. If the Planning Commission determines that extenuating circumstances exist and that the concurrent construction of affordable units is infeasible or impractical, the Planning Commission may waive the requirements of this Subsection or impose reasonable conditions to effectuate the intent t 0 of this Subsection. F. Duration of Affordability Requirement. Affordable units required by this Chapter shall be legally restricted to occupancy by households of the income levels for which the affordable units were designated for a minimum of 30 years. G. Conditions of Approval. Any tentative map, parcel map, use permit, site plan review, coastal residential development permit, or other discretionary permit approving a residential development project subject to this Chapter shall contain conditions sufficient to ensure compliance with the provisions of this Chapter, including the execution of an Affordable dousing Agreement imposing, among other things, appropriate resale controls and /or rental restrictions on the affordable units. 20.68.030 Credit Transfers. An applicant may fully or partially satisfy the requirements of Section 20.68.020 through the use of transferable affordable unit credits created pursuant to Section 20.68.100. Credit certificates shall only be used to satisfy the requirements for affordable units of the income category (i.e., very low -, low -, or moderate - income) and number of bedrooms for which the affordable unit credits are issued. 20.68.040 In-Lieu Fees A. General Requirements. 1. For residential development projects of 11 to 50 dwelling units, the requirements of this Chapter may be satisfied by paying a fee in -lieu of constructing all or a portion of the affordable units required by this. Chapter. _ 2. For residential development of 50 or more dwelling units, the applicant may not pay a fee in -lieu of constructing the required affordable units. B. Timing of Payment. For residential development projects that are not phased residential development projects, the in -lieu fee shall be paid at the time of issuance of any building permit for the residential development project For phased residential development projects, payment of the in -lieu fee shall be made for each portion of the residential development project at the time any building permit is issued for that phase of the residential development project. When payment is phased, the amount of the in -lieu fee payable under this Section shall be based upon the in -lieu fee schedule in effect at the time the in -lieu fee is paid. f j C. Amount of Fee. The amount of the in -lieu fee shall be set by resolution of the City Council and the amount of the in -lieu fee may be amended from time to time to reflect changes in residential construction costs and other conditions in the City and the region. D. Partial Payment Developers electing to provide a portion of the affordable units required by Section 20.68.020 within the residential development project, may pay an in -lieu fee for the remainder of the required affordable units that are not provided. The in4ieu fee shall be paid at the time of issuance of any building permit for the residential development project 20.68.050 Alternatives A. Proposal. An applicant may propose one of the following alternative means of compliance with Section 20.68.020 by submitting an application for discretionary approval in accordance with Chapter 20.90 and this Section. B. Off- -Site Construction Projects. An applicant may propose to construct some or all of the affordable units required by Section 20.68.020 at a location not physically within the residential development project in -lieu of constructing some or all of the affordable units within the residential development project. The Planning Commission shall approve or conditionally approve the proposal on the basis of the application, plans, materials, and testimony submitted if the Planning Commission finds: That the purpose of this Chapter would be served by implementation of the proposed alternative. 2. That construction of the off -site units in4ieu of constructing on -site units is consistent with the Chapter's purpose. I That the off -site units to be constructed are located within the City of Newport Beach and are consistent with the requirements of Section 20.68.020. 4. That it would be infeasible or impractical to construct on -site . units C. Off -Site Rehabilitation Projects. An applicant may. propose to rehabilitate existing off -site units and convert the off -site units to affordable units in -lieu of constructing some or all of the affordable t units required to be provided under Section 20.68.020 within the M residential development project. The Planning Commission shall approve or conditionally approve the proposal on the basis of the application, plans, materials, and testimony submitted if the Planning Commission finds: 1. That the purpose of this Chapter would be served by implementation of the proposed alternative. 2. That rehabilitation of the proposed dwelling units in -lieu of constructing units on-site is consistent with this Chapter's purpose. 3. That the proposed dwelling units to be rehabilitated off -site are located within the City of Newport Beach and are consistent with the requirements of Section 20.68.020. 4. The proposed dwelling units to be rehabilitated off -site are in need of substantial rehabilitation. 5. That the proposed dwelling units to be rehabilitated off -site are not already subject to affordability income restrictions. 6. That it would be infeasible or impractical to construct the on- site dwelling units. 7. That the off -site dwelling units will be substantially rehabilitated, such that the unit is returned to the City's housing supply as decent, safe and sanitary housing and meet all applicable housing and building code requirements. D. Land Dedication. An applicant may propose to dedicate land to the City or City- designated local non -profit housing.. developer in -lieu of construction of some or all of the affordable units required by Section 20.68.020. The Planning Commission shall recommend and the City Council shall approve or conditionally approve this proposal if the City Council finds all of the following: 1. That the purpose of this Chapter would be served by implementation of the proposed alternative. 2. That dedication of land in -lieu of constructing units is consistent with this Chapter's purpose. 3. That the dedicated land is useable for its intended purpose and has the appropriate general plan and zoning designation for the development of affordable housing, is free of toxic. l tAt substances and contaminated soils, and is or will be fully improved with infrastructure and adjacent utilities. 4. That the conditions of approval for the residential development project are adequate to ensure; that tithe to the dedicated land, or lease /rights useful for the life of the housing improvements, shall be conveyed to the City or City - designated local non -profit housing developer before a building permit is issued for all or any portion of the residential.development project. 5. That all property taxes and special taxes be current before the title is conveyed to the City or City - designated local non- profit housing developer. 6. That the proposed land dedication meets the following requirements: a. The dedication includes land sufficient to construct, at a minimum, the number of affordable units that the applicant would otherwise be required to construct by Section 20.68.020; and b. The proposed land dedication has an equivalent or greater value than the in -lieu fee that would be required to be paid under Section 20.68.040 if applied to the overall project. The value of the proposed land dedication shall be appraised by a certified appraiser selected by the City. The applicant shall pay for all costs and expenses associated with the appraisal. At the time the applicant submits the application prpvided for in this Section,. the applicant shall deposit the estimated cost and expense for the appraisal as determined by the Planning Director. After the appraisal is prepared, the Planning Director shall provide the applicant with a Notice of Decision regarding the value of the proposed land dedication and a copy of the appraisal. If the applicant disputes the decision of the Planning Director, the applicant shall file an appeal in accordance with Chapter 20.95. At the hearing on appeal, the appellate body shall consider any material provided by the applicant regarding the value of the proposed land dedication. av 20.68.060 Exemptions A. Natural Disasters. The requirements of this Chapter do not apply to the reconstruction of any structure that has been destroyed by fire, flood, earthquake or other act of nature provided that the reconstruction of the site does not increase the number of residential units. B. Other Governmental Entities. The requirements of this Chapter do not apply to housing constructed by other governmental agencies. 20.68.070 Adjustments, Waivers The City Council, at its discretion, may waive, wholly or partially, the requirements of this Chapter and approve alternative methods of compliance with this Chapter if the applicant demonstrates, and the City Council finds that either: A There is no reasonable relationship between the impact of a proposed development and the requirements of this Chapter; and applying the requirement of this Chapter would take property 'in violation of the United States or Calitomia Constitutions; or, B. There are special circumstances unique to the residential development that justify the granting of an adjustment or waiver; the residential development would not be feasible without the modifications; a specific and financial hardship would occur if the modification was not granted; and no alternative means of compliance are available which would be effective in attaining the purpose of this Chapter than the relief requested. 20.68.080 Compliance Procedures A. General. Except as provided herein, entry into an Affordable Housing Agreement, in a form approved by the City Attorney, is a condition of any tentative map, parcel map or building permit for any residential development for which this Chapter applies. This Section does not apply to exempt residential development projects. or to residential development projects where the requirements of this Chapter are fully satisfied by payment of an in -lieu fee under Section 20.68.040 or land dedication as provided under Section 20.68.050 (D). B. Affordable Housing Agreement. The form of the Affordable Housing Agreement will vary depending on the manner in which the provisions of this Chapter are satisfied for a particular residential development. All Affordable Housing Agreements should include, at i Lo a minimum, the following: 1. A description of the residential development project, how the requirements of this Chapter will be met by the applicant,, and whether the affordable units will be rented or owner- occupied; 2. The number, size and location of each very low -, low- or moderate- income units; 3. Inclusionary incentives. by the City (if any), including the nature and amount of any local public funding; A. Provisions and /or documents for resale restrictions, deeds of trust, rights of first refusal or rental restrictions; 5. Provisions for monitoring the ongoing affordability of the units, and the process for qualifying prospective. households for income eligibility; 6. Security provisions, such as a cash deposit, bond, or letter of credit, adequate to complete the requirements of this Chapter concurrently with the completion of the construction of the residential development project consistent with Section 20.68.020(E); and C. Recording of Agreement All Affordable Housing Agreements that are acceptable to the City Attorney must be recorded against the owner - occupied affordable units and the projects containing rental affordable units. Additional rental or resale restrictions, deeds of trust, rights of first refusal and /or other documents acceptable to the City Attorney must also be recorded.. against owner - occupied affordable units, In cases where the requirements of this Chapter are satisfied through the development of off -site units or off -site rehabilitated units, the Affordable Housing Agreement must simultaneously be recorded against the property where the off -site units are located and off -site rehabilitated units are located.. 20.68.090 Eligibility for Affordable Units No household shall be permitted to occupy an affordable unit designated for a very low -, low-, or moderate - income household unless the City or its designee determines that the household is eligible to occupy the applicable affordable unit based on the household income, as determined in accordance with Title 25 of the California Code of Regulations Sections 6910 through 6932. The developer shall I use an equitable selection method established in conformance with the terms of O*k this Chapter, which shall be neutral as to age,. race, religion, sex, creed and ethnic origin or any other impermissible standard established by the United States or State of California Constitution. Additionally, the selection criteria may not distinguish between adults and children, except as provided in Federal and State law for units designated for senior citizens. 20.68.100 Affordable Unit Credits A. Creation. One affordable unit credit shall be issued for each affordable unit constructed in excess of the number of affordable units required to be constructed for the project by Section 20.68.020(A). Affordable unit credits shall be issued by the Planning Director and shall designate a specific income category (i.e., very low -, low -, or moderate- income) and number of bedrooms for which they are issued. B. Ownership and Use of Credits. Affordable unit credits are issued to and become the possession of the project owner, who may then use them to satisfy the requirements of this Chapter for another residential development project in the City. If a project owner proposes to sell credit certificates, the parties shall first notify the Planning Director, who will document the transfer. 30.68.110 Affordable Housing Trust Fund A. Trust Fund. There is hereby established a separate Affordable Housing Trust Fund (" Fund's. The Fund shall receive all in -lieu fees contributed under Sections 20.68.040 and may also receive monies from other sources. B. Purpose and Limitations. All monies deposited in the Fund, together with . any­ interest earnings . on such monies, less reasonable administrative charges or related expenses associated with the administration of this Section including, but not limited to, reasonable consultant and legal expenses related to the establishment and/or administration of the Fund and reasonable expenses for administering the process of calculating, collecting, and accounting for fees, shall be used or committed solely to increase the supply of housing affordable to very low -, low -, and moderate- income households. C. Expenditures. Fund monies shall be used in accordance with City's Housing Element to construct, rehabilitate or subsidize affordable housing or assist other governmental entities, private organizations or individuals to do so. Permissible uses of Fund monies include, but are not limited to: (1) assistance housing development i j A; corporations; (2) equity participation loans; (3) grants; (4) pre -home ownership co4nvestment; (5) pre - development loan funds; (6) participation leases; (7) other public- private partnership arrangements; (8) the acquisition of property and property tights; and (9) construction of affordable housing including costs associated with planning, administration, and design, as well as actual building or installation, as well as any other costs associated with the construction or financing of affordable housing. The Fund may be used for the benefit of both rental and owner - occupied housing.. 20.68.120 Enforcement A. Penalty for Violation of Terms. It shall be unlawful for any person, firm, , corporation, partnership or other entity to violate any provisions of this Chapter. A violation of any of the provisions of this Chapter or failing to comply with any of the requirements of this Chapter shall constitute a misdemeanor, except that notwithstanding any other provisions of this Chapter, any such violation constituting a misdemeanor under this Chapter, may in the discretion of the enforcing authority, be charged and prosecuted as an infraction. B. Legal Action. The City may institute any appropriate legal actions or proceedings necessary to ensure compliance with this Chapter including, but not limited to: (1) actions to revoke, deny or suspend any permit, including a building pen-nit, certificate of occupancy, or discretionary approval; (2) actions to recover from any violator of this Chapter civil fines, restitution to prevent unjust enrichment from a violation of this Chapter, and/or enforcement costs, including attorneys fees; (3) actions to recover on behalf of the tenant, or to the City in the event the tenant cannot be located, any excess rents . charged and/or enforcement costs, including attorneys fees; (4) eviction or foreclosure; and (5) any other appropriate action for injunctive relief or damages. Failure of any official or agency to fulfill the requirements of this Chapter shall not excuse any person, owner, household or other party from the requirements of this Chapter. C. Remedies Cumulative. The remedies provided for herein shall be cumulative and not exclusive and shall not preclude the City from any other remedy or relief to which it.otherwise would be entitled under law or equity. 06 20.68.130 Appeals A.. Appeals. Decisions of the Planning Director may be appealed to the Planning Commission and decisions of the Planning Commission may be appealed to the City Council. B. Procedures. Procedures for appeals .shall be as prescribed by Newport Beach Municipal Code Chapter 20.95: Appeals. SECTION 2: The following definitions are hereby added to Section 20.03.030 of Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code to read as follows: "Affordable Housing Agreement° means the agreement entered into pursuant to Chapter 20.68 which provides legal restrictions by which the affordable units shall be restricted to ensure that the unit remains affordable to very low -, low and moderate - income households, as applicable, for a period of not less than 30 years. With respect to rental units, such rent restrictions shall be in the form of a regulatory agreement recorded against the applicable property. With respect to owner- occupied units, such resale controls shall be in the form of resale restrictions, deeds of trust, and /or other similar documents recorded against the applicable property. "Affordable Housing Price" means a sales price that is no more than 3 times the maximum income level for very low -, low -, and moderate- income households, as adjusted for household size by the United States Department of Housing and Community Development Us this correct?] "Affordable Rent" means an annual rent that does not exceed 30 percent of maximum income level for very low -, low -, and moderate- income households, as adjusted for household size by the United States Department of Housing and Community Development Us this correct?] "Affordable Unit" means an ownership or rental- housing unit, including senior housing, affordable to households with very low -, low -, and moderate - incomes as defined in this Chapter. "Conversion" means a change of a dwelling unit to a condominium, cooperative, or a similar form of ownership; or a nonresidential use. "Low- income" means.between 506/6 and 80% of the median income, adjusted for actual household size, as determined by the California Department of Housing. and Community Development for Orange County. "Moderate- income" means between 80% and 120% of the median income, adjusted for actual household size, as determined by the California Department of Housing and Community Development for Orange County. N'1 'Residential Development" means detached single - family dwellings, multiple dwelling structures, groups of dwellings, condominium or townhouse developments, cooperative developments, mixed use developments that include housing units, and residential land subdivisions intended to be sold to the general public. [Is this term consistent with its use in other parts of the code?] "Very low -, low -, and moderate- income" means those income and eligibility levels determined periodically by the California. Department of Housing and Community Development based on Orange County median income levels adjusted for family size. Such levels shall be- calculated on the basis of gross annual household income considering household size and number of dependents, income of all wage earners, elderly or disabled family members, and all other sources of household income and will be recertified as set forth by local standards, and State and Federal housing law. "Very low- income" means 50% or less of the median income, adjusted for actual household size, as determined by the California Department of Housing and. Community Development for Orange County. SECTION 3: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is, for any reason, held to be invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of the remaining portions of this ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this ordinance, and each section, subsection, clause or phrase hereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses and phrases be declared unconstitutional. SECTION 4: The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall attest to the passage of this ordinance. The City Clerk shall cause the same to be published once in the official newspaper of the City, and it shall be effective thirty (30) days after its adoption. SECTION 5: This ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach, held on the _ day of 2006, and adopted on the _ day of 2006, by the following vote, to wit: . AYES, COUNCILMEMBERS NOES, COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT COUNCILMEMBERS 1�4 MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK EXHIBIT H City Council Regular Ivlee* Page 1 of 22 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH City Council Minutes Regular Meeting June 27, 2006 -- 7:00 p.m. STUDY SESSION - 3:30 p.m. CLOSED SESSION • 5:55.p.m. A. RECESSED AND RECONVENED AT 7,90 P.M, FOR REGULAR MEETING B. ROLL CALL Present: Council Member Curry, Council Member Selich, Mayor Pro Tem-Rosansky, Mayor Webb, Council Member Ridgeway, Council Member Daigle, Council Member Nichols C. CLOSED SESSION REPORT . . City Attorney Clauson reported that Council gave authorization for the City to join in litigation with other cities and counties to challenge a decision made about State mandated reimbursements. D. PLEDGE OF ALIXGIANCE - Council Member Curry E. DMOCATION - Reverend Peter D. Haynes, Saint Michaels & All Angels Episcopal Church . F. PB.ESENTATIONS Proclamation for Retiring AYSO Commissioner - Recreation. and Senior Services Director Knight reviewed Mares Almaraz's accomplishments and Mayor Webb presented him with a proclamation.' Okazaki Exchange Students - Connie Skibba, President of the Newport Beach Sister Cities Association, discussed the student exchange program. The seven students and two chaperones introduced themselves and what they hope to accomplish during the trip. Centennial School District Committee Recognition - Centennial School District Committee Chair, Tom Anderson, recognized the Committee members in attendance and reported on their activities for the year. He presented Council with the coloring book. He stated that Roger Folk will be signing the coloring book on July 24 from 11:30 a.m. to 1:30.p.m. at the Central Library. Mayor Webb presented the Committee members with a certificate. Boy Scouts of America Sea Scout Proclamation - Continued to the July 11, 2006 Council meeting. G. NOTICE TO THE PUBLJ H CITY COUNCIL ANNOUNCF.MFNTR nR MATTUUQ WRT9'TT d1nTTAT11Tf w,rmwro Q ' 1 C �� 1 • 1 _ 1 � YY 1IN Council Member Daigle requested that the Ad Hoc Committee on Legislative. Advocacy consider sponsoring State legislation regarding regulating residential care facilities that have six or less occupants and the concentration of the facilities. She also requested that the Committee consider forming a coalition with other impacted cities where these residential care facilities are proliferating. She reported that the City currently has 20 facilities and 17 more are currently being http: / /www. city.newport- beach. ca. us/ CouncilAgendas /2006/MN06- 27- 06.htm 12/10/2007 City Council Regular Mee • planned. Council Member Selich requested a future agenda item to update the Quimby Act Fees. Page 2 of 22 Council Member Curry requested that a Charter amendment regarding eminent domain be placed on the November ballot since the State did not adopt legislation regarding this issue. Mayor Webb announced that, last Wednesday, the Transportation Corridor Agencies celebrated its 20th birthday and presented the City with a plaque. He also announced that he attended the Fire Department's promotional pinning ceremony today for 16 individuals. Mayor Webb reported that the first Concerts in the Park was held last Sunday and reviewed the schedule for the summer. Mayor Webb announced that there are 66 days until the City's 100th Birthday and provided Centennial moments. Mayor Webb reminded the public that there will be vehicle restrictions on Balboa Boulevard starting at noon on July 4. City Manager Bludau announced that the City has sponsored a fireworks display at the Newport Dunes and stated that it will last longer in order to celebrate the City's Centennial. L CONSENT CALENDAR READING OF M1NIPfTy /O n1NAN! FC ANn R1�Cnr7Pf rnL�TeCz 1. . MINUTES OF THE ADJOURNED REGULAR AND REGULAR MEETING OF JUNE .13, 2006. [100 -2006] Waive reading of subject minutes, approve as written and order filed. Study Session Minutes Regular Meeting Minutes 2. READING OF ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS. Waive reading in full of. all ordinances and resolutions under consideration, and direct City Clerk to read by title only. ORDINANCE FOR INTROD TC ION 3. CABLE TELEVISION: ORDINANCE ADOPTING A FRANCHISE AGREEMENT WITH COX COMMUNICATIONS. [421100 -2006] Continued to a future City Council meeting. Supplemental Staff Report Staff Report " ORD-INA"CES FOR ADOP770 N 4. MULTIPLE VESSEL MOORING SYSTEM PILOT PROGRAM. [100.2006] Adopt Ordinance No. 2006 -15 related to Moorings. Staff Report 5. CODE AMENDMENT NO. 2006 -004 (PA200"78) • AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER. 20.65 (HEIGHT LIMITS) TO ADD AN EXCEPTION FOR LIGHT STANDARDS TO EXCEED HEIGHT LIMITS SUBJECT TO THE REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF A USE PERMIT. [100 =2006] Adopt Ordinance No. 2006 -16 approving Code Amendment 2006 -004. http: / /www:city.newport- beach. ca .us/ CouncilAgendas /2006/MN06- 27- 06.htm 12/10/2007 City Council Regular Me� Staff Report • Page 3 of 22 6. MEASURE M SEVEN YEAR CIP. [100 -2006] 1) Adopt the Seven -Year Capita] Improvement Program; 2) adopt Resolution . No. 2006-47 affirming that the City's Circulation Element does not preclude implementation of the regional Master Plan of Arterial Highways; and 3) direct staff to submit the adopted Capital Improvement Program, Maintenance of Effort certification, to the Orange County Transportation Authority to satisfy the eligibility provisions for Measure M and Congestion Management Programs. Staff Report 7. GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION - NOVEMBER 7, 2006: ADOPTION OF RESOLUTIONS CALLING THE ELECTION AND REQUESTING CONSOLIDATION WITH THE STATEWIDE GENERAL ELECTION (CANDIDATES ONLY). [391100- 20061 Adopt the following resolutions pertaining to the General Municipal Election scheduled for Tuesdayi November 7, 2006 pursuant to Section 1000 of the City Charter: a) adopt Resolution .No. 2006 -48 Calling and Giving Notice of the Holding of a General Municipal Election to be Held on Tuesday, November 7, 2006, for the Election of Members of the City Council as Required by the Provisions of the City Charter; b) adopt Resolution No. 2006 -49 Requesting the Board of Supervisors of the County of Orange to. Consolidate a General Municipal Election to be Held on Tuesday, November 7, 2006, with the Statewide General Election to be Held on the Same Date Pursuant to Section 10403 of the Elections Code; and c) adopt Resolution No. 2006 -50 Adopting Regulations for Candidates for Elective Office Pertaining to Candidates Statements Submitted to the Voters at an Election to be held on Tuesday, November 7, 2006. Staff Report 8. AWARD OF NON - EXCLUSIVE SOLID WASTE COLLECTION FRANCHISE TO NEWPORT COAST DEMOLITION. [44/100 -2006] 1) Adopt Resolution of Intention No. 2006.51 to award a Non - exclusive Solid Waste Franchise to Newport Coast Demolition and to set the public hearing for July 25, 2006; and 2) introduce Ordinance No. 2006 -17 granting a Non - exclusive Solid Waste Franchise to Newport Coast Demolition and pass to second reading on July 25, 2006. Staff Report 9. AWARD OF NON - EXCLUSIVE SOLID WASTE COLLECTION FRANCHISE TO INTERIOR REMOVAL SPECIALIST, INC. [441100.20061 1) Adopt Resolution of Intention No. 2006 -44 to award a Non - exclusive Solid Waste Franchise to Interior Removal Specialist, Inc. and to set the public hearing for July 25, 2006; and 2) introduce Ordinance No. 2006 -18 granting a Non - exclusive Solid Waste Franchise to Interior Removal Specialist, Inc. and pass to second reading on July 25, 2006. Staff Report 10. CABLE TELEVISION: ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION, MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING, SETTLEMENT AND MUTUAL RELEASE AGREEMENT AND CONSENT TO TRANSFER AGREEMENT RELATING TO TOM, WARNER AND ADELPHIA. [421100 -2006] 1) Adopt Resolution No. 2006 -59 consenting to a transfer of a franchise for cable television from Adelphia to Time Warner; and 2)'authorize the Mayor or the City Manager to execute any documents relating to the transfer, including but not limited to a Memorandum of Understanding, a Settlement and Mutual Release Agreement, and a Consent to Transfer Agreement. Staff Report http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca .us/ CouncilAgendas /2006/MN06- 27- 06.htm 1 12/1012007 City Council Regular Mee . Page 4 of 22 12. AMENDMENT #1 TO A COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT FOR THE ADMINISTRATION OF TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY LOADS MMDJA) IN NEWPORT BAY (C- 3621). [381100 -2006) Authorize the Mayor to sign and execute Amendment #1 to the 2003 Cooperative Agreement to. fund Nutrient, Fecal Coliform and Toxics Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Studies & Programs in the Newport Bay Watershed. Staff Report 13: MONITORING STATIONS INSTALLATION - APPROVAL OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH GEOMATRI% (C- 3853). [38100 -2006) 1) Approve a Professional Services Agreement with Geomatrix of Newport Beach for water quality monitoring services at a contract price of $62,946.50 and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the .Agreement; and 2) approve a' budget amendment (06BA -079) authorizing a transfer of .$62,946.50 from Account 7014- C5100805 (Morning Canyon Stabilization Project) to Account 7014- C5100851 (NCWS: Miscellaneous Watershed Activities). Staff Report 14. JAMBOREE ROAD REBABIISTATION FROM SAN JOAQUIN HILLS ROAD TO FORD ROAD. - AWARD OF CONTRACT (C- 3826). [381100 -2006) 1) Approve the plans and specifications; 2) award the contract (C -3826) to All American Asphalt for the total bid price of $1,061,061 and authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the contract; 3) establish an amount of $100,000 to cover the cost of unforeseen work; and 4) approve a budget amendment (06BA -082) .appropriating $400,000 from the AHRP fund balance to Account No. 7285- C5100832 and $781,061 from the Measure M Turnback fund balance to Account No. 7281 - 05100832. Staff Report 15. COAST HIGHWAY CHANNELIZATION- CORONA DEL MAR - COMPLETION AND ACCEPTANCE OF CONTRACT (C- 3558). [381100 -2006) 1) Accept the work; 2) authorize the City Clerk to file a Notice of Completion; 3) authorize the City Clerk to release the Labor and Materials bond 35 days after the Notice of Completion has been recorded in accordance with applicable portions of the Civil Code; and 4) release the Faithful Performance Bond one (1) year after Council acceptance. Staff Report 16. MORNING CANYON STABILIZATION - COMPLETION AND ACCEPTANCE OF CONTRACT (C- 3517). [381100 -2006) 1) Accept the work; 2) authorize the City Clerk to file a Notice of Completion;. 3) authorize the City Clerk to release'. the Labor and Materials bond 35 days after the Notice of Completion has been recorded in accordance with applicable portions of the Civil. Code; and 4) release the Faithful Performance Bond one (1) year after Council acceptance. Staff Report 17. GEOTECHNICAL AND MATERIALS TESTING AND EVALUATION, INSPECTION AND CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT, AND LANDSCAPE DESIGN SERVICES - APPROVAL OF ON -CALL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENTS (C- 3854). [381100 -2006) 1) Approve Professional Services Agreements with Arroyo Geotechnical and LaBelle Marvin Inc. for on -call geotechnical and materials testing and evaluation services and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the Agreements; 2) approve a Professional Services Agreement with WEC Corporation for on -call inspection and construction management services and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the httpJ /www.city.newport- beach. ca. us/ CouncilAgendW2006 /MN06- 27- 06.htm 12/10/2007 City Council Regular Me* . Page 5 of 22 Agreements; and 3) approve Professional Services Agreements with TCLA, Inc. and David Volz Design for on -call landscape design services and authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the Agreement. Staff Report 18. LEGAL ADVERTISING BID FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006- 2007. [321100 -20061 Accept the bid of the Daily Pilot and authorize a purchase order- for the one -year period of fiscal year 2006 -2007. Staff Report 19. 2005 -2006 CITYWIDE SLURRY SEAL PROGRAM - AWARD OF CONTRACT (C. 3800). [381100.20061 1) Approve the plans and specifications; and 2) award the contract (C -3800) to Pavement Coatings Company for the total bid price of $471,946 and authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the contract. Staff Report MISCELLANEOUS 20. DOVER. DRIVE, NORTH OF CLIFF DRIVE SIDEWALK - MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (C- 3652). [381100 -20061 Adopt Resolution No. 2006 -54 approving the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for Dover Drive Sidewalk Project. Staff Report 21., PURCHASE OF A SIX -POST MOBILE HOIST SYSTEM FOR THE EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE DIVISION. [100 -20061 1) Approve the purchase of a six -post, 90,000 pound capacity mobile lifting system and accessories from Automotive Resources, Inc. at a cost of $60,228.96; and 2) approve a budget amendment (06BA -080) to transfer $60,228.96 from unappropriated Internal Service Fund reserves into Account 6110 -9200 to fund. the purchase. Staff Report 22. SHORELINE OBSERVATION SYSTEM (808). [100 -20061 1) Approve the purchase . and installation of the Newport Beach Shoreline Observation System (SOS); and 2) approve the sole source purchase of cameras and ancillary equipment from ISMS Inc., Shakespeare Composite Structures Mfg., and Pro 911 Systems. Staff Report 23. BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR SIGNATURE VERIFICATION. [100 - 20061. Approve a budget amendment (06BA -078) from General Fund Unappropriated Fund Balance, 010 -3605 in the amount of $51,653 to Election Services, 0220 -8080, to pay the cost for the County of Orange Registrar of Voters to verify the signatures on the Debt initiative and the Greenlight lI initiative petitions. Staff Report 27. SOBER LIVWG BY THE SEA - USE PERMIT NO. 2005.031, OFFSITE PARSING AGREEMENT NO. 2005-005 (C- 3836), MODIFICATION PERMIT NO. 2005433 - 2811 VILLA WAY (PA 2005 -136) (contd. from 4!11106 and 5/23/06). [38[100 -2006] Continue to August 22, 2006. Staff Report 28. BUDGET AMENDMENT TO ACCEPT A CHECK FROM THE NEWPORT BEACH http: / /www. city. newport- beach. ca. us/ CounciLAgendas /2006/MN06- 27- 06.htm 12/10/2007 City Council Regular Mee Page 6 of 22 LIBRARY. FOUNDATION ` AND APPROPRIATE FUNDS FOR FY . 2005/2006 EXPENDITURE ACCOUNTS. [100 -2006) Approve a budget amendment (06BA -081) to increase revenue estimates by $11,000 in: Account No. 4090 -5893 (Library Foundation Donations) and increase expenditure estimates by the same amount in Division 4090 (Foundation).. Staff Report Motion by Mayor Pro Tem. R a „Rkv to approve the Consent Calendar, except for the items removed (11, 24, 25 & 26); and noting the continuance of Item 3. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Council Member Curry, Council Member Selich, Mayor Pro Tem. Rosansky, Mayor Webb, Council Member Ridgeway, Council Member Daigle, Council Member Nichols 11. CONTRACT FOR PURCHASE AND INSTALLATION OF SHADE STRUCTURES AT BONITA CANYON SPORTS PARK (C -3649) (cunt. from 6/13/06). [381100.2006) Staff Report Recreation and Senior Services Director Knight reported that the shade structures will service the ball field bleachers and the picnic areas, and explained why the Parks, Beaches, and Recreation Commission did not favor the plan. Discussion ensued amongst Council relative to whether the. shade structures were necessary. Motion by Council Mem r Daigle to approve the'contract with United Sports Surfacing of America for the purchase and installation of shade structures at Bonita Canyon Sports Park in the amount of $58,706. Emery Mullner, Newport Beach Little League, spoke in support of the shade structures. The motion earned by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Council Member Curry, Council Member Selich, Mayor Pro Tem Rosansky, Mayor Webb, Council Member Ridgeway, Council Member Daigle, Council Member Nichols 24. CERTIFICATION OF I THE PETITION ENTITLED "VOTER APPROVAL FOR MAJOR DEVELOPMENTS OVER "AS BUILT CONDITION, OF CITY". [391100.2006) Staff Report Phil Arst, Greenlight spokesperson, questioned the need for the 30 day delay in order to study the initiative since he believed that this would delay the process. John Nelson expressed his opposition to the Greenlight II initiative. City Attorney Clauson confirmed that the petition is being certified tonight, she has 30 days to come back to Council with a report, and this is enough time for Council to place the initiative on the November ballot. Motion by Council Member Ridgeway to 1) approve the certification of the petition entitled "Voter Approval for Major Developments Over "As Built" Condition of City" from the Registrar of Voters, County of Orange, as presented by the City Clerk; and 2) direct staff to report back to Council on or before Tuesday, July 25, 2006 with the impacts of the initiative on muniapal operations pursuant to Council action taken on January 24, 2006 http: / /www.city.n6wport- beach. ca. us/ CouncilAgendas /2006/MN06- 27- 06.htm 12/10/2007 City Council Regular Me*I • Page 7 of 22 and with the necessary actions required by Election Code Section 9215. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Council Member Curry, Council Member Selich, Mayor Pro Tem Rosansky, Mayor Webb, Council Member Ridgeway, Council Member Daigle, Council Member Nichols 25. NEWPORT ISLAND CHANNELS OLOID PROJECT - CEQtA DETERMINATION (C- 3730). (381100 -20061 Staff Report Jim Hilliard, representing the Newport Island Board of Directors, thanked Council and staff for working with them and listening to their concerns. Vl oI Lion by Mayor Pro Tem Rosansky to abandon the project indefinitely.. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Council Member Curry, Council Member Selich, Mayor Pro Tem Rosansky, Mayor Webb, Council Member Ridgeway, Council Member Daigle, Council Member Nichols 26. ACCEPTANCE OF ADDITIONAL URBAN AREA SECURPPY INITIATIVE FUNDING TO ENHANCE THE IDIDLEMENTATION OF THE OCILJ COPLINH DATA SHARING PROJECT. (100 -20061 Staff Report In response to Council Me mber Nichols' questions, Police Chief McDonell explained the purpose of the COPLINKbata Sharing Project and which entities share information. Motion by ,Council Member Nichols to 1) on behalf of the Integrated Law & Justice Agency of Orange County (ILJAOC), accept for administrative purposes, Urban Area Security Initiative funding in the amount of $1,000,000 from the cities of Anaheim and Santa Ana (Grant Administrators) for the.purpose of enhancing the implementation of the COPLINK Data Sharing Project; and 2) authorize the Administrative Services Director to place the funds in the appropriate revenue and expenditure accounts consistent with this action. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Council Member. Curry, Council Member Selich,. Mayor Pro Tem Rosansky, Mayor Webb, Council Member Ridgeway, Council Member Daigle, Council Member Nichols Mayor Webb noted that a majority of the audience is in attendance for a portion of Item 33 (General Plan Update) that relates to rezoning R-2 to R-1 in the West Newport and Peninsula areas: Without objection, he recommended that this portion of the item be taken out of order. K. PUBLIC HEARINGS 33. GENERAL PLAN UPDATE: LAND USE, CIRCULATION AND HOUSING ELEMENTS. (681100 -20061 Staff Report. Att. 1- Memo from EIP Associates on Airport Area Policies Att. 2 - Letter from Harbor Day School Att. 3 - Land Use Categories and Table http: / /Www.city.newport- beach. c3. us/ CouncilAgendas /2006/MN06- 27- 06.htm . 12/10/2007 City Council Regular Me . Page 8 of 22 Att. 4 - Land Use Map B &W (Full size color version in City Clerk's Office for viewing) Att. 5 - Revised Housing Element Table H30. Att. 6 - Draft Inclusionary Housing Ordinance Att. 7 - Sample Affordable Housing Implementation Plan (AHIP) Att. 8 - Housing Element Policy Comparison Table (Full size version in City Clerk's Office for viewing) Supplemental Staff Report Attachment - Complete Set of Draft Land Use Plan Maps (Full size color version in City Clerk's Office for viewing) Motion by Council Member RjdgewU to not change the current residential land use designations in the West Newport and Peninsula areas. Mayor Webb opened the public hearing. Council Member Ridgeway explained that the intent of the proposed rezoning was to try to create owner - occupied units. George Shroeder stated that the property owners appreciate Council's motion and the respect of their property rights. He noted that the property owners also want to improve the area and would support more code enforcement and higher fines to, make properties compliant. Ed Vandenbossche pointed -out that it is the property owners that call the police on the renters. He stated that he lives there and relies on this source of income. Mayor Webb closed the public hearing. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Council Member Curry, Council Member Selich, Mayor Pro Tern Rosansky, Mayor Webb, Council Member Ridgeway, Council Member Daigle, Council Member Nichols O. CONTINUED BUSINESS 37. COUNCII. BUILDING COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING CITY HALL PROJECT PLANNING ISSUES. [351100 -20061 Staff Report Motion by Mayor Webb to consider Item 37 (City Hall Project Planning Issues) out of order and continue this item in order for a study session to be held so Council can hear opinions and presentations relative to using a park site for the City Hall site. Substitute motion by Mayor Pro Tern Rosansky to reconvene the City Hall Site Review Committee and have the Committee review the proposed site and plan prior to further action by the City Council. Mayor Pro Tem Rosansky stated that the Committee should operate under the same guidelines when it reviewed the other sites, therefore, a presentation by Mr. Ficker to the Committee and providing them with the proposal is not necessary. He added that the Committee would not be critiquing the existing building at the proposed site and that the site should never have been taken off the table for evaulation. http: / /www.city.ne"ort- beach. ca. us/ CouncitAgendas /2006/MN06- 27- 06.htm 12/10/2007 City Council Regular Meet • rage 90 I t cZ Council Member Ridgeway expressed the opinion that the Committee would recommend the site. He pointed out that construction costs are rising and Council has a fiduciary duty to its citizens to move forward. He believed that the site plan and location should be analyzed by the Building Ad Hoc Committee. He believed that this should be done during the regular meeting, not study session. He added that the social and economic impacts to the Peninsula need to analyzed by staff if City Hall is moved. He believed that the City would be going back on its word to the community if it did this. Council Member Curry believed that, even though he is skeptical of the site,. Council needs to look at the proposal, compare it to the existing City Hall, and receive answers to many questions about the proposed site. He explained why the Daily Pilots term "free site" is inaccurate. Council Member Nichols expressed support for having Mr. FScker present his proposal to Council. He noted that.the site can be rezoned. Council Member Selich agreed that the site doesn't need to be sent back to the Committee because they would conclude that the site is valid. However, he emphasized that this is a policy matter of whether the City wants to trade parkland for a central location for City Hall. Mayor Pro Tem Rosansky withdrew his motion, but recommended not limiting the presentation to only Mr. F icker's proposal. Substitute motion by Cmincil Member Cmy to direct staff to provide a staff report at the July 25 meeting that evaluates the impact of the loss of parkland, the access and traffic issues, and the efficacy of the proposed design; discusses the history behind how the land became a park; and evaulates the property value of the existing site. Council Member Daigle noted that this is now a different process than what has been followed and emphasized that the parties of the Circulatioa Improvement and Open Space Agreement ( CIOSA) need to also be consulted since this is dedicated open space. Mayor Webb agreed that Mr. FScker should be allowed to explain his proposal, but suggested that this be done during the study session. He also agreed that anyone should be allowed to make a presentation to Council. Debra Allen, Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commissioner, provided Council with a handout of the plans for the park and reviewed the result of a survey of the Corona del Mar Residents Association. She believed that the decision should be made during a regular meeting and that this is a policy issue. She provided a history of the site. and discussed the issues associated with the donor and the concern for losing the current donor money. She believed that, if Council decides to keep it as a park, the City should provide funding to develop it. John Nelson, City Hall Site Review Committee, believed that the Committee shouldn't review the site because the choice is ultimately Council's. He stated that the City needs a new City Hall and expressed concern about the rising costs. He urged Council to move forward. Bernie Svalsted urged Council to stop procrastinating. He noted that the park issue has been going on since 1996 and provided a history of the parksite and the CIOSA agreement. He believed that staff should be directed to look at the costs and environmental concerns on the proposed site and look into leasing the Corporate Plaza West site for 99 years with the option to buy. George Jeffries stated that he contacted a Cal Tech graduate and discussed the environmental problems that may occur at the existing City. Hall site. He believed that http: / /www. city. newport- beach. ca. us/ CouncilAgendas /2006/MN06- 27- 06.htm . 12/10/2007 City Council Regular Mee • Page 10 of 22 Council should disqualify the existing site pending an independent geotechnical study. Lucille. Kuehn noted that she was an advocate for making the site above the Central Library a park; however, she could _ make a different choice. She agreed that a new City Hall is needed. Barry Allen reminded Council that the proposed site was already approved to become a park and that this is being considered because the Daily Pilot created a controversy. He asked why Council would consider taking .away parkland rather than condemn The Irvine Company's office building for the new City Hall. Nancy Gardner emphasized that the proposed site has already been declared a park and noted that the General Plan states that open space needs to be replaced if it is taken away. Bruce Naught stated that this area is being discussed because it's the center of the City and suggested having a third party conduct a feasibility study on the proposed site. He believed that the existing City Hall site is.a good location for a park. Bill Ficker recommended that Council allow him to do a presentation at a Council meeting. He discussed some of the advantages of his proposal, noted that his plan tries to preserve as much of the parkland as possible for a natural park, and suggested converting the current site to an urban area with open space. Allan Beek noted that the proposed building plan is not relevant to site selection, the City has the power of eminent domain, Mr. Ficker's remarks about the efficiencies of City Hall have been neglected, and no city has made a policy to sell parkland to make money. He believed that the City shouldn't sell the existing property to build residential units, but should build the park on it instead. Jan Vandersloot noted that he has been involved with the park issue since 1992 and asked that Council abide by the CIOSA agreement. He stated that development agreements are immune from challenges and referendums, and believed that the City needs to provide a comparative view property if the park is taken away. He believed that a geotecbnical study . needs to be conducted on the proposed site. Mayor Webb. asked that Council consider having Mr. Ficker make a presentation at the July 11 study session. Amended substitute motion by Council Member Curry_ to include allowing Mr. Ficker to make a presentation at the July 11 study session. Council Member Selich believed that the policy issue of trading a central location for a dedicated park site needs. to be answered first. He believed that the location was not considered for a reason and pointed out that the park already has plans and funding. He reviewed his point system which concluded that the current site is a superior location over the park site. Substitute motion by Council Member Selich to 1) based on the site assessment study from the citizen City Hall Site Review Committee, and the written response from The Irvine Company, affirm that the location of the new city hall and associated civic center will be on the current site; and 2) approve $25;000 for entering into a contract with a new architectural firm to provide three (3) alternative exterior design concepts based on the existing floor plan. Council Member Curry stated that he shares Council Member Selich's concern about trading parkland, but believed that Council should take the extra 30 days and allow the proposal to be aired so people can judge for themselves and Council can make a decision. Mayor Pro Tem Rosansky pointed out that there has been no discussion on the second part httpJ /www. city. newport- beach. ca. us/ CouncilAgendas /2006/MN06- 27- 06.htin 12/10/2007 City Council Regular Meee rage I 1 or u, LIA of the motion. Substitute to the substitute motion by Council Member Selich to 1) based on the site assessment study from the citizen City Hall Site Review Committee, and the written response from The Irvine Company, affirm that the location of the new city hall and associated civic center will be on the current site. The motion failed by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Council Member Selich, Mayor Pro Tern Rcsansky, Council Member Ridgeway Noes: Council Member Curry, Mayor Webb, Council Member Daigle, Council Member Nichols City Attorney Clauson suggest that a study session be conducted on July 11 to discuss the alternative site and receive presentations from Mr. Ficker and the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission. She indicated that staff can provide preliminary information on what would be required to build the City Hall on the site. Further, on July 25, Council can decide whether to accept the site with a policy decision to trade the park site for the City Hall site. City Manager Bludau expressed concern about the timeline to get the Meat agenda out and that having a month would be more realistic. He reported that Council directed the City Hall Site Review Committee to not look at any site that would involve condemnation and that the proposed site was the only one they were not permitted to review. He received confirmation that staff can work with the Building Ad Hoc Committee to generate the report. Amendment to the amended motion by Council Member Curry to continue this issue to the July 25 Council meeting, with staff bringing back a report that discusses the park structure, the history of its designation as a park, the legal history of it becoming a park, the access and traffic issues, the, parking issues, the efficacy of using the park, as a City Hall, the . . value and fiscal analysis of the existing site, and the limitations of selling the current site; and, at the July 11 study session, have open discussion about the alternative site and have it include presentations by Mr. Ficker relative to his proposal and the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission relative to the proposed park. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Council Member Curry, Council Member Selich, Mayor Pro Tem Rosansky, Mayor Webb, Council Member Ridgeway, Council Member Daigle, Council Member Nichols . PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) Motion by Council Member .ra to consider the Business Improvement District items (Items 29, 30, 31 & 32) at the same time. 29. CORONA DEL MAR BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT RENEWAL: CONDUCT PUBLIC HEARING AND ADOPT RESOLUTION FOR RENEWAL OF THE BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006 -2007. [100 - 20061 Staff Report 30. MARINE AVENUE BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT RENEWAL: CONDUCT PUBLIC HEARING AND ADOPT RESOLUTION FOR RENEWAL OF THE BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006 -2007. [100 -20061 Staff Report. http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca. us/ CouncilAgendas /2006/MN06- 27- 06.htm 12 110 12007 City Council xegular Meet* • Page 1 Z of 22 31. RESTAURANT ASSOCIATION BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT RENEWAL: CONDUCT PUBLIC HEARING AND ADOPT RESOLUTION OF CONFIRMATION FOR RENEWAL OF THE BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT FOR FISCAL .YEAR 2007. [100.20061 Staff Report 32. BALBOA VILLAGE BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT RENEWAL: CONDUCT PUBLIC HEARING AND ADOPT RESOLUTION OF CONFIRMATION FOR RENEWAL OF THE BUSINESS E%IPROVEMENT DISTRICT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006 -2007. [100-20061 Staff Report Assistant City Manager Wood reported that the City has not received protests for any of the Business Improvement Districts. Mayor Webb opened the public hearing. Hearing no testimony, he closed the public hearing. Motion by Council Member Ridgeway to (Item 29) adopt. Resolution No. 2006 -55 confirming the levy of the Corona del Mar Business Improvement District assessment for the 2006 -2007 fiscal year since the protests represented less than 50 percent of the total assessment amount; (Item 30) adopt Resolution No. 2006 -56 confirming the levy of the Marine Avenue Business Improvement District assessment for the 2006 -2007 fiscal year since the protests represented less than 50 percent of the total assessment amount; (Item 31) adopt Resolution No. 2006 -57 confirming the levy of the Restaurant Association Business Improvement District assessment for the 2006 -2007 fiscal year since the protests represented less than 50 percent of the total assessment amount; and (Item 32) adopt Resolution No. 2006 -58 confirming the levy of the Balboa Village Business Improvement District assessment for the 2006 -2067 fiscal year since the protests represented less than 50 percent of the total assessment amount; The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Council Member Curry, Council Member Selich, Mayor Pro Tern Rosansky, Mayor Webb, Council Member Ridgeway, Council Member Daigle, Council Member Nichols Mayor Webb recessed the meeting at 9.40 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 9:55 p.m. Without objection, Mayor Webb requested that Item 35 (Budget Adoption) be taken out of order. O. CONTINUED BUSINESS ESE (Continued) 35. 2006 -07 BUDGET ADOPTION. [100.20061 Staff Report City Manager Bludau reported that the proposed operating budget is $164.8 million and the Capital Improvement Program budget is $41.1 million. He noted that four study sessions to review the budget and checklist items were held. Council Member Ridgeway expressed support for the $80,000 budget item for the OASIS Senior Center conceptual plans. Following discussion, it was the consensus of Council to provide $50,000 of funding to the Restaurant Association for the First Annual Newport Beach Restaurant Week, and $9,900 of funding to Michaels Media for the production of Your Newport Today. Mayor Webb noted that he supports providing funding for the Conference for Women, as http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca. us/ C6uncilAgendas /2006/MN06- 27- 06.htm 12/10/2007 City Council Regular Meer Page 13 of 22 long as "Newport Beach" is included,in the conference title. Motion by Council Member Ridgeway to adopt Resolution No. 200659, approving the City's 2006 -07 Budget, as amended by the approved budget checklist items. Bill Shaver, Friends of OASIS, discussed the condition of the Senior Center and expressed appreciation for the budget allocation; however, he noted that Ed Romeo's previous estimate was $129,000. City Manager Bludau indicated that he talked with Mr. Romeo who deleted some funding items. He noted that Public Works Director Badum believed that $80,000 was sufficient, but pointed out that Council will be approving the architect and can ask for more money at that time if needed. Shari Drewry, Restaurant Association representative, thanked Council for the funding for Restaurant Week. Don Krotee, President of the Newport Heights Improvement Association, thanked Council for. funding the traffic calming measures for the communities of Cliff Haven and Newport Heights. He requested that some of.the temporary measures be put into place so the community can provide feedback. Council Member Daigle reported that the Council Member for this district will be making an ongoing commitment to this program. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Council Member Curry, Council Member Selich, Mayor Pro Tem Rosansky, Mayor Webb, Council Member Ridgeway, Council Member Daigle, Council Member Nichols IL PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) 33. GENERAL PLAN UPDATE: LAND USE, CIRCULATION AND HOUSING ELEMENTS. !681100.20061 Staff Report Att. 1 - Memo from EIP Associates on Airport Area Policies Att. 2 - Letter from Harbor Day School Att. 3 - Land Use Categories and Table Att. 4 - Land Use Map B&W (Full size color version in City Clerk's Office for viewing) Att. 5 - Revised Housing Element Table H30 Att. 6 - Draft Inclusionary Housing Ordinance Att. 7 - Sample Affordable Housing Implementation Plan (AHIP) Att. 8 - Housing Element Policy Comparison Table (Mill size version in City Clerk's Office for viewing) Supplemental Staff Report Attachment - Complete Set of Draft Land Use Plan Maps (Full size color version in City Clerk's Office for viewing) and Use Elem City Manager Wood discussed the Transfer of Development Rights Policy and reviewed the http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca. us/ CouncilAgendas /2006/MN06- 27- 06.htm 12/10/2007 City Council Kegular Mee* • rage 14 01 LL Planning Commission's recommendations. She reported that the approval process is not finalized in the General Plan, but would occur during the zoning process to implement the General Plan. She noted that a General Plan Amendment would not be required with this policy, as long as the project stays within the development limit set by the General Plan and stays in the same statistical area. Airport Area Policies Council Member Ridgeway reported that he has a conflict in interest and left the dais Assistant City Manager Wood referenced and discussed proposed Policy LU 6.15.5 relative to the Campus Tract. Without objection, Council Member Daigle requested that a requirement be added to this section that allows for discretionary review by the Planning Commission for automobile uses, even though aesthetic concerns are discussed in LU 6.15.8. Council Member Curry expressed concern that the policy may have a discriminatory effect on the Saunders property and requested that Council continue this policy in order to receive their input. Assistant City Manager Wood indicated that they have not heard from the property owner and the public hearing is open until Council closes it and takes action on the General Plan. She emphasized that additional changes at this point impacts the analysis that has already been conducted relative to Charter Section 423 and that time may run out to put this on the November ballot. She indicated that, if the Saunders property were used for mixed use residential development, trips would only be reduced if it was developed at a density that would eliminate enough of the existing uses. Assistant City Manager Wood confirmed that Council made a determination relative to the 65 Community Noise Equivalency Level (CNEL) line. Council Member Selich pointed out that there's a limited number of residential opportunities available and that the City should concentrate having them in more desirable areas. He referenced LU 11 and believed that the Campus strip should not have mixed use across from John Wayne Airport (JWA). He agreed that this was discussed previously and that he is not in favor of reversing that decision. Mayor Webb noted that residential use has never been allowed in this tract and the issue was discussed a few months -ago and approved by Council. In response to Council questions, Assistant City Manager Wood confirmed that hotels are permitted in the airport area under the AO zoning, but she will have the map corrected to reflect this. She indicated that she is not sure whether the 65 CNEL line impacts hotels. She reported that, in an effort to reduce trips and comply with the Airport Land Use Commission's comments about the noise contour, the number of residential units and the land area were reduced. She emphasized that the idea behind having residential units is to have residential villages and smart growth. It was the consensus of Council to not include mixed use outside the 65 CNEL line, but allow hotels in the AO zoning. Assistant City Manager Wood indicated that policies were generated to respond to Airport Land Use Commission comments about becoming a consistent agency. She indicated that the Planning Commission made changes relative to the noise contour that were for clarification and not substantive. Council Member Daigle noted that "consistent agency' and "conforming agency" hasn't been defined and expressed concern about what happens if they change the 65 CNEL line. City Manager Bludau reported that Allen Murphy of JWA will provide definitions and told him that they are willing to stipulate that the reference line is the line that exists today. Assistant City Manager Wood reported that the Planning Commission requested that Policy LU 6.15.2 repeat that residential units will not be allowed within the 65 CNEL line. Assistant City Manager Wood reviewed Policies LU 6.15.11 and LU 6.15.16 which deal with http: / /www. city. newport- beach. ca. us/ CouncilAgendas /2006/MN06- 27- 06.htm 12/10/2007 City Council Regular Meer • Page 15 of 22 the Koll and Conexant properties. She further explained why the. properties are special cases and reported that she is working with the property owners and ROMA Design Group so a staff report can be presented to the Planning Commission on July 6. Regarding the World Premier Investments site, Assistant City Manager Wood reported that the PIAnninno Commission indicated that they would evaluate a policy that allows the City to count a portion of an adjacent, joint use site towards the five acres that are required for the first phase of a village. She added that the proposal is to have a minimum 10 acres in order to have a village and that a plan will also need to be provided in order to qualify for the first phase. She clarified that the policy would not be specific to this site. Council Member Daigle expressed support for the Koll and Conexant policies and taking a look at the World Premier Investments proposal. Assistant City Manager Wood reviewed the corrections to Policy LU 6.15.17 Phil Bettencourt, representing Brookfield Homes, reported that they are still interested in developing their property at Spruce and Quail, are still preliminarily able to meet the development standards outlined in the General Plan, and can assimilate a new right -of- way. Further,, their project is about 11.5 acres. Sandra Genis, speaking on behalf of Greenlight and SPON, compared .the commercial square footages in Tables Al and A2 of the March 27 draft and the Environmental Impact Report. Assistant City Manager Wood stated that MU -132 in Table LUI'provides options for residential and commercial uses. She reported that language was added to Policy LU 6.15.10 that deals with mixed uses and trips in order to be trip- neutral. She indicated that the square footage depends on how the property owners choose to use the General Plan entitlements. Phil Arst received clarification from Assistant City Manager Wood that hotel conversions only apply in the Newport Center Area, not the Airport Area. He took issue with possibly creating more .traffic in Newport Center due to the .conversions and that this is not accounted for in the traffic study. He believed that no exceptions should be allowed and that transfer development rights violate Charter Section 423. Newport Center Area Policies Assistant City Manager Wood reviewed the proposed policies and the Planning Commission's addition to the Conversion of Hotel Rooms Policy related to lost revenue/Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) resulting'firom the conversion. She added that this applies to future hotel entitlements, not existing hotel rooms, and clarified that this is in addition to the 450 units already authorized. In response to Council questions, Planning Director Temple confirmed that, in order to do the conversion, the property owner would need to amend their site plan. Assistant City Manager Wood indicated that the 450 units are spread throughout Newport Center (Figure LU9). Council Member Selich recommended showing this as multi - family residential instead of mixed use. Phil Arst believed that the conversion of hotel rooms to dwelling units violates Greenlight and that The Irvine Company is getting special dispensation. Sandra Genis asked if the conversion deals with peak trips or average daily trips, and asked that the impacts to water, schools, and parks also be considered. She noted that the City will not receive park fees if subdivisions aren't involved.. Assistant City Manager Wood reported that the Planning, Commission recommended language that requires a development agreement for conversions of hotel. rooms. She indicated that the municipal code already requires a development agreement for timeshares http: / /www. city.newport- beach. ca. us/ CouncilAgendas /2006/MNO6- 27- 06.htm 12/10/2007 City Council Regular Meet , rage io of YY. and fractional units. She confirmed that the policy already includes language relative to being traffic neutral; however, if the dwelling units are increased beyond the base level that the General Plan allows, Charter Section 423 would apply. Council Member Selich suggested that the conversion policy be deleted., Dan Miller, The Irvine Company, stated that they are considering a plan for the San Joaquin area and noted that this would provide then the flexibility to convert some of the entitled hotel rooms to residential units. He stated that they understand that all the issues will be handled in the development agreement. City Attorney Clauson indicated that, if the conversion was within the permitted units in the General Plan, Charter Section 423 would not apply; however, Mr. Arst is probably correct that Charter Section 423 would apply if there are more than 450 units...Council Member Selich recommended that additional analysis be included in the General Plan Update relative Charter Section 423. Corona del Mar Assistant City Manager Wood reported that the property owner of the three properties at the far east end of Corona del Mar on Coast Highway was contacted and agreed to the change of designation for the vacant lots from neighborhood - commercial to multi - family residential, but would like the third lot to remain neighborhood - commercial. Council Member Nichols asked if the residents can vote on the commercial designation along Coast Highway. Assistant City Manager Wood discussed the special policy for Corona del Mar to allow existing non - conforming structures to remain and added that this has already been discussed by the Planni n Commission and Council. It was the consensus of Council to not change the special policy. Harbor Day School Assistant City Manager Wood indicated that the school would like to expand the facility but not the student population. She reported that staff is recommending that the designation be private - institution with a FAR of .35. There were no objections from Council. Land Use Category Table and Man Senior Planner Ramirez utilized a PowerPoint to explain the land use mapping categories. New Residential Subdivision Senior Planner Ramirez reported that the New Residential Subdivision Policy, was drafted to limit any new additional dwelling units due to Charter Section 423. Council Member Daigle believed that this policy was due to the Beleourt Project and that this should only pertain to planned communities and not be Citywide: Assistant City Manager Wood indicated that every General Plan Amendment becomes a Charter Section 423 issue because the City needs to track any unit added for ten years. She reported that this policy is a cleaner way for the City to ensure they were complying with Charter Section 423 and keeping with the level of specificity in the General Plan today. . Planning Director Temple emphasized that this is not a change since the current General Plan establishes specific dwelling unit limits area -by -area and this policy is currently being applied throughout the City. Assistant City Manager Wood noted that people currently aren't allowed to subdivide single - family lots because the General Plan limits the number of dwelling units. She reported that, for the majority of the .City, resubdividing is not permitted because of how the General Plan is written. Mayor Webb expressed concern about allowing legally merged lots to be exempt from the General Plan and be allowed to resubdivide. Senior Planner Ramirez explained the http: / /www. city. newport- beach. ca. us/ Coun cilAgendas/2006/MN06- 27- 06.htm 12/10/2007 City Council Regular Meet Page 17 of 22 reasoning behind the Planning Commission's recommendation. He noted that the General Plan doesn't include numbers. City Attorney Clauson clarified that lots can be combined, but cannot be further broken down due to the Subdivision Map Act. She discussed the process to make the dwelling a legal dwelling unit, but emphasized that this is on a lot -by- lot basis. Senior Planner Ramirez discussed the mapping designation for the commercial areas in which the. FAR is listed on the map. He explained why the anomaly table is still needed. Assistant City Manager Wood confirmed that the amount of entitlement is a certain amount for the whole block and is not calculated by parcel. City Attorney Clauson clarified that a lot line adjustment cannot be done if the number of lots results in more lots than what was started with. It was the consensus of Council to follow the Planning Commission's recommendation to allow legally merged lots to resubdivide. Dan Miller, The Irvine Company, received clarification from Assistant City Manager Wood that the Planning Commissions recommendation deals with additional units beyond the General Plan. Regarding hotel rooms, she confirmed that they would be already counted in the General Plan if the units were authorized. Jan Vandersloot agreed with the no resubdivision policy and applying it Citywide which is similar to the current General Plan. Sandra Genis received clarification from Assistant City Manager Wood that the anomaly table (Table A2) is still being finalized. She further. clarified that Table Al has been replaced by the information shows graphically on the map and is no longer: needed, and Table A2 will be in the body of the Land Use Element. Cirr„ lation Element Assistant City Manager Wood reported that, at Riverside and Coast Highway, it may be feasible to add a second eastbound tam lane (Figure CEU She stated that this would amend Policy 2.1.1 and one of the intersections would change to Level of Service D (LOS D). She noted that this would not be an amendment over what the City has today. There were no objections from Council. Assistant City Manager Wood indicated that, at Dover and Coast Highway, a fourth westbound through lane would cause the loss of the. free right. turn lane from westbound Coast Highway onto Dover. Further, the City would need significant right -of -ways to accomplish the improvements. She indicated that staff feels this is infeasible and is not recommending the improvement. She confirmed that this will leave Dover to operate at LOS E and that the bridge was not designed to be widened. Jan Vandersloot believed that LOS D can be achieved at Dover Drive by restriping the highway to get the fourth lane. He asked why the right turn lane is needed and why the solution is in the Circulation Element if it isn't feasible. Transportation/Development Services Manager Edmonston reported that the current plan is substandard by Caltrans standards and that there is no room to restripe for the fourth lane. He explained that the centerline cannot be moved from Dover to McDonald's because that.is where the third eastbound lane will eventually be located. ` Without objection, it was the consensus of Council to allow LOS D at Riverside and Coast Highway, and LOS E at Dover and Coast Highway. Assistant City Manager Wood reported that staff has learned that some of the right -of -way at Campus and Bristol may be available after JWA expands and the remaining right -of -way would be located at the end of the County golf course. She indicated that the improvement http: / /www. city.newport- beach. ca. us/ CouncilAgendas /2006/MN06- 27- 06:htm 12/10/2007 City Council Regular Mee* •. Page 18 of 22 to create a third southbound right turn lane and a fourth northbound through lane is feasible and would make it LOS D instead of LOS E. With the exception of Council Member Nichols, no other Council Member wished to consider six lanes in Corona del Mar at Goldenrod and Marguerite. Assistant City Manager Wood confirmed that the intersections being considered to have. LOS E are Coast Highway/Marguerite, Coast Highway /Goldenrod, Coast.Highway/Dover, and the shared intersections "with Irvine since their standard is LOS E. . Sandra Genis expressed concern with how land use and traffic coordinate, specifically with the mixed use concept. She referenced the PTE Study and noted that recent versions of ITE's trip generation do not include information on mixed use sites. She believed that this means that there will be more intersections at LOS I.E. . Jan Vandersloot asked why the City is accepting Irvine's LOS E standard and believed that the standard should. be LOS D. Phil Arst noted that there is no updated Circulation Element and expressed concern about the mixed use concept. He stated that he has not seen allowances in the traffic study for the density bonuses. He emphasized that Greenlight measures peak hour trips and that these calculations should be included in the traffic study. Without objection; the Campus and Bristol intersection plan was accepted by Council. Housing Element Assistant City Manager Wood noted the goal of having 20% of all units be affordable housing; however, staff and the Planning Commission is recommending 15% because of the added opportunities for residential development in the proposed General Plan. She confirmed that the City will still meet the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) goals over the 20 year period, but if not, the City can redo the Housing Element every five years. Regarding how to implement the inclusionary requirement, Assistant. City Manager Wood indicated that the City can adopt an inclusionary housing ordinance or require developers to prepare an Affordable Housing Implementation Plan (AHIP). She reported that the Planning Commission recommended that the AHIP be used so that projects of 50 units or less can prepare the AHIP or pay an in lieu fee, and projects of over 50 units would be required to prepare an AHIP. Sandra Genis believed that including Banning Ranch in the totals is problematic, noted that there is no mention of second family, units, and urged Council to adopt the inclusionary housing ordinance. Assistant City Manager Wood clarified that the only instance in which the Housing Element is suggesting no density bonus is for the 15% or 20% that are required to be. affordable housing and reviewed State law about developers who agree to provide affordable units. Phil Arst expressed concern that the maximum number of dwelling units is not stated in the report and that the main focus seems to be on affordable housing. He asked that the City use its current entitlements to justify affordable housing. In response to Mayor Webb's questions about Bann Ranch, Assistant City. Manager Wood indicated that they are talking with the property owner and hope to bring an agreement before Council at the July 11 Council meeting that.would allow the City to purchase the site in 4 to 5 years for development as shown in the General. Plan. Without objection, it was the consensus of Council to choose the 15% amount of affordable http: / /www.city.newport-,beach. ca. us /Counci ]Agendas /2006/MN06- 27- 06.htm 12/10/2007 City Council Regular Meet housing and to require AHIP •. Page 19 of 22 Jan Vandersloot believed that five years is not enough time to purchase Banning Ranch. L. PUBLIC COMMENTS Jan Vandersloot believed that the report that was issued to the General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC) in December 2002 by the Chamber Group should be included in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) comments. M ORAL REPORTS FROM CITY COUNCIL ON COM U07ME ACTIVPPIES - None . N. PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA AND ORAL STATUS REPORT 34.. PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA FOR JUNE 22, 2006. [100 -2006] Staff Report Action Agenda Planning Director Temple reviewed the following Planning Commission items: Macklin Residence - 6 Barrenger Court (PA2006 -088); Steadfast Investment Properties - 4343 Von Karman Avenue (PA2005 -293); and General Plan Update: Land Use Element and Maps. O. CONTINUED BUSINESS (Continued) 36. APPOINTMENTS TO BOARDS & COM USSIONS. [100 -2000] Staff Report City Clerk, Harkless read the.ballot votes for the Board of Library Trustees as follows: Theresa Chase (Curry, Selich, Rosansky, Ridgeway, Daigle, Nichols, Mayor Webb) City Clerk Harkless announced that Theresa. Chase has been reappointed to the Board of Library Trustees. City Clerk Harkless read the ballot votes for the City Arts Commission as follows: Gilbert Lasky (Curry, Selich, Rosansky, Ridgeway, Daigle, Nichols, Mayor Webb). City Clerk Harkless announced that Gilbert Lasky has been reappointed to the City Arts Commission. City Clerk Harkless read the ballot votes for the Harbor Commission as follows: Timothy Collins (Curry, Selich, Rosansky, Ridgeway, Daigle, Nichols, Mayor Webb) John Corrough (Curry, Selich, Rosansky, Ridgeway, Daigle, Nichols, Mayor Webb) Tom Houston ( Selich, Rosansky) Scott Ramser (Ridgeway, Daigle) Karen Rhyne (Curry, Mayor Webb) Mark Sites (Nichols) City Clerk Harkless announced that Tim Collins and John Corrough have been reappointed to the Harbor Commission, and second ballots will be distributed to vote between Tom Houston, Scott Ramser, and Karen Rhyne. City Clerk Harkless read the ballot votes for the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission as follows: http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca. us/ CouncilAgendgs /2006/MN06- 27- 06.htm 12110/2007 City Council Regular Mee Page 20 of 22 Barbara Durst - Taylor (Nichols) Marie Marston (Ridgeway, Daigle, Mayor Webb) Robert Rush (Nichols) Gregory Ruzicka (Curry, Selich, Rosansky, Ridgeway, Daigle, Mayor Webb) Cristine Trapp (Curry, Selich, Rosansky, Ridgeway, Daigle, Nichols, Mayor Webb) Jack Wu (Curry, Selich, Rosansky) City Clerk Harkless announced that Gregory Ruzicka has been reappointed and Cristine Trapp has been appointed to the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission, and second ballots will be distributed to vote between Marie Marston and Jack Wu. City Clerk Harkless read the ballot votes for the Harbor Commission,as follows: Tom Houston (Selich, Rosansky) Scott Ramser. (Ridgeway, Daigle, Nichols) Karen Rhyne (Curry, Mayor Webb) City Clerk Harkless announced that third ballots will be distributed to vote between Tom Houston, Scott Ramser, and Karen Rhyne since four votes are required for appointment., City Clerk Harkless read the ballot votes for the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission as follows: Marie Marston (Ridgeway, Daigle, Nichols, Mayor Webb) Jack Wu (Curry, Selich, Rosansky) City Clerk Harkless announced that Marie Marston has been appointed to the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission for a term expiring June 30, 2009, since.she received . the least amount of votes between the three appointees. City Clerk Harkless read the ballot votes for the Harbor Commission as follows: Tom Houston (Selich) Scott Ramser (Ridgeway, Daigle, Nichols) Karen Rhyne (Curry, Rosansky, Mayor Webb) City Clerk Harkless announced that fourth ballots. will be distributed to vote between Scott Ramser and Karen Rhyne since four votes are required for appointment. City Clerk Harkless read the ballot votes for the Harbor Commission as follows: Scott Ramser (Ridgeway, Daigle) Karen Rhyne (Curry, Selich, Rosansky, Nichols, Mayor Webb) City Clerk Harkless announced that Karen Rhyne has been appointed to the Harbor Commission. h u.. S38. NEWPORT RIDGE PARK AND CRESTRIDGE PARK — DECISION REGARDING ACCEPTANCE OR REJECTION OF ALL OR PARTS OF AN IRREVOCABLE OFFER OF DEDICATION (IOD). [100 -2006) Staff Report Council Member Curry explained why he is recommending Option 3 of Attachment F and http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca. us/ Counci lAgendas/2006/MN06- 27- 06.htm 12/10/2007 City Council Regular Meet : . Page 21 of 22 believed'that Option 1 would generate litigation against the City. Council Member Daigle noted that there is no written policy on how to handle field use on a facility that the City assumes ownership of and is already regularly used. Regarding Council questions about improving the ball field and the budget allocation, City Attorney Clauson clarified that the cost associated with the Newport Coast Community, Center is only to relocate the field and not replace the grass. She indicated that she is not sure how many acres the ball fields encompass because the legal descriptions have not been finalized. City Manager Bludau reported that the current field is not up to City standards and noted that the turf and grass need to be replaced. Council Member Ridgeway agreed that the baseball leagues cannot use the fields because of the current condition of the grass and how they're configured. He believed that Option 1 is consistent with the Irrevocable Offer of Dedication (IOD) policy and, if the City is going to provide for the youth of the community, it needs to take over at least the baseball fields. Dan Wampole, Newport Ridge Homeowners Association, agreed that the grass is not good for playing sports. He indicated that the Association would prefer Options 4 or 6, but can support Option 3. He added that there should be a City sidewalk along Lot C, similar to the public accessway mentioned in Option 1, and requested that the Association be allowed to fence in the private family recreation area. He noted that Option 1 would get the City into litigation. He stated that they would agree to the Option 3 operating agreement having a provision to prohibit signs that said "Private Park" or "No Trespassing". Mayor Pro Tem Rosansky expressed concern about finalizing anything without reviewing the final operating agreement. Mr. Wampole noted that Option 3 has a provision for the City to accept the IOD at .anytime in the event the Association does not comply. He requested that Council approve Option 3 upon receiving an acceptable operating agreement. By a straw vote of 4 (Curry, Selich, Rosansky, Nichols) to 3 (Ridgeway, Daigle, Mayor Webb), Council agreed to proceed with Option 3. In response to Council questions about Option 3, Mr. Wampole discussed how they, believe they will expand field use by 50 %:. He also reported that the Association wasn't thinking about renovating the fields at this time, and the public will be allowed to use the restroom facilities if field use is only expanded 50 %. Council Member Daigle expressed concern about how the Association is going to maintain.the fields. Council Member Curry believed that Mr. Wampole is trying to get Field 2 upgraded for community use and that upgrading the fields is the City s option. Mayor Webb directed staff to bring this issue back to Council at the August 8 meeting. R. ADJOURNMENT - at 1:15 a.m. on Wednesday, June 28, 2006 The agenda for the Regular Meeting was posted on June 21, 2006, at 3:25 p.m.. on the City Hall Bulletin Board located outside of the City of Newport Beach :Administration Building. The supplemental agenda for the Regular Meeting was posted on June 23, 2006, at 2:00 p.m. on the City Hall Bulletin Board located outside of the City of Newport Beach Administration Building. Recording Secretary http: / /www. city.newport- beach. ca. us/ CouncilAgendas /2006/MN06- 27- 06.htm 12110/2007 City Council Regular Meer Mayor City Clerk . • Page 22 of 22 http: / /www.citynewport- beach. ca. us/ Coun6ilAgendas /2006/MN06- 27- 06.htm 12/10/2007 DRAFT ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, ADDING CHAPTER 20.68 TO THE NEWPORT BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO INCLUSIONARY HOUSING REGULATIONS AND AMENDING SECTION 20.03.030 PERTAINING TO DEFINITIONS OF THE NEWPORT BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE WHEREAS, the City of Newport Beach ("City') is a Charter City, governed by a charter adopted by the citizens of the City; and WHEREAS, it is a public purpose of the City and a policy of the State to achieve a diverse and balanced community with housing available for households of all income levels; and WHEREAS, economic diversity fosters social and environmental conditions that protect and enhance the social fabric of the City and are beneficial to the health, safety and welfare of its residents; and WHEREAS, the lack of affordable housing has a direct impact upon the health, safety and welfare of the residents of the City; and WHEREAS, State law pertaining to general , plans and the Housing Element of the City.General Plan require that City ordinances regulate land use development and that the City and its agencies otherwise use their authority in a manner that provides an adequate supply of housing for all economic segments of the community; and WHEREAS, the ..Cjty ie .experiencing. an increasing shortage of.housing affordable to very low -, low- and moderate4noome households and: will not. be able to fully contribute to the attainment of the State housing goals or to retain a healthy environment without additional affordable housing; and WHEREAS, new residential development .does not provide housing opportunities for very low-, low- and moderate - income households due to the high cost of land in the City; and WHEREAS, as a result, very low -, low, and moderate- income households are de facto excluded from many new neighborhoods, creating economic stratification in the City detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare; and 3k WHEREAS, an increasing number of persons In very low -, low, and moderate- income households live in overcrowded or substandard housing and j devote an overly large percentage of their income to pay for housing; and WHEREAS, the amount of land in the City- .available for residential development is limited; and WHEREAS, the consumption of this remaining land for residential development without providing affordable housing to persons of all income levels would work counter to housing, environmental and planning policies and have a substantial negative impact on the environment and economic climate because (i) housing will have to be built elsewhere, far from employment centers and therefore, commutes will increase, causing increased. traffic and transit demand and consequent noise and air pollution; and (ii) City businesses will find it more difficult to attract and retain the workers they need; and WHEREAS, new residential development in the City which does not provide for affordpble units aggravates the existing shortage of affordable housing by absorbing the supply of available residential land, reducing the supply of land for affordable housing and increasing the price of the remaining residential land; and WHEREAS, at the same time, new residential development contributes to the demand for goods and. services in the City, increasing local, service employment at wage levels which often do not permit employees to afford housing in the City; and WHEREAS,, Federal and State funds for the construction of new affordable housing are insufficient to fully address the problem of affordable housing within the City; and WHEREAS, the private.housing market has failed to provide adequate housing opportunities for very low -, low -, and moderate- income households; and WHEREAS, on March 14, 2000 the City Council established an Affordable Housing Task Force that was charged with recommending an appropriate affordable housing program; and WHEREAS, the Affordable Housing Task Force conducted an investigation, held hearings and solicited comments from the community regarding a range of options; and WHEREAS, on the Affordable Housing Task Force recommended this ordinance to the Planning Commission; and $6 WHEREAS, on I I the Planning Commission held a public 1 hearing on this ordinance and recommended this ordinance to the City Council for adoption; and WHEREAS, the City is aware that there may be ,times when the inclusionary housing requirements make market -rate housing more expensive; and WHEREAS, in weighing -all the factors, including the significant need for affordable housing, the City Council has made the decision that community's interests are best served by the adoption of inclusionary housing regulations; and WHEREAS, to implement the City General Plan, to carry out the policies. of the State and federal law and policy, and to ensure the benefits of economic diversity of the residents of the City, it is essential that new residential development in the remaining new growth areas of the City contain ,housing opportunities to households of very low,, low- and moderate - income, and that the City provide a regulatory framework which ensures development of an adequate supply and mix of new housing to meet the future housing needs of all income segments of the community, and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that it is necessary to adopt an inclusionary housing ordinance to address the City's housing crises. NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of .Newport Beach, California, hereby.ordains as follows: SECTION 1: Chapter 20.68 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code is hereby added to read as follows: CHAPTER 20.68 INCLUSIoNARY HOUSING REGULATIONS Sections: 20.68.010 Purpose 20.68:020 Inclusionary Housing Regulations 20.68.030 Credit Transfers 20.68.040 In -Lieu Fees 20.68.050 Alternatives 20.68.060 Exemptions 20.68.070 Adjustments, Waivers 20.68.080 Compliance Procedures 20.68.090 Eligibility for Affordable Units s 20.68.100 Affordable Unit Credits $t° 20.68.110 Affordable Housing.Trust Fund 20.68.120 Enforcement 20.68.130 Appeals 20.68.010 Purpose The purpose of this Chapter . is to: ! A. 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 -, and moderate- income households.. S. Promote the City's goal to add affordable housing units to-the City's housing stock in proportion to the overall increase in new housing units. C. Offset the demand on housing that is created by residential development and mitigate environmental and other impacts that accompany residential development by protecting the economic diversity of the City's housing stock, reducing traffic, transit and related air quality impacts, promoting jobs/housing balance and reducing the demands placed on transportation infrastructure in the region. D. Ensure that the limited remaining developable land in the City's planning area is utilized in a manner consistent with the City's housing policies and needs. 20.68.020 Inclusionary Housing Regulations A: - Affordability Requirement.. Unless otherwise . provided in this Chapter,.ali new residential development projects of eleven or more dwelling units, designed and intended for permanent occupancy, shall construct the following percentage of the total number of dwelling units within the residential development project as .affordable units restricted for occupancy by very low -, low- or moderate4ncome households: (1) 11.5 percent very low-income households; (2) 20 percent low- income households; or (3) 30 percent moderate- income households. The number of affordable units required for a particular residential development project will be determined only once, at the time of tentative or parcel map approval, or for developments not processing a tentative or parcel map, prior to issuance of a building permit, regardless of the changes in the character or ownership of the residential development, provided the total number of units does not change. If ; 31 i a change in the residential development project design results in a change in the total number of units, the number of affordable units required will be recalculated to coincide with the final approved residential development project. B. Calculation. In determining the number of whole affordable units required, any decimal fraction less than 0.50 shall be rounded down to the nearest whole number, and any decimal fraction greater than or equal to 0.50 shall be rounded up to the next whole number. For purposes of calculating the number of affordable units required by this Section, any additional units authorized as a density bonus under California Government Code Section 65915(b) (1) er (2) will not be counted in determining the required number of affordable units. C. Design and Distribution of Affordable Units. All affordable units shall reflect the range of numbers of bedrooms provided in the residential development project as a whole and shall be comparable in infrastructure (including sewer; water, and other utilities); construction quality and exterior design to the market -rate units. The afford akle .units may be smaller in aggregate size and have different interior finishes and features than the market -rate units in the residential development project so long as the interior features are durable, of good quality and are consistent with contemporary standards for new housing. The affordable units shall be dispersed throughout the residential development, unless clustering is expressly authorized by the City. D. Tenure of Affordable Units. For all affordable units provided pursuant to this Section, the applicant shall have, the option of selling the affordable units at an affordable housing. price or, renting the, affordable units at an affordable rent subject to the terms and conditions imposed on the residential development project and the provisions contained. in the Affordable Housing Agreement. E. Timing. All affordable units shall be constructed and offered for occupancy concurrently with or prior to the construction and marketing of the market -rate units. In phased residential development projects, "affordable units may be constructed and marketed in proportion to the number of market -rate units constructed and marketed in each phase of the residential development project. If the Planning Commission determines that extenuating circumstances exist and that the concurrent construction of affordable units is infeasible or impractical, the Planning Commission may waive the requirements of this j Subsection or impose reasonable conditions to effectuate the intent M i of this Subsection. F. Duration of Affordability Requirement Affordable units required by this Chapter shall be legally restricted to occupancy by households of the income levels for which the affordable units were designated for a minimum of 30 years. G. Conditions of Approval. Any tentative map, parcel map, use permit, site plan review, coastal residential development permit, or other discretionary permit approving a residential development project subject to this Chapter shall contain conditions sufficient to ensure compliance with the provisions of this Chapter, including the execution of an Affordable Housing Agreement imposing, among other things, appropriate resale controls and/or rental restrictions on the affordable units. 20.68.030 Credit Transfers An applicant may fully or partially satisfy the requirements of Section 20.68.020 through the use of transferable affordable unit credits created pursuant to Section 20.68.100. Credit certificates shall only be used to satisfy the requirements for affordable units of the income category (i.e., very low -, low -, or moderate - income) and number of bedrooms for which the affordable unit credits are issued. 20.68.040 In -Lieu Fees A. General Requirements. 1. For residential development projects of 11 to 50 dwelling units, the requirements of this Chapter may be satisfied by paying a fee in -lieu of constructing all or a portion of the affordable units required by.this.Chapter. 2. For residential development of 50 or more dwelling units, the applicant may not pay a fee in -lieu of constructing the required affordable units. B. Timing of Payment. For residential development projects that are not phased residential development projects, the in -lieu fee shall be paid at the time of issuance of any building permit for the residential development project. For phased residential development projects, payment of the in -lieu fee shall be made for each portion of the residential development project at the time any building permit is issued for that phase of the residential development project. When payment is phased, the amount of the in -lieu fee payable under this Section shall be based upon the in -lieu fee schedule in effect at the time the in -lieu fee is paid. ) 3�` j C. Amount of Fee. The amount of the in -lieu fee shall be set by resolution of the City, Council and the amount of the in -lieu fee may be amended from time to time to reflect changes in residential construction costs and other conditions in -the City and the region. D. Partial Payment Developers electing to provide a portion of the affordable units required by Section 20.68.020 within the residential development project, may pay an in -lieu fee for the remainder of the required affordable units that are not provided. The in -lieu fee shall be paid at the time of issuance of any building permit for the residential development. project. 20.68.050 Alternatives A. Proposal. An applicant may propose one of the following alternative means of compliance with Section 20.68.020 by submitting an application for discretionary approval in accordance with Chapter 20.90 and this Section. B. Off -Site Construction Projects. An applicant may propose to construct some or all of the affordable units required by Section 20.68.020 at a location not physically within the residential } development project fn4ieu of constructing some or all of the affordable units within the residential development project The Planning Commission shall approve or conditionally approve the proposal on the basis of the application, plans, materials, and testimony submitted if the Planning Commission finds: That the purpose :of this Chapter would be served by implementation of the proposed alternative. 2. That construction of the off -site units in -lieu of constructing on -site units is consistent with the Chapter's purpose. 3: That the off4ke units to be constructed are located within the City of Newport Beach and are consistent with the requirements of Section 20.68.020. 4. That it would be infeasible or impractical to construct on -site units. C. Off-Site Rehabilitation Projects. An applicant may propose to rehabilitate existing off -site units and convert the off -site units to affordable units in -fieu of constructing some or all of the affordable units required to be provided under Section ,20.68.020 within the M residential development project. The Planning Commission shall approve or conditionally approve the proposal on the basis of the application, plans, materials, and testimony submitted if the Planning Commission finds: 1. That the purpose of this Chapter would be served by implementation of the proposed alternative. 2. That rehabilitation of the proposed dwelling units in -lieu of constructing units on -site is consistent with this Chapter's purpose. 3. That the proposed dwelling" units to be rehabilitated off- -site are located within the City of. Newport Beach and are consistent with the requirements of Section 20.68.020. 4. The proposed dwelling units to be rehabilitated off -site are in need of substantial rehabilitation. 5. That the proposed dwelling units to be rehabilitated off -site are not already subject to affordability income restrictions. 6. That it would be infeasible or impractical to construct the on- site dwelling units. 7. That the off -site dwelling units will be substantially rehabilitated, such that the unit is returned to the City's housing supply as decent; safe and sanitary housing and meet all applicable housing and building code requirements. D. Land" Dedication. An applicant may propose to dedicate land to the. City or City- designated local non -profit housing - developer in4leu of construction of some or all of the affordable units required by. Section 20.68.020. The Planning Commission shall recommend and the City Council shall approve or conditionally approve this proposal if the City Council finds all of the following: 1. That the purpose of this Chapter would be served by implementation of the proposed alternative. 2. That dedication of land in4leu of constructing units is consistent with this Chapter's purpose. 3. That the dedicated land is useable for its intended purpose and has the appropriate general plan and zoning designation for the development of affordable housing, is free of toxic tkt i substances and contaminated soils, and is or will be fully mproved with infrastructure and adjacent utilities. chat the conditions of approval for the residential fevelopment project are adequate to ensure that title to the iedicated land, or leasel6ohts useful for the life of the housing improvements, shall be conveyed to the City or City - designated local non -profit housing developer before a building permit is issued for all or any portion of the residential development project. . 5. That all property taxes and special taxes be current before the title is conveyed to the City or City- designated local. non- profit housing developer. 6. That the proposed land dedication meets the following requirements: a. The dedication includes land sufficient to construct, at a minimum, the number of affordable units that the applicant would otherwise be required to construct by Section 20.68.020; and l b. The proposed land dedication has an equivalent or J greater value than the in4ieu fee that would be required to be paid under Section 20.68.040 if applied to the overall project. The value of the proposed land dedication shall be appraised by a certified appraiser selected by the City. The applicant shall pay for all costs and expenses associated with the appraisal. At the time . the applicant submits the application provided for in this Section,. the applicant shall deposit the esfimaied cost and expense for the appraisal as determined by the Planning Director. After the appraisal is prepared, the Planning Director shall provide the applicant with a Notice of Decision regarding the value of the proposed land dedication and a copy of the appraisal. If the applicant disputes the decision of the Planning Director, the applicant shall file an appeal in accordance with Chapter 20.95. At the hearing on appeal, the appellate body shall consider any material provided by the applicant regarding the value of the proposed land dedication. LAZ 20.68.060 Exemptions A. Natural Disasters. The requirements of this Chapter do not apply to the reconstruction of any structure that has been destroyed by fire, flood, earthquake or other act of nature provided that the reconstruction of the site does not increase the number of residential units.. B. Other Governmental Entities. The requirements of this Chapter do not apply to housing constructed by other governmental agencies. 20.68.070 Adjustments, Waivers The City Council, at its discretion, may waive, wholly or partially, the requirements of this Chapter and approve alternative methods of compliance with this Chapter if the applicant demonstrates, and the City Council finds that either: A. There is no reasonable relationship between the impact of a proposed development and the requirements of this Chapter, and applying the requirement of this Chapter would take property in violation of the United States or California Constitutions; or . B. 'There are special circumstances unique to the residential development that justify the granting of an adjustment or waiver the residential development would not be feasible without the I od cations; a specific and financial hardship would occur if the modification was not granted; and no alternative means of compliance are available which would be effective in attaining the purpose of this Chapter than the rellef requested. 20.68.080 Compliance Procedures A. General. Except as provided herein, entry into an Affordable Housing. Agreement, in a form approved by the City Attorney, is a condition of any tentative map, parcel map or. building permit for any residential development for which this Chapter applies. This Section does not apply to exempt residential development projects or to residential development projects where the requirements of this Chapter are fully satisfied by payment of an in -lieu fee under Section 20.68.040 or land dedication as provided under Section 20.68.050(D). B. Affordable Housing Agreement. The form of the Affordable Housing Agreement will vary depending on the manner in which the provisions of this Chapter are satisfied for a particular residential development: All Affordable Housing Agreements should i6dude, at a minimum, the following; 1. A description of.the residential development project, how the requirements of this Chapter will be met by the "applicant, and whether the affordable units will be rented or owner- occupied; 2. The number, size and location of each very low -, low- or moderate- income units; 3. Inclusionary incentives by the City (if any), including the nature and amount of any local public funding; 4. Provisions and /or documents for resale restrictions, deeds of trust, rights of first refusal or rental restrictions; 5. Provisions for monitoring the ongoing affordability of the units, and the process for qualifying prospective households for income eligibility; 6. .Security, provisions, such as a cash deposit, bond, or letter of credit, adequate to complete the requirements of this Chapter concurrently with the completion of the construction of the residential development project consistent with Section 20.68.020(E); and C. Recording of Agreement All Affordable Housing Agreements that are acceptable to the City Attorney must be recorded against the owner - occupied affordable units and the projects containing rental affordable units. Additional rental or resale restrictions, deeds of trust, rights of first refusal and /or other documents acceptable to the City Attorney must also be recorded.. against mimer- occupied affordable units. In cases where the requirements of this Chapter are satisfied through the development of off -site units or off -site rehabilitated units, the Affordable Housing. Agreement must simultaneously be recorded against the property where the off-site units are located and off -site rehabilitated units are located.. 20.68.080 Eligibility for Affordable Units No household shall be permitted to occupy an affordable unit designated for a very low -, loin, or moderate - income household unless the City or its designee determines that the household is eligible to occupy the applicable affordable unit based on the household income, as determined in accordance with Title 25 of the California Code of Regulations Sections 6910 through 6932. The developer shall use an equitable selection method established in conformance with the terms of this Chapter, which shall be neutral as to age,.race, religion, sex, creed and ethnic origin or any other impermissible standard established by the United States or State of California Constitution. Additionally, the selection criteria may not distinguish between adults and children, except as provided in Federal and State law for units designated for senior citizens. 20.68.100 Affordable Unit Credits A. Creation. One affordable unit credit shall be issued for each affordable unit constructed in excess of the number of affordable units required to be constructed for the project by Section 20.68.020(A). Affordable unit credits shall be issued by the Planning Director and shall designate a specific income category (Le., very low -, low-, or moderate - income) and number of bedrooms for which they are issued. B. Ownership and Use of Credits. Affordable unit credits are.issued to and become the possession of the project owner, who may then use them to satisfy the requirements of this Chapter for another residential development project in the City. If a project owner proposes to sell credit certificates, the parties shall first notify the Planning Director, who will document the transfer. 20.68.110 Affordable Housing Trust Fund A.. Trust Fund.. There is hereby established a separate Affordable Housing Trust Fund ("Fund7. The Fund shall receive all in4ieu fees contributed under Sections 20.68.040 and may also receive monies from other sources. B. Purpose and limitations. All monies deposited in the Fund, - together. with . any--interest earnings on such monies, less - reasonable administrative charges or related expenses associated with the administration of this Section including, but not limited to, reasonable consultant and legal expenses related to the establishment and /or administration of the Fund and reasonable expenses for administering the process of calculating, collecting, and accounting for fees, shall be used or committed solely to 'increase the supply of housing affordable to very low -, low-, and moderate - income households. C. Expenditures. Fund monies shall be used in accordance With City's Housing Element to construct, rehabilitate or subsidize affordable housing or assist other governmental entities, private organizations or individuals to do so. Permissible uses of Fund monies include, but are not limited to: (1) assistance to housing development l V6 corporations; (2) equity participation loans; (3) grants; (4) pre-home j ownership co- investment; (5) pre - development loan funds; (6) participation leases; (7) other public-private partnership arrangements; (8) the acquisition of property and property rights; and (9) construction of affordable housing including "costs associated with planning, administration,- and design, as well as actual building or installation, as well as any other costs associated with the construction or financing of aftordabie housing. The Fund may be used for the benefit of both rental and owner - occupied housing. 20.88.120 Enforcement A. Penalty for Violation of Terms. it shall be unlawful for any person, firm, corporation; - partnership or other entity to. violate any provisions of this Chapter. A violation of any of the provisions of this Chapter or failing to comply with any of the requirements of this Chapter shall constitute a misdemeanor, except that notwithstanding any other provisions of this Chapter, any such violation constituting a misdemeanor under this Chapter, may in the discretion of the enforcing authority, be charged and prosecuted as an infraction. B. Legal Action. The City may institute any appropriate legal actions or proceedings necessary to ensure compliance with this Chapter including, but not limited to: (1) actions to revoke, deny or suspend any permit, including a building permit, certificate of occupancy, or discretionary approval; (2) actions to recover from any violator of this Chapter civil fines, restitution to prevent unjust enrichment from a violation of this Chapter, and/or enforcement costs, including attorneys fees; (3) actions to recover on behalf of the tenant, or to the City in the event the tenant cannot be located, any excess rents . charged and /or enforcement costs, including attorneys fees; (4) eviction or foreclosure; and (5) any other appropriate action for hjunctive relief or damages. Failure of any official or agency to fulfill the requirements of this Chapter shall not excuse any person, owner, household or other party from the requirements of this Chapter. . C. Remedies Cumulative. The remedies provided for herein shall be cumulative and not exclusive and shall not preclude the City from any other remedy or relief to which it.otherwise would be entitled under law or equity. I Wo 20,68.130 Appeals A. Appeals. Decisions of the Planning Director may be appealed to the Planning Commission and decisions of the Planning Commission may be appealed to the City Council. B. Procedures. Procedures for appeals shall be as prescribed by Newport Beach Municipal Code Chapter 20.95: Appeals. SECTION 2; The following definitions are hereby added to Section 20.03.030 of Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code to read as follows: °Affordable Housing Agreement" means the agreement entered into pursuant to Chapter 20.68 which provides legal restrictions by which the affordable units shall be restricted to ensure that,the unit remains affordable to very low -, low-, and moderate - income households, as applicable, for a period of not less than 30 years. With respect to rental units, such rent . restrictions shall be in the form of a regulatory agreement recorded against the applicable property. With respect to owner - occupied units, such . resale controls shall be in the form of resale restrictions, deeds of trust, and/or other similar documents recorded against the applicable property. "Affordable Housing Price" means a sales price that is no more than 3 times the maximum income level for very low -, low -, and moderate4ncome households, as adjusted for household size by the United States Department of Housing and Community Development. Us this correct?] "Affordable Rent" means an annual rent that does not exceed 30 percent of maximum income level for very low -, low -, and moderate- income households, as adjusted for household size by the United States Department of Housing and Community Development. [Is this correct?] "Affordable Unit" means an ownership or rental - housing unit, including senior housing, affordable to households with very low -, low -, aril moderate4ncomes as defined in this Chapter. "Conversion" means a change of a dwelling unit to a condominium, cooperative, or a similar form of ownership; or a nonresidential use. "Low- income" means between 50% and 80% of the median income, adjusted for actual household size, as determined by the California Department of Housing and Community Development for Orange County. "Moderate- income" means between 80% and 120% of the median income, adjusted for actual household size, as determined by the California Department of Housing and Community Development for Orange County. 0 "i "Residential Development' means detached single - family dwellings, multiple dwelling structures, groups of dwellings, condominium or townhouse developments, cooperative developments, mixed use developments that. include housing units, and residential land subdivisions intended to be sold to the general public. [Is this term consistent with its use in other parts of the code?] 'Very low -, low -, and moderate- income" means those income and eligibility levels determined periodically by the California Department of Housing and Community Development based on Orange County median income levels adjusted for family size. Such levels shall be calculated on the basis of gross annual household income considering household size and number of dependents, income of. all wage earners, elderly or disabled family members, and all other sources of household income and will be recertified as set forth by local standards, and State and Federal housing law. "Very low- income" means 50% or less of the median income, adjusted for actual household size, as determined by the California Department of Housing and Community Development for Orange County. SECTION 3: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is, for any reason, held to be invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of the remaining portions of this ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this ordinance, and each section, subsection, clause or phrase hereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses and phrases be declared unconstitutional. SECTION 4:. The Mayor shall sign and the. City Clerk shall attest to the passage of this ordinance. The City Clerk shall cause the same to be published once in the official newspaper of the City, and it shall be effective thirty (30) days after its adoption. SECTION S: This ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach, held on the — day of • !2006, and adopted on the _ day of 2006, by the following vote, to wit AYES, COUNCILMEMBERS NOES, COUNCiLMEMBERS ABSENT COUNCILMEMBERS } ;\a ATTEST: CITY CLERK ,)h